Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise to support this amendment. I certainly understand the gentleman's concerns about support for the ongoing cleanup efforts at the Department of Energy sites. This amendment is a small adjustment that will ensure continued progress to the West Valley Demonstration Project, and I am pleased to support this 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 claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

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 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, 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 rise in opposition to the amendment.

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. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the way in which the gentleman is addressing two very important issues. The committee has decided that the Department hasn't yet told us what their option is if MOX were to close down. We are asking for real cost estimates. There are differences of opinion about what the cost estimates for the life cycle of MOX are. So we have asked for further clarification. And as the gentleman rightly stated, if we put it in cold standby and the decision is to proceed with MOX from the Department, it is going to cost us much more to bring it back up, which is why we have chosen the path that we have chosen. The gentleman is also correct that I am as supportive and I think my ranking member is also--in fact, I think most of the Members on our subcommittee are--that nonproliferation is a very important issue. The question is: Can the Department spend $25 million more, and what will we get for that? I want to work with you to make sure that we are doing the right thing and the intelligent thing in both arenas, so I appreciate the attitude that the gentleman is displaying in this. I know there are a couple of individuals who would like to speak for a moment on MOX, so I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. SIMPSON. Again, Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Nebraska for both his consideration of this and his passion in this arena for what may be, in the long run, the most important thing this committee does. So I appreciate working with him and look forward to working with you to try to address this as we answer these questions as rapidly as we can. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's intent, and I will be happy to work with him as we move forward in conference, but at this time, I must insist upon my point of order. Point of Order

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, as the gentleman said, would eliminate the Denali Commission, which is funded at last year's level of $10 million in this bill. The Denali Commission provides infrastructure and economic development activities for some of the country's most rural and distressed communities. Regardless of whether it is one State or a region, the fact is the State is probably larger than any one of the regions that the Commission deals with. In a time of economic instability, communities can scarily afford to lose the millions of dollars in private investments leveraged by the Commission annually. Elimination of the Denali Commission would deprive these communities of many essential infrastructure and economic development projects. I encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. I oppose this amendment. It is an interesting argument the gentlelady made. The House has repeatedly had overwhelming votes in support of continuing the Yucca Mountain repository. The language that would be stricken by this amendment we have been carrying for years as a way to keep the will of the House and the American people alive. In fact, the votes supporting Yucca Mountain in this House have been overwhelming each time that we voted on it. I would remind the gentlelady that this doesn't mean that Yucca Mountain can never be closed. The comment of the gentleman from Illinois would still be true. An appropriation bill is a 1-year appropriation bill. That is why we carry this language in each appropriation bill. We need to wait for the safety review by the NRC to be done to decide what we are going to do moving forward, instead of political decisions that have been made on Yucca Mountain in the past. And it has been a political decision. I think even the gentlelady would agree with that. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).