Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, first, let me say that I appreciate the gentleman's kind words, and I am sympathetic to my colleague's interest in funding the construction account, including the flood and storm damage reduction projects such as the Herbert Hoover Dike.
Unfortunately, because we no longer do earmarks, as Congress used to do, moving $50 million into an account doesn't guarantee that project would necessarily be done by the Army Corps of Engineers. It just increases the total amount in that account. In fact, the underlying bill increases the construction funding by $856 million, or almost 80 percent above the budget request of the administration.
For flood and storm damage reduction activity specifically, the bill more than doubles the budget request. This includes a total of $392 million, for which the Herbert Hoover Dike could compete for additional funding. Since the dike is a DSC1 dam safety project, I am sure it will compete well for the work plan funds if it is able to use additional funding in fiscal year 2017.
However, we must balance all the needs, and that means I cannot support a reduction in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve account. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve stores petroleum to protect the Nation from adverse economic impacts due to petroleum supply interruptions.
The funding in this bill is necessary for the operation and maintenance of the Reserve as well as to address the backlog of deferred maintenance at the Reserve. We must adequately fund these activities to maintain our energy security.
For example, it does us no good to have this petroleum if we can't access it in an emergency. For those reasons, even though I am sympathetic to what the gentleman is trying to do, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments. Maybe at some point in time this Congress will get back to the point where Members of Congress can actually direct what activities are being done and individual projects in their districts because nobody knows their district better than the Members of Congress do.
When we had earmarks in the past, admittedly, we went too far, did some frivolous things, all that kind of stuff, and I understand why we instituted an earmark ban. But sometimes we go too far in the other direction. That pendulum sometimes swings too far in the other direction.
Members of Congress ought to have a say in what is done in their districts. At this time that is hard to do, but I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I will not oppose this amendment because it does not require the Corps to fund anything in particular.
We have had other similar amendments already tonight, and I would just like to remind my colleagues that these amendments--simply increasing the funding level of a particular account, they do not direct that funding to a particular activity.
If they did fund specific projects, those would be congressional earmarks that are no longer allowed. As we talked about on the last amendment, frankly, that is something I would like to change myself, and I know that the ranking member would, also.
But since this amendment only changes the overall account level, I will not oppose it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The language in the bill is intended simply to maintain the status quo regarding what is fill material for the purposes of the Clean Water Act.
The existing definition was put in place through a rulemaking initiated by the Clinton administration and was finalized by the Bush administration. That rule aligned the definitions on the books of the Corps and the EPA so that both agencies were working with the same definition.
Changing the definition again, as some have proposed, could effectively kill mining operations across much of this country. For that reason, I support the underlying language and would oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. We have debated this issue for many years now.
The fact is, the gentleman is right in one regard in that the Clean Water Act, in trying to define what waters of the United States by navigable waters, is hard. Navigable to what?
Consequently, every organization that I know of supports a new rule that brings certainty and clarity to it. That is what the Supreme Court said on two different occasions: that the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency had gone too far, and that Federal jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act was not as broad as they had claimed, and that we needed certainty and clarity in this rule. So the EPA took that and said: okay, I know what will give certainty; we will just regulate everything.
That is pretty much what they have done with this rule. Everybody who proposes this as a really good deal is under the assumption that the waters were not regulated before if they didn't fall under the Clean Water Act. The reality is that the EPA didn't regulate them, but the States regulated them, and the States did a darn good job of it in most cases.
We do need some clarity. But as cases have said, as the Supreme Court has said, the EPA has gone too far. Deciding how water should be used is the responsibility of State and local officials who are more familiar with the people and the local issues.
Under the WOTUS rule, the Federal reach of jurisdiction would be so broad that it could significantly restrict landowners' ability to make decisions about their property and a local government's right to plan for its own development. While there may be a desire for clarity on the issue of the Federal jurisdiction, providing clarity does not trump the need to stay within the limits of the law.
Bringing certainty to this, you know, that is a nice thing to say. A hanging brings certainty, but I am not sure it is the result you want, which is what we have got here.
The WOTUS rule would expand Federal jurisdiction far beyond what was ever intended by the Clean Water Act.
The provision in the Energy and Water Development bill does not weaken the Clean Water Act; it stops the administration from expanding Federal jurisdiction. For that purpose, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, they are absolutely right. This would block the implementation of this rule in the future. That is what we are trying to do. We are saying this rule is no good, start again. It doesn't mean that these streams would be in danger or anything else.
We are saying to the Army Corps and to the EPA, go back and start again, because they were wrong in this rule and they far overreached their authority of the Clean Water Act. I think that is what a court is going to decide, and this probably won't be necessary because a court is probably going to throw this out.
The reality is we all want clean water. If this amendment is not adopted and our language goes into effect, it doesn't mean that these wetlands and these streams are going to be unregulated. They will be regulated, as they were before, by the State governments. We have a Federal system. We have Federal law. We have State laws. The State laws do some things. They have regulated water within their States for years and have done a pretty good job of it.
Is the Clean Water Act necessary? You bet it is. You are right. The Cuyahoga River hasn't started a fire for a long time because of the cleanup that has been done, but that doesn't mean that they need to regulate every little mud puddle and stream in the State of Idaho.
I strongly oppose this amendment, as I have in years gone by. And I would say it again: This is telling the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to start over again. Follow the intent of the Clean Water Act and the intent of Congress when it was passed.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, it is hard to understand that we are doing this without any debate when the gentleman is, in fact, debating. That is what we are doing. That is what we did in committee. That is what we did in subcommittee. That is how this process works.
I rise in opposition to the amendment. The current regulation prohibits citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights guaranteed in the Constitution on Corps land. Many people don't realize it, but the Army Corps of Engineers is the largest Federal provider of outdoor recreation in the country.
The language in this bill would simply align Corps policy with the policy for national parks and national wildlife refuges established by Congress in 2009. We heard the same debate when we said, no, people ought to be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights in national parks. They shouldn't have to disassemble their guns, put them in their trunk, and everything else when they go through national parks. We instituted that policy, and today you can exercise your Second Amendment rights in national parks. It hasn't been a problem. The same thing with national wildlife refuges.
Therefore, I oppose this amendment. Let's make sure that every American has the right to exercise their Second Amendment rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentlewoman yield?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Like the ranking member, I would oppose this amendment. It would reduce funds in the following accounts: EERE, nuclear energy, fossil energy, and other accounts throughout this bill.
We spend an awful lot of time making sure that we continue our responsibility to effectively manage government spending, and we have worked tirelessly to that end. These are targeted funds to provide needed investments and to efficiently and safely utilize our natural resources and invest in the next technological innovations.
It is interesting that years ago, we used to have what were called the Bell Laboratories, and they did a lot of the research and stuff that is now done by government. Because it has gotten too expensive, any individual company can't do a lot of the research that is done.
I will give you an example in the nuclear energy arena. At the Idaho National Lab, we have the advanced test reactors. It is the only one in the United States that does this. Private companies come, as well as government and other organizations, to test new fuels, new designs of fuels, and those types of things. This is not something that can be done by the private sector.
So there are a lot of things that the government does and research that the government does that the private sector, frankly, just doesn't have the resources to do that need to get done. That is what we expect our national laboratories to do. That is what EERE does, what fossil energy research does, and other things.
As I said, some of these programs, like the ATR, some of the funding is paid by the companies that come and use the facility and those types of things, as they have to. And besides that, it is good for our national security.
It is an interesting fact--and I think my numbers are accurate; if they are not exactly accurate, they are pretty close--that when the first nuclear-powered submarine was launched, it was fueled for 6 months and then had to be refueled. But through the research that they have been able to do, the Navy, with the advanced test reactor, we now fuel ships for the life of the ship, which is an incredible advancement. But that is done through government research.
So while it would be nice to say the private sector ought to do all these things, the reality is the private sector can't do all of those things.
I would agree with the gentlewoman and oppose the gentleman's amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. The amendment would cut funding for the Fossil Energy Research and Development program and increase the EERE program by a similar amount.
Fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, provide for 81 percent of the energy used by the Nation's homes and businesses and generates 67 percent of the Nation's electricity. It will continue to provide for the majority of our energy needs for the foreseeable future.
Let me repeat that. They provide for 81 percent of the energy used by the Nation's homes and businesses and generate 67 percent of the Nation's electricity.
The bill rejects the administration's proposed reductions in fossil energy and, instead, funds these programs at $645 million, or $13 million above last year's request.
With this additional funding, the Office of Fossil Energy will research how to capture emissions from our power plants on how water can be more effectively used in power plants and how coal can be used to produce electric power through fuel cells.
This amendment would reduce the funding for a program that ensures we use our Nation's abundant fossil fuel resources as well and as cleanly as possible. In fact, just increasing the efficiency of fossil fuel by 1 percent would power millions of households, all without using a pound of additional fuel from the ground. That is the kind of research this program represents.
Therefore, I must oppose this amendment, and I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I must insist on my point of order.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read.
The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. He would cut $285 million out of the fossil energy program.
What is interesting about this is that they say that this is an unbalanced bill because we have increased funding for fossil energy. And if you look at the amount of the electricity in this country and the energy that is produced by fossil energy, the research done in fossil energy by those big companies, as the gentleman suggests, is important, and it is proportional to the amount of energy produced by fossil fuels in this country.
To suggest that let's make sure that we don't do any fossil fuel research or we cut it substantially suggests that we don't do any subsidies to any of the other fuels in this country. We don't do any wind subsidies. We don't do any solar subsidies or any of the other types of things for these big companies. In fact, we do loan guarantees for a lot of them that go out of business.
So I think this is important, and striking the majority of these funds--or at least taking it back to what the President recommended-- the problem is that the bill created a balanced, all-of-the-above energy policy.
It is the administration's proposal that was unbalanced, and focused mainly on renewable energies and ignored, to a large degree, the majority of the fuel that we use today, the energy sources we use today, and that is the fuel of fossil fuels.
As I said in the last debate on one of the earlier amendments, 81 percent of the fuel we use today, and if you ask most experts, they don't expect that to go down in the near future or even in the long- term future. It is going to remain a major portion of our energy portfolio for years to come.
So I would oppose this amendment. What we do in the fossil energy research program is very important to developing the clean source of energy that we all want.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I have to say that that is just kind of a bogus argument. It is not that we are saying to the President: You have to spend this money in this area.
We are rebalancing the portfolio. We are not spending any more money than the President recommended in the entire bill--well, we are about $285 million, or $259 million, but most of that is in the weapons activities. But we are rebalancing the portfolio. We are spending less than the President wants to spend in other areas. So to say, oh, we are just trying to spend money is not the case. We have different priorities.
We want an all-of-the-above energy strategy, which is what this bill represents. We spend money in solar, we spend money in wind, we spend money in nuclear, and we spend money in fossil energy. Those are all important. So just because the gentleman doesn't like fossil energy doesn't mean that we ought to do away with the research on it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that if that is the case, then I suspect that the gentleman, if that is his desire, then I suspect that the gentleman supports the Republican plan to not spend as much money in the EERE as the President wanted because we are spending less in EERE, and in some other programs within the Department of Energy we are spending less than the administration wanted. So I am glad to hear that he would support the Republican position on that because we are spending less.
Now, there is one thing we both agree on. I would like to see a balanced budget amendment before us. I think it would be important that we would pass one. That is not what we are debating today. What we are debating today is the Energy and Water Development program. What we do is we have a cap on how much we can spend. That cap is within the bipartisan budget that was agreed to last year. I suspect the gentleman probably voted for it. I don't know that for sure, but I suspect he probably did. This is within that budget.
If the gentleman wants to decrease the funding in EERE and all of the other programs that the Republicans have reduced funding in, then, gee, I will go along with him.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that in EERE, the administration requested $2.9 billion. We funded it at 1.8--1.8 something--1.86 or something like that. We saved a billion dollars. So we actually are rebalancing the portfolio in what we think is important. That is what we do.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, can we get a clarification of what amendment the gentleman is offering?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's, my colleague's, passion for the Northern Border Regional Commission, and I will work with him in conference to see if additional funds can be provided because it provides an important function in that area.
So I thank the gentleman.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, while I share my colleague's concern regarding the Loan Guarantee Program and the nonresponse from the Department to the Science, Space, and Technology Committee that has requested the information--and I will guarantee you that I will do all I can to make sure that they do respond to that--the elimination of the funding would hurt Federal oversight of more than $8 billion in loan guarantees that are already out there.
The committee recommendation only provides costs the program needs to monitor loans and conduct the proper oversight to ensure taxpayer funds are being effectively managed, and you should have access to that information that you have requested.
Let me be clear. The funds provided in this bill support administrative operations only. Further, the bill rejects the President's request for new loan guarantee authority.
The loans already committed will require oversight for many years to come. Eliminating these funds for this administrative function is the wrong approach and effectively removes the government's ability to retrieve billions of dollars in loan fees.
Therefore, I have to oppose this amendment, but I understand why the gentleman is offering it. I would say that I will work with you to make sure that the Department is more responsive to the requests of the committees.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, first let me say that I understand the gentleman's concerns for the economic hardships of his region and appreciate his passion on this issue. His amendment would be an increase of 50 percent above the funding in the bill.
Additionally, the amendment would pay for that increase with a cut to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve account. The bill funds the Reserve account at the budget request in order to ensure the continued operability of the Reserve. This funding will provide for the basic annual costs as well as addressing some of the deferred maintenance backlog.
I know it doesn't always sound exciting, but the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is a Federal asset that must be properly maintained. It contributes to our Nation's energy security and economic stability.
For these reasons, I must oppose the amendment.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, this amendment, basically, is duplicative and ignores the existing responsible contractor award system that is already in place. Contracting officers must already consult the System for Award Management to ensure a contractor can be awarded a contract. Businesses on the Excluded Parties List System have been suspended or debarred through a due process system and may not be eligible to receive or renew contracts for such cited offenses.
The best way to ensure the government contracts or provides grants to the best employers is to enforce the existing suspension and debarment system. Bad actors who are in violation of basic worker protections should not be awarded Federal contracts. We all agree with that. That is why the Federal Government already has a system in place to deny Federal contracts to bad actors. If a contractor fails to maintain high standards of integrity and business ethics, agencies already have the authority to suspend or debar the employer from government contracting. In 2014, Federal agencies issued more than 1,000 suspensions and nearly 2,000 debarments to employers who bid on Federal contracts.
The amendment will delay the procurement process with harmful consequences to our Nation's nuclear safety and security. On numerous occasions, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has highlighted costly litigation stemming from the complex regulatory rules, including from the Fair Labor Standards Act. This amendment punishes employers who may unknowingly or unwillingly get caught in the Federal Government's maze of bureaucratic rules and reporting requirements.
The procurement process is already plagued by delays and inefficiencies. This amendment will make these problems worse for the Department of Energy--the second largest contracting agency outside of the Department of Defense--further delaying critical support for national nuclear security operations.
This amendment will work against those who are working hard to protect the Department of Energy and the Army Corps of Engineers assets, which is inconceivable given the safety needs of our Nation.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I must insist on my point of order.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read.
The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, this debate has been going on for a while. I appreciate what the gentleman is saying.
I have been having this debate with the Secretary of Energy for some time. I understand where the people from South Carolina are coming from. We are talking about jobs and we are talking about the economy.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but what I do have is responsibility as chairman of this committee. Five years from now, we are not sitting up here talking about the same thing, another chairman and another Secretary of Energy and another President.
The Department of Energy is famous for starting programs and getting halfway down and then spending billions of dollars and then walking away from them. Yucca Mountain is the biggest hole in the ground--they spent $14 billion to build--than anything I have ever seen. And it is not the only thing that the Department of Energy has done.
But they come to us now and say: Hey, we have a plan and it is going to be cheaper. We think that MOX is going to cost $30 billion. Other people say: Nah, that is a stretch. We are looking more like 20 or something like that.
Nobody can get the numbers right, so we ask them to rebaseline it. They haven't done that. But they come to us and say: We have a plan. We think that what we ought to do is just dilute this stuff and then dispose of it.
Okay. Great. What is that going to take?
Well, first of all, we have a treaty with Russia.
Have the Russians agreed to this?
Well, no, but we think they will.
Well, you know, there are a lot of things I think that my wife will agree to that she doesn't in the long run.
So we are going to go out and we are going to stop construction of this on the hope that the Russians are going to agree with us. Of course, we have such a good relationship going on with them right now. But the Department says: Oh, I think they will be okay, and they have indicated they are willing to talk.
Okay. We are going to dispose of it.
Where are we going to dispose of it? WIPP?
WIPP is shut down right now, but we are going to get WIPP reopened.
Is that where we are going to put it? Is WIPP large enough to hold this? Are we going to have to do another land withdrawal in New Mexico? Is the State of New Mexico okay with this?
Well, we don't know. We haven't talked to them yet.
So what you want to do is stop this before you have a plan of what you want to do with it, and that is just crazy. And that is my problem.
If the Department would come to us and say that the Russians have agreed to amend the treaty, and New Mexico has agreed that they will take the stuff, then maybe we could have a serious discussion. But right now, it is just all pie in the sky.
I will tell you that if you really don't care about the treaty and you really don't care about where they dispose of it--dispose of it in New Mexico--the cheapest thing to do is just store it, but nobody wants to do that.
So all we are saying is let's be reasonable on this and let's recognize that you have a facility here that is 67 percent complete. I think we ought to go down the same road. Although there are others, I have to admit, that look at $340 million--and probably it will be $500 million when it gets going as we continue, as construction ramps up-- but look at that as: Oh, that is taking money out of my programs in my town, and I don't want that to happen. So let's stop MOX, and that means my favorite project will get more money.
I know there is a lot of that going on, too. So I understand where the gentleman is coming from. There are other people that agree with him.
There are people on my side of the aisle that come up and ask why are we spending money on that boondoggle?
It is not a boondoggle. The fact is it is supposed to create MOX fuel.
While the Department says there are no energy companies that want the MOX fuel, that is not true. There are some who would sign long-term agreements. The problem is they see this debate and are wondering whether we are going to have any or not. But the problem is the Department won't come to us with a solid proposal that we can rely on that is an alternative that we could weigh one against the other.
I don't want 5 years or 10 years from now a chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies at that time and a Secretary of Energy to be down on the street corner arguing about: Well, gee, we stopped MOX. We got that big cement pile out there. We stopped construction on that. We have a problem with New Mexico, and the Russians are on our back. They won't do anything about the treaty. What are we going to do? Let's think of something else.
So until somebody has a reasonable alternative that they could compare it to and the cost to, we need to continue with this MOX project. And that is why the funding is in there for this bill and that is why we will fight for it in conference, even though the Senate, I know, wants to stop it and do other things.
So, anyway, that is why that is there. I appreciate what the gentleman is doing. I understand his concerns. Other people have those concerns, but the right path for us to follow is to continue the project that currently exists.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
While there may be instances in which the greater coordination would be helpful to ensure our ocean and coastal resources are available to future generations, any such coordination must be done carefully to protect against Federal overreach.
As we have seen recently with the proposed rule to redefine waters of the United States, strong congressional oversight is needed to ensure that we protect private property rights.
Unfortunately, the way this administration developed its National Ocean Policy increases the opportunities for overreach. The implementation plan is so broad and so sweeping that it may allow the Federal Government to affect agricultural practices, mining, energy producers, fishermen, and anyone else whose actions may have an impact directly or indirectly on the oceans.
The fact is the administration did not work with Congress to develop this plan and has even refused to provide relevant information to Congress, so we can't be sure how sweeping it actually will be. That is why I support the language in the underlying bill and, therefore, oppose the amendment and suggest that the Committee on Natural Resources is the one that should be taking this up if they want to develop a National Ocean Policy.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Reclaiming my time, in fact, we were not wrong. Congress did not approve a national ocean plan.
Now, we can argue about it whether they should have or whether they shouldn't have or whether Chairman Pombo should have brought it up or shouldn't have brought it up, or whatever, but that is way the process works around here. There are things that aren't brought up that I think ought to be brought up.
I have got a wildfire funding bill that hasn't been brought up. I think it ought to be brought up. That doesn't mean the administration can go out and say: Hey, that is the right thing to do. We are going to do it by executive order.
That is the problem with this administration, that they have got a phone and they have got a pen if they don't get what they want out of Congress and Congress decides not to act for whatever reason. We didn't act on immigration. I think that was wrong. I think we should have. But guess what. We didn't. That doesn't free the President to say: Well, if you won't do it, I am going to do it.
That is kind of what he did with the National Ocean Policy, and that is the problem we have here. That is why I oppose the amendment, even though it might be the right thing for us to do in the long run.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment because I am concerned that the amendment would limit the activities that may be necessary to maintain our nuclear weapons stockpile. That is basically it.
We need to be modernizing the legacy facilities of the National Nuclear Security Administration. And these are old facilities, if we are going to have a credible nuclear deterrent.
That is what this is all about, is keeping our nuclear deterrent and making sure that we have the facilities to produce those things that are necessary. It is as simple as that.
I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Wilson of South Carolina) having assumed the chair, Mr. Emmer of Minnesota, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5055) making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source