Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, similar to the previous amendment, I appreciate my colleague's passion for this important research and development and work done in the Water Power Technologies Office. They are each strong advocates, and I recognize their leadership in their States for this important work. Although I could not support this amendment, I would again make the offer that, if the gentlewoman is willing to withdraw the amendment, I would work with her and others to make sure that we have sufficient funding for the Water Power Technologies Office when we go to conference. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's advocacy for the Advanced Manufacturing Office within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account. The Advanced Manufacturing Office performs research and development to improve the productivity and energy efficiency of U.S. manufacturing. This is important work, and I recognize my colleague's leadership in highlighting the office. While I could not support using the Nuclear Waste Disposal account as an offset for the original amendment, I would appreciate my colleague's willingness to offer to withdraw this amendment. I look forward to working with my colleague as we move forward toward conference to discuss sufficient funding for the Advanced Manufacturing Office. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, this bill includes $84 million for research and development on wind energy within the EERE account. That is more than $53 million higher than the budget request--$53 million higher than the budget request. Research and development in the wind office was targeted to support our Nation's wind turbine testing infrastructure and advanced solutions to wind energy challenges. This is a strategic focus to lay the foundation for technological innovations that can be picked up by industry at a later stage. While I support research and development on wind energy and recognize my colleague's advocacy for these activities, focusing funds on job training grants strays too far from the bill's strategic priorities. Therefore, I must oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman and gentlewoman's passion for this. I have to oppose the amendment at this time but look forward to working with the gentlewoman to try to address this issue as we move forward in the future. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his amendment and for his willingness to withdraw it and for the authorizer's strong support for this bill. I recognize the House-passed authorization for the versatile neutron source is a priority of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee and also of me. I appreciate my colleague's highlighting these priorities, and I look forward to working with him as we move into conference to ensure these priorities have sufficient funding in the final legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman of the Science Committee for his amendment and for the authorizers' strong support for this bill. I recognize the House-passed authorizations for DOE research, infrastructure construction and facilities upgrades, and the low dose radiation research are priorities of the Science Committee. I appreciate the chairman highlighting these priorities and I look forward to working with him as we move to conference to ensure these projects receive sufficient funding. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. 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. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON. 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. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), who is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, is all of the time expired on my side from the original 5 minutes?

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, is all the time expired on that side?

Mr. SIMPSON. 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. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), I move to strike the last word.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON. 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.