Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I am willing to accept this amendment, and I thank the gentleman for offering it.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairman, I must insist on my point of order. I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment requires a new determination. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, it is deja vu. I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. We would be happy to accept the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON. I would be happy to join the gentlelady in a colloquy.

Mr. SIMPSON. I would agree to do so, and I believe the gentlelady from Ohio would agree to do so as well.

Mr. SIMPSON

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

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

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

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

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 reserve a point of order.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, the bill provides $8.2 billion for NNSA's weapons activities, an increase of $423 million over fiscal year 2014 and $111 million below the budget request. The bill takes advantage of all opportunities to reduce funding for activities that are not essential to maintaining the stockpile while making sure the highest priority needs are met. Assuring funding for modernization of our nuclear weapons stockpile is a critical national security priority in this bill. This includes the full $17 million in the bill to initiate early conceptual studies for a cruise missile warhead life extension program, $7.6 million above the budget request. The additional funding is a modest amount that will ensure an appropriate set of alternatives is being considered. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to reluctantly--and I do mean reluctantly--oppose the amendment. The amendment would increase funding for the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, ARPA-E, as has been mentioned, by $20 million using funds from the departmental administration as an offset. I share my colleague's support for advanced research; that is why the bill before us already provides $280 million for ARPA-E. That is the highest funding level the Agency has ever received in an annual appropriation, equal to last year's, with all funding going to fully fund new projects over the next three years. Put another way, this bill funds ARPA-E at $210 million more than last year's House bill did. This is the highest level of funding that ARPA-E has ever received. In addition, the bill fully funds ARPA-E's open solicitation to support the most promising new energy technologies out there. However, we still have to work within our overall budget allocation. While I support ARPA-E's program, we must abide by our allocation. Although I am sympathetic to reducing the size of government, we cannot support taking $20 million from the departmental administration. This would do more than just trim the fat beyond what is simply wasteful and ineffective; it would slash funding that would result in approximately 143 people being laid off within the Department of Energy. These are jobs with real impacts on families. Therefore, I must oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlelady's passion with which she speaks about that, and I understand it, but when she says the failed Yucca Mountain policy, I have to remind her that Yucca Mountain is the law of the land. The policy of Yucca Mountain has not failed, and Yucca Mountain has not failed. What happened is that someone running for the Presidency of the United States needed four electoral votes--or five or however many it was--in Nevada, so he promised the citizens of Nevada that he would shut down Yucca Mountain, regardless of what the law said, and that is what happened. We can argue as to whether Yucca Mountain is the right place or not. I think there have been 52 or 53 studies done on Yucca Mountain. It is the most studied piece of earth on this Earth. We know more about it than anywhere else; yet, for political reasons, we have stopped it, and it will truly be a $15 billion waste if we don't proceed. What we do in this bill is tell the administration to proceed with following the law, so I oppose the gentlelady's amendment. I now yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), who has been an advocate and an ardent supporter of this for many years here in Congress.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, the amendment would restore the funding for the National Undergraduate Fellowship Program within the Office of Science, which was proposed for elimination as part of the administration's overall science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--or STEM's--consolidation efforts. I appreciate my colleague's passion for the general science education. He has worked tirelessly to support efforts that advance American research in this area. I have no issues with his amendment, and I would encourage its adoption by voice vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the amendment proposes to shift funding from defense to nondefense functions. Assuring funding for the modernization of our nuclear weapons stockpile is a critical national security priority in this bill. Shifting funding between defense and nondefense allocations would have negative repercussions on every appropriations bill by exceeding the Ryan-Murray budget caps that trigger sequestration. I share my colleague's support for the programs within the Office of Science, and I will be happy to work with him in the event we have additional funding for the basic energy science program in conference. However, I must oppose the amendment as written, and urge others to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SIMPSON. I believe we have two more speakers.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).