Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, May 16, 2016, I was absent and missed the day's votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea,'' on both Roll Call No. 194 and Roll Call No. 195.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, on April 15, 2016, I was absent and was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall No. 150--``No.'' Rollcall No. 151--``No.'' Rollcall No. 152--``No.''

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, on April 14, 2016, I was absent and was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall No. 145--``Yea.'' Rollcall No. 146--``Yea.'' Rollcall No. 147--``Nay.'' Rollcall No. 148--``Yea.'' Rollcall No. 149--``Yea.''

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the full committee chairman, Mr. Bishop; the ranking member, Mr. Grijalva; the subcommittee chairman, Mr. McClintock, and the ranking member, Ms. Tsongas, for considering this bill. The relationship between Native Americans and the United States Government is complicated, not well understood, and filled with inconsistencies. Today Indian Country faces a number of serious challenges, ranging from addressing abject poverty to trying to promote economic development in the face of inefficient bureaucracy. The Federal Government has a trust responsibility to meet its commitments to Indian Country. Yet in many cases, Federal agencies hinder, rather than help, tribes provide for their members. This is illustrated by the settlement of the Cobell litigation and the scores of tribal trust lawsuits over the past few years, which have cost taxpayers more than $5.5 billion. A number of tribes, including many in the Northwest, have been working to address some of the challenges that they face in managing tribal trust assets. Many tribes are capable of effectively and efficiently managing their own assets--and often are better equipped to do so than the agencies currently responsible for that management. Yet, in order to have a say in how these assets are managed, they must swim upstream against a muddled Federal bureaucracy. This is why I introduced H.R. 812, the Indian Trust Asset Reform Act. This legislation had its origins with the tribes themselves, which is where Congress should always start when it takes up issues affecting Indian Country. H.R. 812 was developed and has been endorsed by the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, the National Congress of American Indians, the United South & Eastern Tribes, the Intertribal Timber Council, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. H.R. 812 will do several things to modernize the Federal Government's role in managing Indian trust property. First, it would establish a voluntary demonstration project to give Indian tribes more control over the management of their trust assets. This will provide Indian tribes with new flexibility to direct management of these assets under tribal standards rather than Federal standards that are often outdated and inefficient. As part of the negotiated demonstration project, Indian tribes would be able to conduct forest management activities on their own tribal lands through a process similar to the HEARTH Act of 2012, which the administration has strongly supported and has proven successful in promoting tribal self-determination and self-governance. H.R. 812 would also authorize the Indian tribes and Indian beneficiaries, on a voluntary basis, to obtain appraisals of their trust property without having to wait for the Department of the Interior to approve them. This new authority would provide relief to all in Indian Country who currently endure lengthy delays in selling or leasing their trust land while they wait for the Department to review and approve appraisals. Finally, the bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to consult with Indian Country and provide certain information to Congress about the Office of the Special Trustee. OST was originally intended as a temporary entity to oversee certain financial reforms of Indian trust funds at the Department of the Interior. More than 20 years later, OST has significant involvement in the day-to-day transactions. Tribes have long complained about the miscommunications, delays, and inefficiencies that result from trying to navigate the processes of both OST and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The information the bill requires the Secretary to provide will assist Congress in determining the future of OST. It is worth noting that this bill has undergone a number of changes since introduction. The bill has been revised to incorporate input not only from the committees of jurisdiction in both Chambers, but also from the Department of the Interior, the Department of Justice, tribal organizations, and individual Indian tribes. The Congressional Budget Office has found that H.R. 812 would not affect the Federal Government's overall costs. I would also point out that H.R. 812 is a voluntary program intended to provide tribes with new flexibility to promote economic development. Where tribes are not willing or able to take on these responsibilities, they will not have to. H.R. 812 is just one aspect in a larger conversation on improving the management of tribal trust assets. If enacted into law, this bill would be an important step in providing tribes with the autonomy they need to manage their assets and spur economic growth in their communities. I want to thank Chairman McClintock and his committee, and Chairmen Bishop and Young and their staffs for their work on this bill. They have held two hearings and graciously taken input from tribes and the administration, which is why we are here today with this legislation. Finally, I want to thank the tribes that have offered their expertise in the crafting of this bill. Just like the intentions of the underlying bill, Indian Country deserves to be in the driver's seat when making decisions about their own future.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my thanks to a dedicated public servant. After forty-three years of service, achievement and recognition, Dr. Harold McFarlane is retiring from the Idaho National Laboratory. Speaking at a colleague's retirement ceremony years ago, Harold noted that his colleague ``came to work every day and made a difference.'' The same can be said of Dr. McFarlane, he came to work every day and he made a difference. If you are going to try to pay tribute to Harold McFarlane, you are going to need lots of time and lots of paper. Harold's accomplishments and contributions as a scientist, an administrator, and a leader are as impactful as they are extensive. After graduating from high school in Texas, Harold earned a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Texas. Harold then went to the California Institute of Technology to earn his PhD in engineering science. After a short stint teaching nuclear engineering at New York University, in 1973 Harold moved his young family to Idaho to join Argonne-West National Laboratory to start up the Zero Power Plutonium Reactor, or ZPPR as it is known in Idaho. Thus began Harold's forty- three year career at Argonne-West and the Idaho National Laboratory. At the labs, Harold became involved in almost every major Department of Energy advanced reactor, nuclear fuel cycle, international collaboration, and space power project. While working at Argonne-West, Harold took up another challenge and earned his Master's in Business Administration from the University of Chicago. As recognition of his skills and leadership became better known, in 2006 Harold was elected President of the American Nuclear Society. In 2011, Harold served special assignment in Washington, DC supporting the Office of Nuclear Energy, and in the wake of the Fukushima earthquake and tsunami, Harold became a key technical source for Secretary Chu and others at the Department of Energy (DOE) explaining what was happening on the ground. Harold later received a special commendation from DOE for his contribution during this time. Harold continued his contribution to international nuclear collaboration when he served as the Technical Director of the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) and later Chief of Staff to the GIF chairman. Throughout his career, Harold has been put in charge of difficult technical projects, and he led, mentored, and executed all with professionalism and distinction. Along the way, Harold accumulated a cadre of colleagues, friends and young scientists who wanted to work with him Since his days at the University of Texas, Harold has had one partner in this wonderful career and life, his wife Mary Ellen. Harold would be the first to acknowledge that although his work and reputation made him one of the most recognizable nuclear professionals in the world, in Idaho Falls he is best known as Mary Ellen's husband. Harold and Mary Ellen are avid golfers and the two have played courses around the world in another pursuit of excellence. Along with their son Matt, Mary Ellen and Harold deserve our thanks and well wishes as his career at the lab ends. Harold, thank you for coming to work every day and for making a difference.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my ranking member, Marcy Kaptur, for her hard work over the many months we have spent preparing this bill for consideration today. I would also like to acknowledge the work of our Senate partners, Lamar Alexander and Dianne Feinstein. There are a number of good reasons to vote for this bill, and many of them are in the Energy and Water Development section. This bill provides strong funding for our defense. It makes important infrastructure investments that will keep America's waterways open for business. And, this bill includes critical funding to ensure the security of our Nation's electrical grid. Weapons Activities, which provides funding to support our aging nuclear weapons stockpile, is $660 million more than last year. This includes full funding for critical warheads such as the B61 bomb and the Long Range Standoff cruise missile. The Naval Reactors Program has been increased by $141 million, including the full request for the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine replacement reactor. Funding for the Army Corps of Engineers includes more than $1.2 million for HMTF activities--hitting the WRRDA target. The bill also provides for full use of the annual IWTF revenues. The bill rejects the President's proposal to finance renewable energies at the expense of the energies that we rely on today, and instead moves the country forward with a balanced, all-of-the-above energy strategy that ensures that our constituents continue to have reliable, affordable energy. The bill also includes important funding for the Idaho National Laboratory to continue programs to advance nuclear technologies and ensures the safe and efficient use of nuclear energy now and in the future. The bill includes $162 million for research and development to improve the resilience and reliability of the electric grid against cybersecurity attacks and extreme weather events. We also continue the commonsense provisions that were included in last year's bill, such as prohibitions against changing the definition of fill material and prohibitions against the implementation of new light bulb efficiency standards, that protect consumer choice and responsible commercial operations. I urge my colleagues to vote for this omnibus.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of creating access to oral health care and to raise awareness for initiatives that deliver important dental services to underserved communities. This year, more than 75 million Americans won't visit a dentist, even though nearly half of the people over 30 suffer from some form of gum disease and an estimated 25 percent of children under the age of 5 already have cavities. It is time to take action. That is why the American Dental Association launched Action for Dental Health: Dentists Making a Difference. This initiative is a nationwide, community-based movement that is focused on delivering care to people who are already suffering from dental disease, and on bringing dental health education and disease prevention into underserved communities. This Sunday, the American Dental Association will transform the Walter E. Washington Convention Center into a Mission of Mercy--a 100- chair dental clinic--in order to treat 1,000 adults and children who don't receive regular dental care. We can grow support for initiatives like these through H.R. 539, the Action for Dental Health Act, which will help dentists and others improve the health of Americans who need it most but without requiring any additional tax dollars. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 539.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, this December, the Army Corps of Engineers will see an exceptional employee retire after 32 years of exemplary service to our citizens, communities, agencies and military men and women that the Corps serves. Debbie Willis lived in Idaho from 1999 to 2009, serving as the Project Manager in charge of the Walla Walla District's Boise office. During that time, she represented the ``First and Best'' door to the Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District. Debbie always provided a ``can-do'' attitude and worked tirelessly with her peers, local citizens, state and federal agencies, and private non-profits, to unlock remarkable solutions to difficult challenges that our communities faced in Idaho. In the words of one Idaho Mayor, she was our ``Superwoman.'' These sentiments are shared by the countless individuals Debbie worked alongside to solve problems during her time at the Corps. Debbie specialized with issues related to environmental improvements in urban and suburban flood-prone areas. She also worked with local communities to address the critical issues of water and wastewater infrastructure management and actively sought to involve community stakeholders in flood risk reduction and environmental habitat improvements along Idaho's valuable waterways and riparian areas. In 2005 and 2006 she earned the honor of being selected from the ranks of the Corps of Engineers to serve as a Congressional Fellow and as a member of the staff for the House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee. On May 24, 2006, Chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee Dave Hobson recognized Debbie on the floor of the House of Representatives for her invaluable assistance in crafting the Energy and Water appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007. Throughout her years of service to our country, Debbie served the Corps of Engineers in Georgia, South Carolina, Washington and North Carolina. She holds a Civil Engineering degree from North Carolina State University and has utilized her education and experience to help plan, engineer, and manage the construction of many large and complex military and civil works projects throughout the country and most recently for the U.S. Army Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg. As a senior Corps project manager, she provided environmental restoration support to the Department of Energy at two of the Nation's largest nuclear facilities, the Hanford and Savannah River sites. Debbie also found time to use her expertise in a volunteer capacity by helping local communities in the southern U.S. assess and recover from damages caused by natural disasters. She traveled across the country and overseas, teaching management fundamentals and skills to Corps' employees and continues to be a mentor to many within the agency. Debbie's last assignment has been as a Senior Project Manager for the Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers. Within that capacity, she has demonstrated extraordinary leadership and dedication supporting our service men and women at Fort Bragg. Over the past several years she has successfully managed the design and construction for both the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) and the Security Operations Training Facility (SOTF) at that base. Debbie's hard work and dedication to duty is a proud reflection of the Corp of Engineers and her support for our nation's military. Her performance awards serve as a testament to more than three decades of exceptional service and selfless dedication to this country. I congratulate Debbie Willis on her retirement and wish her and her husband Brayton well in future endeavors.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank John Revier for the nearly fifteen years of service he has given me as my Deputy Chief of Staff and Legislative Director. John's last day with my office was yesterday, and today he is beginning a new phase in his career at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) where he will serve in Boise as the Director for State and Regional Government Relations. Not many staffers come along like John Revier. For those who know him, they know he has one of the sharpest legislative minds of any staffer I have ever seen. He can break down any legislative or administrative issue in an instant and begin charting the course of action and implementing it. Many times he does this before people understand what the problem actually is and how it is going to affect them. John has become an expert on so many different issues it's hard to begin counting them. As a Congressional staffer, John accomplished a rare feat. He served in both the Senate District office and Washington, D.C. office for the late Senator Rod Grams of Minnesota. He also served in both my Washington, D.C. office and Boise office. Not many Congressional staffers can say they touched all four bases in the House and Senate. This served to impress upon him how to work well with State and D.C. offices in both the House and Senate. John is very proud of his roots in Minnesota and moreover his hometown of Redwood Falls. However, we are fortunate that he is now an Idaho transplant and will continue to serve Idaho in a new capacity. I want to thank John's wife Jani and their two wonderful children Kate and Sam. They have allowed John to give much of his time to me. Moreover, it's been a pleasure to watch the twins as they are growing up. I wish John the best in his new position, and as I like to jokingly say--``good luck to the INL for taking him away from us''.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to recognize one of America's greatest conservation writers, Rocky Barker of the Idaho Statesman. Rocky has provided unparalleled depth and insight to the readers of Idaho and the United States throughout the 15 years I have been working on CIEDRA and SNRA+. He has hiked throughout these mountains and understands every nuance and aspect of the area and this bill. I want to thank him for covering this story fairly and accurately all of these years. I also want to thank former Blaine County Commissioner Tom Bowman for all of the great help he has provided. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Leader McCarthy and Chairman Bishop for bringing H.R. 1138 to the floor today, which we refer to as SNRA+. I also want to thank Ranking Member Grijalva of the full committee, Chairman McClintock of the subcommittee, and Ranking Member Tsongas of the subcommittee. In 2005, we had the first congressional hearing on the Boulder-White Clouds on what then was a bill called CIEDRA. CIEDRA was a complicated 60-page bill that tried to do a lot of things for a lot of different people. Today, we have a simplified 20-page bill we call SNRA+ that brings management certainty--and that is an important aspect--to the Boulder- White Clouds. It does this by making the determination about which parts of the current wilderness study area will in fact become wilderness and which parts will be released for multiple use. There will be three new wilderness areas totaling 275,665 acres: Hemmingway-Boulders Wilderness, with 67,998 acres; White Clouds Wilderness, with 90,769 acres; and in honor of the late Senator Jim McClure, we have the James A. McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness, with 116,898 acres. The bill also releases wilderness study areas back to multiple use, totaling 153,883 acres. So this not only makes the determination of what is going to be wilderness, it releases the other wilderness study areas for multiple use. It is important to note in this bill that we do not close any motorized roads or trails in this bill. Ranchers with allotments on the SNRA would be allowed to voluntarily retire their grazing permits and be eligible for compensation from a third party. Any retired grazing permits would be permanently closed. There is a provision that nothing in the bill affects the jurisdiction of the State of Idaho with respect to the management of fish and wildlife on public land in the State, including the regulation of hunting, fishing, and trapping within the wilderness areas. Individual parcels of land will be conveyed to Custer and Blaine Counties and rural communities for public purposes, including workforce housing, cemeteries, water towers, and waste transfer sites. As part of this process, grants have been provided to the SNRA for trail maintenance and improvements, including maintenance and improvements of existing motorized trails and two existing trials to provide primitive wheelchair access and for acquiring the land to build a mechanized bike/snowmobile access trail between Redfish Lake and Stanley. Mr. Speaker, this bill meets the needs of today's users and resolves longstanding debates over the management of the Boulder-White Clouds. It will end the discussion of monuments and wilderness in the Boulder- White Clouds, and secures the future for generations of Idahoans who want to continue using and enjoying our beautiful Boulder-White Clouds. Finally, I am proud of the wide array of support we now have for this bill. We have the support of the Idaho Recreation Council, whose members include ATVers, motorcyclists, motorized and nonmotorized boaters, rafters, backcountry pilots, RVers, rock hounds, recreational miners, and snowmobilers in the Idaho State Snowmobile Association. We also have the support of the Sawtooth Society, the Custer County Commissioners, East Fork Ranchers, the Idaho Farm Bureau, the Idaho Cattle Association, Idaho Outfitters and Guides, the Idaho Conservation League, and the Idaho Wilderness Society. This is a broad array of users and conservation groups, and it demonstrates how far we have come with this bill and how widely it is supported. This is an Idaho bill--crafted by Idahoans over the past 15 years--to address some of the most contentious land management issues in one of the most beautiful places on Earth so that we can both use and enjoy it and preserve it for future generations. It is, by any definition, a ``compromise'' by all stakeholders, and I urge my colleagues to pass this bill. Mr. Speaker, I have a list of people I want to thank who helped support this bill over the years and have worked very diligently on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the following people who have worked with me during most or part of the last 15 years. They each played a role in their own way. From the Conservation Community I want to thank Rick Johnson, who has become a true friend and honest broker in this long journey. I also want to thank Tim Mahoney, Marcia Argust, Craig Gehrke, Brad Brooks, Mike Matz, John Gilroy, Linn Kincannon, Lynne Stone, Tom Pomeroy, Bart Koehler, Kai Anderson, Athan Manuel, Chris Wood, Erik Schultz, Dani Mazzotta, and Myke Bybee. I want to thank the Custer County Commissioners Wayne Butts, Lin Hintze, Doyle Lamb and Cliff Hansen. They stood by us throughout and made sure their concerns were heard and taken care of. I want to thank current and former Blaine County Commissioners including Sarah Michael and also Larry Schoen who signed a joint letter with Commissioner Butts of Custer County. Additionally, I need to thank Stanley City Council President Steve Botti and Mayor Herb Mumford and former mayor Hannah Stauts. I want to thank the East Fork Ranchers Wayne and Melody Baker, Gary and Jackie Ingram, Doug, Cheryl and Sarah Baker and Junior and Lura Baker. They stood by me through thick and thin. They were the reason we started this process, and we are going to make sure their livelihoods on the East Fork continue for future generations. At the Sawtooth Society, I need to thank former executive director Bob Hayes, current executive director Gary O'Malley, Hans Carstensen and the current President Paul Hill. From the Idaho Recreation Council who represent motorized users I want to thank Brett Madron, Steve Frisbie and Gary Cvecich. I want to also thank their leader Sandra Mitchell. She is an incredible woman who represents her members very, very well. I want to thank Grant Simonds and Louise and Mike Stark who represent the outfitters and guides. At the Forest Service, I need to thank Ed Cannady for answering the hundreds of questions we asked over the years on uses and map boundaries. He knows the area better than anyone and he cares even more about them. He also took me, my staff and even the Forest Service Chief into the White Clouds on various trips so I could get a better understanding of the area. Ed has become a very good friend throughout this process. Additionally, at the Forest Service I want to thank Kit Mullen, Ruth Monahan, David Stockdale, Brenda Geesey, Bonnie Luckman, Barbara Garcia, Julie Thomas, Jennifer Blake, and Beckie Wagoner. At the BLM, Laurie Sedlmayr and Lara Douglas were a great help throughout this process. I want to thank Erica Rhoad who started working on this bill with Chairman Pombo and is finishing it with Chairman Bishop. She is very good at her job. I want to thank Gregory Kostka at Legislative Counsel. He drafted and redrafted countless versions of this bill over the years. He is a true professional. I want to thank Laurel Sayer who was on my staff and is now working in the conservation community. She attended many meetings and did terrific ground work for me throughout the process. I want to thank Senator Risch who when I spoke to him last year about one last try before a monument proclamation he said ``I think we can do this, Mike.'' The Senator and his staff John Sandy and Darren Parker have done a great job helping us get to the finish line. Finally, I want to thank my staff, Lindsay Slater, Malisah Small, Nathan Greene, Sarah Cannon, James Neill, Emilee Henshaw, Solara Linehan, Billy Valderrama, John Revier and Nikki Wallace. They have each helped in many different ways.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize John Grossenbacher for an exceptional career dedicated to public service. After a distinguished 33-year career in the United States Navy, John became Laboratory Director of the Idaho National Laboratory in 2005. Since becoming Lab Director, John has dedicated himself to making INL a world-class nuclear energy research and development institution. John's tenure as Lab Director will soon come to an end, and while his legacy of leadership will endure for some time, I want to take this moment to say thank you and best wishes for the future. When John Grossenbacher assumed command of the Idaho National Laboratory, he navigated the separation of cleanup work from research activities and the merger of two distinctly different research institutions. Since that time, John has brought a focus and purpose to INL's nuclear energy programs and he has worked with various leaders at the Department of Energy to strengthen our nation's nuclear energy programs and the important facilities in Idaho. Part of John's charge was to bring in the best and brightest to lead INL and the talent that he has brought to Idaho from other labs, industry and universities has strengthened our institution and its impact. John also spearheaded an effort to revitalize INL's facilities. Today what once was a field in Idaho Falls is now a gleaming boulevard with modern and efficient laboratories and offices. Idaho National Laboratory is now a strong, vibrant and respected institution and John Grossenbacher, the Battelle Energy Alliance, the Department of Energy, and the State of Idaho deserve credit for this enormously successful partnership. While John pushed hard for the modernization of INL's nuclear capabilities, he also recognized that INL's unique physical and intellectual infrastructure provided opportunities to greatly expand the lab's work in national and homeland security programs, clean energy initiatives and regional partnerships. Today these INL programs are having a significant impact in their own unique areas and more and more people are looking to work with INL to solve their pressing challenges and get results. As Laboratory Director, John Grossenbacher has steered the lab through numerous challenges and hurdles. In each of these instances, John assesses the situation, he tells you what he thinks, and he does what he thinks is necessary to solve the problem. John's candor, his unmatched integrity and his dedication to his job have ruffled feathers at times but have also brought him scores of supporters and advocates-- and respect. Count me among his supporters. John Grossenbacher has given INL a legacy of leadership and world class capabilities. John still has lots of energy and a desire to serve his country; and I am confident we will see him soon in some other significant capacity after his tenure at INL comes to an end. Speaking for many, many others let me say, Admiral, thank you for a job well done.

Mr. SIMPSON

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

Mr. SIMPSON. I just wanted to explain the situation that we find ourselves in. I am sympathetic with what the gentleman is doing, and when we actually passed language 4 years ago on the wolves in Idaho and Montana, we thought about what happened to the wolves that go into Washington and Oregon and Nevada and Utah and so forth; and we thought about including those in the general delisting. Well, we didn't delist them; the Fish and Wildlife Service did. We found it created several problems. One, those States didn't have State management plans, which is the case today with most of them because we discussed this, or I discussed this issue earlier with the Fish and Wildlife Service. What their plan is and what they would like to do is, currently, they support the language that is in the bill that reinstates their delisting in Wyoming and the Great Lakes. Those States have State management plans that have been approved by Fish and Wildlife Service. If you include the other States that are included in this that don't have the State management plans, then Fish and Wildlife has to oppose what we are doing. I believe that what their goal is, is to get this language passed dealing with Wyoming, the Great Lakes, and then do a wider, rangewide delisting once those States have State management plans that have been adopted by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and this amendment may undermine that. This is something that we need to discuss, I think. I am not opposing the gentleman's amendment, but it is something that I think we need to discuss between now and conference so that we get a plan and to make sure that we are not undermining what I think we all want, and that is the ultimate delisting of the gray wolves that have met the standard.

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for his comments and his help on trying to get us to a resolution on this. I am sure, working together, we can solve this problem eventually. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentlewoman yield?

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

Mr. SIMPSON. I understand what the gentleman is trying to do, and we are on the same page, actually, in ultimately what we want to accomplish with this. The fact is that we appropriate money--the Interior Subcommittee has done it for several years now, and Chairman Calvert has done it in this bill--where, under the FLAME Act, we fund the 10-year average of what it costs to fight wildfires. Unfortunately, I think it is in 8 of the last 10 years we have exceeded that 10-year average. Consequently, when money runs out for fighting wildfires, what the Forest Service does is borrow that money from other accounts. We sometimes complain that the Forest Service doesn't go out and do the thinning that is necessary or do the restoration that is necessary or do the trail maintenance that is necessary. The reason they can't do it is because we have borrowed all the money to fight wildfires, and we are trying to prevent that wildfire borrowing. It is one thing to try to prevent it in a manner that will address the problem and another to just say you just can't borrow, because I would hate to be in the situation where we run up against a fire year where we are going to exceed the 10-year average, we run out of firefighting money, and there is no way to get the resources in order to fund the fires that are occurring in the latter part of the year. This would put pressure on for Congress to probably do something. As you know, there is a challenge with the Budget Committee that we have been working with in trying to address this issue. There is some language, as I understand it, in the Senate Interior bill dealing with the wildfire-fighting costs and how we handle that. There is some language in a bill that will be before us I think this week, the Healthy Forest bill out of the Resources Committee. I think more and more people are starting to realize that we have got to address this problem. There is absolutely no reason that wildfires should not be treated as other natural disasters are--hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and other things. But for some reason, we treat wildfires differently, and that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. So we have had various proposals. I have talked with the administration, with the Department of the Interior, with the Forest Service, and with many other people, trying to come to a resolution on this, and there are many people on both the Republican and the Democratic side of the aisle that are trying to address this. I am hopeful that we are inching ever closer, because you know things don't move as quickly as we like oftentimes in Congress. We are moving, inching closer, I would hope, to finding the solution to this. There are different ideas out there about how to go about doing exactly what the gentleman from California, myself, and the chairman all want to do, and that is quit the fire borrowing so that the Forest Service can do the job that we appropriate the money for them to do. Given that this could create some real problems, I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do, but I would have to oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Acting Chair

Mr. SIMPSON

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I do have some gray wolves in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and other places that we will be happy to ship to you if you like. In fact, we didn't have any in Idaho until Fish and Wildlife Service decided that they were going to reintroduce them in Idaho. When you say the minimal take that it has on cattle, wildlife, and other types of things, there were gray wolves in Idaho that one sheep rancher lost over 300 head of sheep in one night to some wolves. That ends his business, essentially. So it is not a minimal take. If you look at the calf-to-cow ratio of elk and deer in Idaho, the numbers have been down substantially, particularly with elk because, guess what, they like elk, even though we were told that they will go after deer and not elk. Wolves, I guess, like elk better than they do deer. The gentleman says we need to depend on science, not Congress. Congress never delisted a species. We didn't delist the gray wolves in Idaho and Montana. It was the Fish and Wildlife Service using science. When you say the gray wolves have not recovered, where is your science? Where do you get that? Where does that statement come from? Fish and Wildlife Service that has done the investigations said yes, they have. So do we just not trust them? It is you people proposing this amendment that are going against science. We are just trying to make sure that the science is protected, and politics doesn't enter. We appreciate the people of Virginia and the people of Massachusetts trying to make sure that the wolves are healthy in Idaho. I can guarantee you they are. They are not persecuted, as you said. Yes, they are hunted, but anybody who believed we were going to introduce wolves into Idaho or Montana where they hadn't been for a number of years and you weren't going to have to maintain population controls of them was living in a fantasyland. Yes, we do have hunting seasons for wolves, as we do almost all species, but we have to maintain a certain population, and if that population isn't maintained, guess what. Fish and Wildlife takes over, and they go back on the endangered list. So it is not Congress that is making these decisions. It is Fish and Wildlife Service. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I will talk about the three different provisions to this amendment. Let me first talk about the sage-grouse. The sage-grouse provision in this bill is meant to give the Fish and Wildlife Service time to make a determination of whether there ought to be a listing or not. The court has ordered them to make a determination by, I think, September 30. We are trying to give them the time necessary. This is going to affect 11 Western States. It is not going to affect Massachusetts, by the way, but it is going to affect 11 Western States substantially. They have recently put out their resource management plans to the States. There is a period in which the States have a chance to interact with the Federal agency and raise their complaints and so forth about what the problems are with their resource management plans. We are trying to give the Fish and Wildlife Service and the States-- the 11 Western States, by the way, not Massachusetts--the time to come up with a plan so that we don't list this bird. The Fish and Wildlife Service and the States--everybody, essentially--agree we don't want sage-grouse listed. The States have made incredible progress and have made incredible sacrifices. The State of Wyoming has taken, I want to say, millions of acres which have potential resources off the table in order to protect the sage-grouse. So we have taken extraordinary efforts to make sure that we don't list this bird. As far as the wolves are concerned, the fact is that the Fish and Wildlife Service delisted the wolves. It was not us. We didn't want to go against science. We are not going against science. We aren't trying to make any species become extinct. It was the Fish and Wildlife Service in their use of science that delisted the wolves. But guess what. Some people weren't happy with that; so, they took them to court. And now we are in a court case. The same thing happened in Idaho and in Montana. This language doesn't take a species off the endangered species list. Some people think we are trying to delist species, and we are not. We are going back to the decision made by the Fish and Wildlife Service to delist the wolves in the Great Lakes and in the State of Wyoming. I think, if you want to talk about the cost and if you want to complain about what is going on here, you really ought to complain to the plaintiffs who are causing all of this hassle with wolves when the States have done exactly what they were supposed to do. The wolf populations in the Great Lakes particularly have exploded. In Idaho and Montana, they have exploded. In Wyoming, they have exploded. That is why the Fish and Wildlife Service delisted them. This amendment is contrary to every bit of science that there is that deals with endangered species. So I would urge my colleagues to reject this amendment even though it doesn't affect Massachusetts. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I would ask my colleagues just one thing. If you are a rancher and you have had one of these catastrophic wildfires come through--and they come through frequently, unfortunately--and they have wiped out your grazing allotment, what do you tell your cows? What do you tell your sheep? What do they eat for the next several months as you go through the NEPA process? This is giving some flexibility to the Forest Service and to the BLM. I know we can all say: Oh, gee, they can make arrangements and do it otherwise and so forth. This is just a commonsense provision, frankly, and we haven't had any problem with it with the time that it has been in existence. I think it should stay in existence, and that is why the chairman has included it in this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to this amendment. The language is in there for a very good reason. Everybody assumes that the waters are not covered under the Clean Water Act, that being the navigable waters. That is a definition they came up with somehow--I don't know--but that they are unregulated waters. They are not unregulated waters. They are regulated by the States. When the court said, ``Navigable waters is kind of an elusive term, so maybe you ought to redefine it,'' the EPA said, ``Okay, we will just regulate all the waters,'' and that is what they did with this. They have gone way beyond whatever the intent of the Clean Water Act was. I will tell you most resource groups, most agricultural groups, everybody else disagrees with what the EPA has done on this new rule that they are writing. The fact that they have expanded their authority into areas far beyond what was intended in the Clean Water Act, I think, goes beyond the pale and goes beyond what Congress originally intended under the Clean Water Act. We are not talking about leaving waters unregulated; they are just being regulated by the States, and they need to start over in writing this rule.

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