Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I would assure the gentleman that we share his concerns, and in fact, if you look at the underlying bill, we have reduced funding for the ASA's office by 60 percent, or $3 million, because of the same concerns we have that you are expressing and that Mr. Gosar expressed before you. It is a concern that all of us have. We will work with you to make sure that we address this.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, while I share my colleague's support for energy efficiency programs, the bill funds EERE, the Energy Efficiency portfolio, at $26 million above last year's level, with targeted increases for weatherization assistance and advanced manufacturing. What we did in this bill, actually, was refocus some of the administration's requested increases in the renewable energy arena to where we actually use energy. Coal, oil, and natural gas provide 82 percent of the electricity in this country, of the energy used in this Nation's homes and businesses, 82 percent. Reducing the fossil energy research--they are studying things like how heat can more efficiently be converted into electricity in a cross-cutting effort with the nuclear and solar energy programs, how water can be more efficiently used in power plants, and how coal can be used to produce electrical power. The amendment would also reduce funding for a program that ensures we use our Nation's fossil fuel resources as well and as cleanly as possible. In fact, if we increased the efficiency of our fossil fuel plants by just 1 percent, we could power an additional 2 million households without using a single additional pound of fuel from the ground. That is the research we are doing in the fossil energy area. That is where we would take the money out of, the area where most of our electricity is produced from, and shift it to an area, while important, doesn't produce nearly as much energy as the other areas in this bill. So, while I understand what the gentlelady is trying to do, we have actually increased the energy efficiency budget, as I said, by $26 million above last year, and we will continue to work on that. I would oppose this amendment and ask my colleagues to vote against it. Mr. Chairman, 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 in opposition to the amendment, although I understand what the gentleman is trying to do. The gentleman's amendment would increase appropriated funds to Portsmouth by another $15 million. Because of the overall reductions that were necessary in the Department of Energy's environmental cleanup programs, we balanced these reductions across all cleanup sites so that no one site is targeted. I certainly understand the gentleman's concerns about the site, and this bill provides strong support for Portsmouth. Despite the fact that funding at most sites is going down, the bill actually boosts funding for the site by $37 million above the fiscal year 2014 and $15 million above the budget request. However, I can't support further increases to compensate for the Department's off-budget uranium transfers, which our subcommittee has criticized for years. The Department has been transferring stockpiles of uranium to generate cleanup funds for the site, a practice the Government Accountability Office has determined to be illegal and which could be further held up in fiscal year 2015 due to recent litigation. The Department's reliance on its uranium transfers has inappropriately circumvented the appropriations process, has adversely impacted our domestic uranium mining and conversion industry, and is now creating further problems as the market price of uranium continues to drop. I am also concerned about the amendment's offsets, particularly the cut to EERE, which is $113 million below the budget request. The last amendment, by Ms. Castor, proposed increasing EERE by taking money out of fossil energy. I opposed that. It wasn't because I don't like EERE. It was because I didn't like where they were taking the money from. This would take money out of EERE that is already reduced $113 million from last year, which I also oppose. So I must oppose this gentleman's amendment and urge Members to do the same.

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. SIMPSON. Reclaiming my time, I agree with the gentlelady's comments. I should say, it is not Portsmouth's or the gentleman from Ohio's fault that they have been using uranium transfers to fund this. It is not the people who are working there; it is not their fault. It is the Department's fault, and we have raised concerns for years that that is inappropriate and illegal. We knew that it was going to come to this when those uranium transfers couldn't be made anymore because of the price of uranium and other things, and it is the result of the choice of the Department to fund this by using the uranium transfers. Unfortunately, it has come to what we predicted would be a problem when we started raising these concerns with the Department. So, while I understand what the gentleman is doing and sympathize with what the gentleman is doing and will be willing to work with him to see what could be done as we move this bill forward, I do have to oppose the amendment as it currently exists. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate the gentleman from California's comments, I have to say that you can oppose this amendment and still like renewable energy, in contradiction to the gentleman's statement. I rise to oppose this amendment that would increase funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy by $112 million using the fossil energy account, again, as an offset. This year, funding for EERE is $1.789 billion, $113 million below last year and $528 million below the budget request. It is still $1.789 billion. It is not like we are eliminating EERE. They still have a substantial amount of money in that account. They have much more in that account than they have in the fossil energy account or that they have in the nuclear energy account. This is a modest 6 percent cut from the robust funding level included in last year's omnibus appropriation bill and slightly below the fiscal year 2013 level presequester. Put another way, there is nearly $1 billion more than last year's House bill. The funding that the recommendation provides is focused on three main priorities, where he is trying to take money out of the fossil energy account: helping America's manufacturers compete in the global marketplace; supporting the Weatherization Assistance Program; and addressing future high gas prices. These are areas with broad bipartisan support. We simply cannot afford to increase funding in this bill by diverting funds from research to fossil energy. Fossil fuels, as I said during the last couple of amendments, such as coal, oil, and natural gas provide for 82 percent of the energy used by this Nation's homes and businesses and will continue to provide for the majority of energy needs for the foreseeable future. It is folly to believe that renewable energies are going to replace the base load that much of this produces for our energy needs in the future. But renewable energies are an important part of an all-of-the-above energy strategy that we have in this country. But it is not renewable energies that are going to replace all of the fossil energies that we have. So we need to do research into the fossil energies, too, and what they do. If we increase the efficiency of our fossil fuel plants, as I said earlier, by just 1 percent, we could power an additional 2 million households without using a single additional pound of fuel from the ground. That is energy efficiency. That is the research we are focusing on with funding this program. Therefore, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SIMPSON. As I said, we tried to refocus the request from the administration to those areas that actually produce the energy. Eighty- two percent, as I said during my statement, is produced by coal, oil, and natural gas. That is where we do the majority of our research. I am not saying we shouldn't do anything in the renewable energies. I love renewable energies. I don't believe that they are going to replace the majority of our base load. And, as the gentleman said, you have got real problems when the sun isn't shining and you are using solar energy. You have got real problems if you are trying to address the base load. That means, when you turn on the switch, the power actually comes on and the light goes on. If you are trying to replace that base load and the wind isn't blowing, you have got no wind power. But they are a very important and vital part of our energy mix. But we are trying to put the research into those areas that produce most of the electricity while still maintaining research into those areas that are important for the future. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. SIMPSON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I also oppose the amendment. While I opposed increasing EERE funding in previous amendments, I am also opposed to eliminating EERE. When you look at the traditional energy sources that we use, the government has done research into the fossil fuels, into nuclear energy, into fracking, into other things, and hydrocarbons because they are important. It is not the companies that we try to pick winners and losers from, but it is the technology that we try to do the research into, to try to advance certain technologies and help technologies become more efficient for the consumers to use. We are trying to make automobiles more fuel efficient. We are trying to do work to make a SuperTruck that is much more fuel efficient. I guess it could be argued whether the government should do any research at all. Years and years ago, a lot of those things used to be done by private companies, when you had the Bell Labs and other types of things like that. Those aren't done anymore by companies because they are much, much too expensive for companies to do, but they are good for our economy. You could make the argument that we really shouldn't have put any money into space research and putting a man on the Moon--that should have been done by a private company--yet the American economy and the world has benefited greatly from the investment that American taxpayers made into NASA. The same is true with the fuels that we use. While we have tried in this bill to refocus what the administration had proposed, which was huge increases for renewable energies that produce a minority--a small amount--of energy compared to the others, we have tried to refocus that appropriation to where it more accurately reflects the actual energy used, the percentage of the actual energy used. That doesn't mean that we can completely eliminate EERE and renewable energies. As I said previously, I like renewable energies. I think they are cute. They provide a small portion of our overall energy demand, and I don't see that increasing a whole lot because they can't address the base load needs of our energy demand in this country, but they are going to be a very important part of an overall energy strategy. With that, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and 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. The amendment would increase funding for the Office of Electrical Delivery and Energy Reliability by $10 million, using funds from fossil energy as an offset. We have already had conversations about taking funds out of where we create most of our energy. Some of the things that are done in fossil energy--and while the gentleman speaks passionately about the environment, fossil energy also is doing the research into sequestration and carbon capture technology. Now, I don't suspect that we are going to stop using fossil energy in the near future. In fact, if you looked at the predictions of the Department of Energy of what the percentage of fossil energy--what percentage of the energy is going to be used by fossil energy--be created by fossil energy 20 years from now, it is pretty close to what it is now. So it is important that we do some things environmentally, like carbon capture and sequestration, and we need to do some research into that. You are taking money out of an account that would do that. I don't think that is a wise thing for us to do. While I share my colleague's support for the electrical grid, that is why this bill before us already provides a $13 million increase for the Office of Electrical Delivery and Energy Reliability above last year-- or a 9 percent increase over the last year. That is the largest percentage increase of any of the other applied energy programs within this bill--the largest increase. The bill prioritizes programs within OE that keep our electrical grid safe and secure, including $47 million for cybersecurity and $16 million for infrastructure security, which will provide $8 million for a strategic operations center to better respond to emergencies. While I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do, I have already spoken of the important investments that our fossil energy research does for our economy and our electrical prices; therefore, I oppose the gentleman's amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join with my friend and colleague from California, Congresswoman Roybal-Allard, to thank the House of Representatives and leaders on both sides of the aisle for their support of H.R. 1281, the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act, which passed the House last night. In 2008, Congresswoman Royal-Allard and I introduced the original Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act, which encouraged states to uniformly test for a recommended set of disorders and provided resources for states to expand and improve their screening programs. Before this legislation, state screening tests varied greatly, and only 10 states and DC required infants to be screened for all the ``core conditions'' recommended by the Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children. Today, most states require screening for at least 29 of the 31 treatable core conditions. This bipartisan reauthorization builds upon the foundation of the original bill and ensures infants continue to receive comprehensive screenings--which consists of a simple prick on the heel of newborns before they leave the hospital. That blood sample tests for serious genetic, metabolic, or hearing disorders that may not be apparent at birth. Without this test, parents may have no way of knowing their child needs treatment. Mr. Speaker, the importance of newborn screening is undeniable. About one in every 300 newborns in the United States has a condition that can be detected through screening. Left untreated, these conditions can lead to serious illness, lifetime disabilities, or even death. These newborns appear healthy, but their conditions can deteriorate quickly and with no warning. In addition, newborn screening is a powerful tool for savings in our overburdened health care system As a former dentist, I have seen the value of diagnosing and treating a condition early in a child's life. One example of the merit of newborn screening comes from a 2012 study on severe combined immunodeficiency, known as SCID. SCID is one of the 31 conditions recommended for state screening. The Medicaid cost of treating a baby with SCID in the first two years can be $2 million or more. Yet an infant diagnosed early can be cured through a bone marrow transplant in the first three months of life, costing $100,000. Without the early intervention, families suffer enormous economic and emotional burdens. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all those who have worked so hard to make this legislation a reality, particularly Congresswoman Roybal- Allard, who has led the way in making this a reality, and the public health organizations who worked day and night to help move this bill through the process. I look forward to my Senate colleagues passing this important legislation and sending it to the President's desk.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work of Deputy Laboratory Director Todd Allen and Associate Laboratory Director Kemal Pasamehmetoglu, two of the Idaho National Laboratory's leaders in nuclear energy research and development. On June 17, 2014, The American Nuclear Society's Materials Science and Technology Division honored these two Idaho National Laboratory leaders with achievement awards at the American Nuclear Society meeting in Reno, Nevada. The awards were presented at the American Nuclear Society Embedded Topical meeting on Nuclear Fuels and Structural Materials. Kemal Pasamehmetoglu, Idaho National Laboratory's Associate Laboratory Director for Nuclear Science & Technology was honored as the 2013 recipient of its Special Achievement Award. The division's most prestigious award recognizes international leadership in establishing a science-based approach to nuclear fuel development and seminal contributions to the nuclear materials area. Todd Allen, Idaho National Laboratory's Deputy Laboratory Director for Science & Technology, was honored as the 2012 recipient of the Outstanding Achievement Award for his leadership and many contributions to nuclear materials area. Our nation needs to continue investing in research and development to enhance economic prosperity, energy security and US leadership. While researchers like Todd Allen and Kemal Pasamehmetoglu have come to the Idaho National Laboratory to use unique equipment and facilities to push nuclear technology forward, they are also leading teams of talented men and women to accelerate American innovation. It is appropriate that the American Nuclear Society has recognized Drs. Allen and Pasamehmetoglu for their technical contributions, and I would like to offer my own thanks to Todd and Kemal for their great work.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a friend and colleague, Leslie Barbour of the Nuclear Energy Institute, who will be retiring from NEI later this summer. In some circles, Leslie is known as the ``First Lady of Nuclear Energy'' and her presence and insights will be missed. When I came to Congress sixteen years ago, I met Leslie Barbour for the first time. In many ways, Leslie is the face of the nuclear energy industry that many Members of Congress and congressional staff see the most. Whether it is in a meeting, at a hearing or a mark-up, Leslie Barbour is there on behalf of the nuclear industry. Leslie is an extremely effective advocate for the nuclear energy industry and she has a unique ability to explain complex technological issues in understandable terms. Leslie is an educator and an advocate and she has created events like the Nuclear Energy Research and Development Summit that bring political leaders, nuclear industry officials and union representatives together to discuss the best strategies and options for moving nuclear energy forward. As the representative of Idaho's Second Congressional District, I have the honor of representing the Idaho National Laboratory, the nation's lead lab for nuclear energy research and development. The Idaho National Laboratory and the Nuclear Energy Institute work very closely together, and over the years Leslie has organized tours of the lab and brought lab employees to Washington, DC to help educate policymakers on the benefits of nuclear power. Leslie is always looking for new ways to reach new audiences and educate new Members of Congress on the role nuclear energy plays in our nation's energy strategy. In addition to her professional work, Leslie Barbour is also an active member of her community. For a number of years, Leslie has served on the Board of Directors of the Capitol Hill Group Ministries, a non-denominational organization that addresses the social needs of the men, women and children living near Capitol Hill. In fact, in recognition of her efforts, in 2011 Capitol Hill Group Ministries named Leslie the Volunteer of the Year. After twenty years with the Nuclear Energy Institute, Leslie is retiring from NEI but she will still be active here in Washington, DC. It has been a joy to work with Leslie, and I wish her and her husband Gary all the best as they take on new challenges and new opportunities.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of a dental health crisis in this country. In 2010, 181 million Americans didn't see a dentist. More than 50 percent of Americans over the age of 30 suffer from some form of periodontal disease, and estimates suggest that 25 percent of children under the age of 5 already have cavities. It is time to take action. This is why the American Dental Association last year launched Action for Dental Health: Dentists Making a Difference, a nationwide, community-based movement focused on delivering care now to people already suffering from dental disease, strengthening and growing the public-private safety net to provide more care for more Americans, and bringing dental health education and disease prevention into underserved communities. I urge all of my colleagues to read the Action for Dental Health One Year Report to Congress to learn more about this movement and its progress.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my friend, Judy Sherman, a diligent and steadfast defender of oral health, on the occasion of her retirement from the American Dental Association, ADA, after more than 29 years. Judy's singlehanded contributions to improving oral health in this country are far-reaching. Those who don't know her would be astounded after hearing her accomplishments, but those of us who do know her, and have seen her effectiveness first hand, understand how she has made such an impact. She has made a career of fighting for dental priorities, like boosting dental residencies, and was instrumental in the ``Collins- Feingold'' law which funded special state dental projects and dental residencies. She played a central role in efforts to boost dental divisions and research across the spectrum, including at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense, and the Indian Health Service. She has been involved in nearly every issue impacting the oral health of our children at the federal level for the last several decades. After graduating from the University of Michigan, Judy taught junior high school in Michigan for 12 years before coming to Washington, DC to work as a Legislative Aide to Senator Carl D. Pursell. She made her way to the ADA in 1985, and eventually rose to become ADA's Director of Congressional Affairs in 2007. She was also President of the Coalition for Health Funding, which works to strengthen public health investments. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here today and recognize the achievements and career of my good friend, Judy Sherman. I will miss her constant presence, and her unwavering and loyal support. The entire oral health community will miss her dedication and commitment. We all have a lot of work to do to fill her shoes. Though she is now going to be spending more time with her husband Brad, and her two Golden Retrievers, I hope and expect that we will still see her from time to time, walking the halls of Congress, and continuing to advocate for dentists and oral health.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Ms. Taylor Thomas on her achievement of being crowned the 2014-2015 Miss Indian World. The competition was recently held at the University of New Mexico Arena in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where each contestant was judged on public speaking, personal interview, traditional representation, and dance/essay. Ms. Thomas resides in my congressional district at Fort Hall and is a member of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. She qualified for the national competition by being named Miss Shoshone-Bannock Queen this past year. It is truly an honor for me to recognize Ms. Thomas for her national accomplishments and as a role model in the Fort Hall community. She will make an excellent representative of Native American culture throughout her tenure as Miss Indian World. Not only is Ms. Thomas a respected ambassador of the Fort Hall community, but she also attends Idaho State University, where she is majoring in political science. I have no doubt that her commitment to higher education played an important role in the competition, as her personal interview was the strongest of any competitor. Ms. Thomas has also been an advocate for Native Youth programs and indigenous language preservation, which are important components of Shoshone-Bannock culture. I wish Ms. Thomas well as she travels across the United States in her role as Miss Indian World. It is a great honor for the Fort Hall community, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and my congressional district to have such a talented young woman represent her community on a world stage.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank both my friends from California for their attention to these issues. We have been discussing these issues with both of you and your concerns for some time now, and I look forward to exploring the issues further during a hearing and to working with the Government Accountability Office to provide further oversight on these programs.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the chairman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this incredibly important piece of legislation. It is an important step back to regular order and reasserts congressional control over Federal spending. The Energy and Water Development portion totals $34.06 billion, an increase of $777 million above fiscal year 2013. The bill provides critical increases for our nuclear weapons stockpile and our Nation's water infrastructure while supporting a balanced investment in our energy resources. I want to thank the ranking member of the subcommittee, Marcy Kaptur, and former chairman of the subcommittee, Rodney Frelinghuysen, for all of their hard work in bringing this bill through to the House floor in regular order. I would also like to recognize Senators Feinstein and Alexander for their partnership in putting together a truly bipartisan bill. Madam Speaker, these Members are passionate advocates for their positions; and not surprisingly, their priorities are not always the same as mine. But I can say with confidence that the long hours we all put in during the last month have paid off. The Energy and Water portion of the omnibus is a true compromise which strengthens common priorities. The largest increase in the Energy and Water bill is to support our nuclear weapons stockpile. There is no room for mistakes in this work. The reliability of the most destructive weapons ever developed depends on it, as does our national security. The bill also increases funding for the Army Corps of Engineers by 749 million over the fiscal year 2013 spending level. These funds will go to support our Nation's ports, waterways and flood control infrastructure--work which literally touches every one of our districts. Finally, let me say, Madam Speaker, that I want to second what Mr. Moran just said. While most Americans--in fact most of us--were enjoying the holidays with our families, the staff of the Appropriations Committee on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the rotunda were here at work trying to get this done, and we owe them our gratitude for the incredible time that they spent doing this.