Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. My colleague's amendment would eliminate the Advanced Research Project Agency--Energy, otherwise known…
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
My colleague's amendment would eliminate the Advanced Research Project Agency--Energy, otherwise known as ARPA-E.
ARPA-E's mission is to fund projects that are not yet addressed by the private sector but that can bring transformational shifts in current energy technologies. From reducing the energy involved in producing aluminum to creating new battery storage technologies, these are projects that have impacts in almost every industry.
Since 2009, ARPA-E has provided funding for more than 660 projects. As of this year, ARPA-E projects have produced 245 patents, formed 71 new companies, and have raised more than $2.9 billion in follow-on funding from the private sector to bring technologies to market.
These are successes, and successes help ensure our Nation's energy security and create a manufacturing edge in the energy sector. These are energy technology goals all Members can support.
I would remind my friend from Arizona, our job is not to be lemmings for the administration. It is to make our own independent judgment.
While I appreciate and look at the reason that they would like to eliminate ARPA-E, I disagree with them. So do a majority of the Members of Congress, as they have demonstrated in the past.
So we must exercise our independent judgment on what is best. While we respect the administration's position, we just disagree with it.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, since the amendment does not change funding levels in the bill, I will not oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Assuring funding for the modernization of our nuclear weapons stockpile is a critical national security priority of this bill. The bill provides necessary funding to extend the life of our Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and to address the continued deterioration of infrastructure at the NNSA sites.
The amendment targets a new proposal to modify a limited number of W76 warheads that are currently undergoing refurbishment in order to provide for a low-level variant of the warhead. They will either be refurbished with a high-yield warhead or a low-yield warhead.
This modification does not provide the U.S. with any new nuclear capabilities. The U.S. has the capability and will continue to maintain that capability to deliver warheads at this yield
with the Air Force's B61 bomb and the air-launched cruise missile.
These lower level warheads are necessary to provide a credible deterrent against the use of warheads of similar yields that exist in large numbers by other nuclear weapons states.
Specifically, possessing a warhead at this yield shows any aggressor that the U.S. has the capability to provide a proportional response to the use of a nonstrategic or tactical nuclear weapon against the U.S. or its allies. That is why the U.S. nuclear strategy under both the Obama administration and this administration advocated maintaining and modernizing both the B61 bomb and the nuclear-tipped cruise missile.
Given that the U.S. has possessed this same capability for many years, I disagree with the idea that this modification will serve to destabilize relations with other nuclear weapons states. Rather, the intent of this warhead modification is to improve stability to demonstrate that the U.S. has the ability to deliver this capability on platforms that are not vulnerable to air defenses.
It is intended to improve the credibility of our nuclear deterrent and show that the U.S. has the resolve to respond to nuclear threats. Credibility is the most basic requirement for nuclear deterrence to work.
The amendment would also reduce the size of the current W76 stockpile because the funding supports not only the low-yield modification but also the refurbishment work that is needed to extend the life of these warheads.
Mr. Chairman, I support the modification. I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), who is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
Mr. Chairman, is all the time expired on that side?
Mr. Chairman, is all of the time expired on my side from the original 5 minutes?
Mr. Chairman, let me just say in this 30 seconds, first of all, addressing the gentlewoman from Ohio's concern, the administration waited until the Nuclear Posture Review was done before they could submit their request for this funding.
The budget request had been being worked on from clear last September before that, and they came up within days of each other, but the administration was waiting for the NPR to be finished before they submitted.
We might not have liked the way that turned out, but that is just the reality. I don't think it was anybody's intent to try to misguide Congress or anything like that, while I understand her concern.
Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, before I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), let me say the impression here is that we are increasing the number of nuclear weapons. We are not. We are doing refurbishment of the current weapons.
And 50 of them would not be high-level; they would be low-level, low- yield nuclear weapons. It doesn't increase the numbers.
All of this is compliant with all of our nuclear treaties--compliant with all of our nuclear treaties.
When I first heard about this, I actually had the same concerns I am hearing from the other side of the aisle: How does this increase our safety? Doesn't it make it more likely it would be used if it was a low-yield rather than high-yield?
Then I went to some briefings and talked to some people, people who wrote the NPR and a few things like that, and what I found out was that Russia already has hundreds and hundreds--as the chairman of the committee said, has hundreds and hundreds of low-yield nuclear warheads.
Why are they doing that? Would why they possibly do that? Because they think it will give them a strategic advantage in a traditional war.
If our only response to their use of a low-yield nuclear weapon is Armageddon, then their bet is that we are not going to go to that level. For deterrence to work, it has to be credible. They have to understand that if they even use a low-yield nuclear weapon we will respond and that we have the capability to do it in proportion without destroying the world.
But you also have to understand we are not talking about first use by us. This is meant to decrease the likelihood of a nuclear exchange.
I have come to the conclusion that if we don't do this, we are going to increase the likelihood of a nuclear exchange. Otherwise, why are they creating hundreds and hundreds--and China and North Korea are looking at it also--why are they creating nuclear low-yield weapons? Why is that in their interest?
Stop and think about it a minute.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to my friend from Virginia's amendment. This bill shows strong support for the nonproliferation programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration, something that I support.
Funding for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation is $1.9 billion, it is $39 million above the budget request. That includes increases above the request for research and development activities for which we received Member requests.
I have also supported increases in the past for these activities. The $2 billion amount that this amendment seeks to achieve is the result of an increase of $206 million above the fiscal year 2018 request.
The NNSA's nonproliferation account has significant unexpended balances that are the result of slow progress on international nonproliferation agreements and the infusion of additional funding added by Congress in prior years.
It is not enough to just say we support nonproliferation and we support it by increasing the budget. That is how much we support it. It has to go towards something. You have to have agreements with international partners for nonproliferation activities.
In May, the NNSA reported that it had $2.6 billion in available funds to carry out its nonproliferation mission, of which more than $733 million is left over from prior years. You have $733 million left over from prior years, and you want to add to that.
Given the increasing amounts of unused balances, it is not clear that the NNSA will be able to expend additional funding in a timely manner.
Not only would the amendment continue to add to programs beyond which the agency has said it can accomplish, it would do so at the expense of funding necessary to sustain our nuclear weapons stockpile, refurbish aging infrastructure, secure facilities where U.S. nuclear weapons are stored, and support a science-based stockpile certification strategy without nuclear testing. That is why I oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the only thing I would ask the gentlewoman from Ohio and the gentleman from Virginia is: What are they going to do with the additional $97 million? What are you going to do with it?
You have got $733 million sitting there right now that they can't spend. We have to have agreements with foreign countries to do nonproliferation work. Where are they going to spend it?
I have been complaining--not complaining, but arguing, I guess--with Members for the last several years that want to put money in to show their support for nonproliferation: Why don't you just put more money into it? I ask them: What do you want to do with it? They can't tell you.
By saying we increase the nonproliferation account, it shows we support nonproliferation. But you have got to have something you are going to do with it.
I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Reclaiming my time, I guess you have got an agreement there with Iran to do nonproliferation work?
The reason we have some excess money is because the agreements with Russia, when things got a little cold between our two countries, some of those agreements kind of went by the wayside.
I would like to know what the projects are. If there is something that somebody has come up with, if there are agreements to do those types of things. You can't say: I want to spend another $97 million on top of the $733 million.
If that is accurate at $190 million, we've got $733 million to do it right now. So why throw another $97 million on top of it? It just doesn't make sense to me.
Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
I recognize my colleague's concerns about certain actions and practices of the Western Area Power Administration. I applaud his dedication to improving the functionality of the agency for the benefit of his constituents. In fact, he has worked with this committee to make improvements related to appropriations, and I would encourage him to continue to engage with us on appropriate oversight measures.
This amendment, though, will not improve the effectiveness and transparency of this agency. Rather, it is simply a punitive one toward one individual, and I cannot support such an effort. That is why I opposed the Holman rule that was adopted by the rules package, I guess--what?--last year or something like that, the year before last.
The problem is you have got an individual here, and there have been claims about his behavior or his inability to do his job, and we are going to debate whether he is going to have a salary or not or whether you are going to essentially fire him, reduce his salary to $1, in a 10-minute debate on the floor.
Is that really fair? Is that right? I don't think you should do that.
If the activities that have been suggested by the gentleman from Arizona have occurred, why isn't the Government Oversight Committee looking at this? Why aren't they calling him in, having a hearing on it? Why isn't the Energy and Commerce Committee doing the same?
That is the appropriate way to do that when you have got someone who has misbehaved as an Administrator, not to come on the floor with a 10- minute debate, make charges which may or may not be true--I just don't know--but then ask us to essentially fire somebody. I just don't think that is right.
For these reasons, I must urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, nobody is defending this individual. What he has presented is 20 accusations. I think he ought to be able to have his day in a proper hearing before the proper committee to decide whether it is the right
thing to do, not sit here and say, ``I agree with these accusations.'' I don't know if they are true or not. Nobody on this floor knows whether they are true or not.
Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Mr. Chair, has my time expired?
Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Let me first state that Idaho is not next to an ocean, although we do have the furthest inland port of any State in the country.
The point of this is that you all make great arguments--arguments that ought to be held and debated in the authorizing committee.
The point is that the ocean policy here was put in effect without ever going through Congress. It has never been authorized. It is not that it has been authorized and the expiration dates just expired, like many programs, far too many programs. This has never been authorized by Congress.
I might agree with you in the end, but it ought to go through the proper process instead of just doing an executive order.
Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this would not be an appropriation bill if we didn't have this amendment before us. Every year, this amendment has been offered, and the gentlewoman from Tennessee and I have debated this many times in the past.
While I commend my colleague for her consistent work to protect the taxpayers' dollars, this is not the approach that I would endorse nor can I support.
The bill in its current form balances many of the needs. The bill prioritizes funding for national security and critical infrastructure, yet the gentlewoman's amendment proposes an across-the-board cut on every one of these programs, including increases in funding that are sorely needed to modernize our nuclear weapons stockpile and to protect our Nation's electrical grid from emerging cyber threats.
Across-the-board cuts make no distinction between where we need to be spending or investing in our infrastructure, promoting jobs, and meeting our national security needs and where we need to limit spending to meet our deficit reduction goals. That is what we actually do when we write a bill in the Appropriations Committee and have the hearings and so forth.
The main reason this bill is $1.5 billion above last year and the reason that the chairman gave this allocation to the Energy and Water Subcommittee is because there was a need in rebuilding our nuclear security infrastructure. That is where the majority of that money went.
The next major portion of it went to the Army Corps of Engineers to build the waterways and infrastructure that need to be replaced. There is something like a trillion dollars--I know it is not the exact number, and I don't know if that is the correct number, but it is pretty close--of backlog, of needs within the Army Corps of Engineers, with an aging infrastructure: locks and dams, harbors that need to be maintained for our economy, that need to be dredged. That is where the majority of that money went. That is why the Appropriations Committee put the additional $1.5 billion into this.
Yes, reducing the deficit and addressing our debt are critical things that need to get done, too, but everyone here, including the gentlewoman from Tennessee, who is my good friend, knows that it is not the discretionary spending that is driving this debt and deficit each year; it is the huge increases in mandatory spending. Those are primarily Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, interest on the debt. That is what is driving the debt.
If you look back 40 or 50 years ago, out of the entire Federal budget, 70 percent of it was discretionary spending. That is what we spend money on that everybody thinks as government when they think of government. About 30 percent of it was the mandatory programs.
It has reversed. Now a little over 70 percent of the Federal Government is mandatory. It is on autopilot. Unless we change the law underneath it and have the courage to do that, it continues to grow.
If you look at our budget today on the discretionary side, we spend less today than we did in 2010. That is 8 years later. We spend less today on discretionary spending than we did in 2010. That is the reality.
So while I appreciate the effort to address the debt and the deficit, this is not the way to do it. It is not addressing the main problem that is driving our debt.
Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, though I am not opposed to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, let me assure my colleague that I understand her interest in addressing flood risks in her district. In fact, the Appropriations Committee has worked very hard to prioritize these activities, including significant funding in the supplemental bill earlier this year, in the fiscal year 2018 appropriations act, and this fiscal year 2019 bill before us today.
Since the amendment does not change funding levels within the bill, I will not oppose the amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. While I agree with my colleague that we need to be finding savings where possible, this amendment is not the approach that I can support.
The bill in its current form takes a balanced approach to meet a number of needs, not just wants or wishes or anything else, but actual needs. The bill prioritizes funding for national security and critical infrastructure and reduces funding for certain activities that did not need sustained funding at prior year levels to accomplish their mission in fiscal year 2019.
These tradeoffs were carefully weighed for their respective impacts, and the increases proposed are responsible and, in some cases, are absolutely essential.
Approximately half of the funding in this bill is for national defense activities. This bill includes $15.3 billion for the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons security program which provides funding to maintain our Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and for the Navy's nuclear propulsion programs that supports our Navy's fleet of submarines and aircraft carriers and for nonproliferation activities that are reducing global nuclear threats.
In February, the administration released a Nuclear Posture Review that described a sobering view of the current global nuclear threat situation.
Russia is modernizing its full range of nuclear systems.
China is modernizing and expanding its already considerable nuclear forces, pursuing entirely new capabilities.
North Korea's nuclear provocations threaten regional and global peace.
Iran's nuclear ambitions remain an unresolved concern.
Global nuclear terrorism remains a tangible threat. This amendment would slash funding for the activities in this bill that are an integral part of the United States' national security strategy to address these nuclear threats.
For that and many other reasons, I would oppose the gentleman's amendment and suggest that maybe we ought to look at what is causing the debt to go up, and that is the mandatory spending and not the discretionary spending that we have. I would urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.