Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 4923, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentlelady's amendment. For years, our subcommittee has criticized the Department of Energy's use of its uranium transfer authorities. The Department's reliance on its uranium transfers to generate funds for cleanup has inappropriately circumvented the appropriations process, has adversely impacted our domestic uranium mining and conversion industry, and is now creating instability of funding at Portsmouth as the market price of uranium continues to drop. The amendment restates current law but sends a message to the Department that it must cease relying on these off-budget measures, and I am pleased to support the gentlewoman's amendment and thank her for it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, I would agree that that is the intent.

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. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I insist on my point of order. Madam Chairwoman, 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 rules states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment imposes additional duties. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?

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. We are happy to accept this amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I continue to reserve my point of order.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.

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

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I guess the first question I would ask is: Why 2008 spending levels? Why not 2006 or 2004 or 2000 or 1998 spending levels, or 1972 or 1900? What we need to do is look at what we are spending now and create savings by deciding what is important and what we ought to be doing and what are those things that we might like to do but we just don't have the money to do, and eliminate those programs or reduce the spending in many of those programs, which is what the Appropriations Committee does every day. When these bills come down here, we have had hearings on the different functions of the Federal Government. And believe me, if you or I were to sit down and discuss what the Federal Government ought to be doing, we would agree on a lot. There would be things we would disagree on that I think are essential and things that I would disagree that you would think were essential. We have 435 Members, represent all corners of this country, and a budget is, by its very nature, a compromise in those different opinions on what ought to be funded and what the proper role of government is. One thing we do know, that we are $17 trillion in debt, and that a portion of that, a portion of the solution, is reducing our discretionary spending. We have been doing that for the last 4 years, and it has been hard work by the Appropriations Committee. We also know that you cannot get this budget to balance, no matter how hard you try, by reducing discretionary spending. It is not large enough, in the overall context of things, to cut it enough to get the budget to balance. You have got to do other things. You have got to have tax reform. You have got to have entitlement reform. We have to look at every area that the government is spending. Right now, I think it is about 28 percent of the total expenditures of the Federal Government are discretionary spending. About 72 percent of them are mandatory. They are on autopilot. They just go on unless we change the underlying law. So we have got to have the courage to address a lot of the things that are driving our debt. I will tell you, you will never balance this budget until you get the economy growing again. That is the reality. When you looked at the late 1990s, when President Clinton and a Republican Congress balanced the budget--or at least that is who was in charge at the time. We can argue about who balanced it. But at that period of time, it wasn't because Republicans were so conservative that they came in and reduced spending and the budget all of a sudden got balanced, or it wasn't that President Clinton came in and just raised taxes and everything and all of sudden we had a ton more revenue. What it was is that the economy grew, and I mean it boomed. We had the dot-com bubble, if you remember, where we had more money coming in to the Federal Government than we knew what to do with. In fact, when we talked about paying off the national debt at the time, I actually heard debates from leading economists that said we could pay off the national debt too fast--we had that much money coming in-- because the debts wouldn't come due when all the money was coming in. But then, of course, that turned around when the dot-com bubble burst, and since that, then 9/11 happened and a whole bunch of other things and two wars and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The reality is that you can't balance this budget simply by reducing discretionary spending, but I will tell you that the Appropriations Committee has been doing their job. They have been looking at the proper role of Federal Government, what our responsibilities are, what we must fund, and what we should fund, and also at what we would like to do and sometimes just don't have the money to do. So those are the difficult decisions we have been making, and we continue to do that. This type of approach, I think, that would take these accounts, only some accounts, back to the 1998 levels, I think, would hurt our economy. And, in fact, one of the big parts of our account is the Army Corps of Engineers, which does water infrastructure, locks, dams, harbor maintenance, all of that kind of stuff which is vital to our economy. I don't know that you want to go in and cut that by 7.8 percent. The President proposed a $1 billion cut in it, a huge cut in it. We restored it because we, both Republicans and Democrats, realize how important the water infrastructure of this country is. Those are the decisions that we make on the Appropriations Committee, a committee that I am proud to serve on, that has made, over the last several years, some very, very difficult decisions, and will continue to do so because, just like every Member of this Congress, we realize we can't continue racking up the debt as we have over the last several decades. So I appreciate that, and I would oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion.