Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, February been dedicated as the National Children's Dental Health Month. This is such an important cause and we are glad to bring awareness to promote good oral health for children. Tooth decay is the number one chronic infectious disease among children in the U.S. The impact of not treating decay can lead to other bad outcomes beyond just oral health. The Congressional Oral Health Caucus is pleased to support National Children's Dental Health Month and any activities taking place throughout the month of February. Give Kids A Smile, which is sponsored by the ADA Foundation, is at the center of National Children's Dental Health Month. Give Kids a Smile day is such an important event for all children and dentists throughout the country. Because of this program, the ADA Foundation is able to provide assistance to more than 6,000 dentists and 57,000 dental team members, and other volunteers who proudly give their time and effort to make a difference in the health of children. Since this program has started, volunteers have graciously provided services to over 5.5 million kids across the country, and to all 50 states as well. They have truly made a huge impact in their communities and improved the oral health of so many children. Throughout National Children's Dental Health Month, dentists and dental team members across the country will be providing oral health services for children in need, and this will continue throughout the year. These services will include oral health education, screenings, preventive care and restorative services. Some will provide this in their own dental practice, others will go right into schools and the community to reach the kids that need it most. There are also many major events at dental hygiene schools where hundreds of kid may receive oral health services. Continued public awareness on this issue is so critical. On behalf of the Congressional Oral Health Caucus, I would once again like to state our full endorsement for the month, and push for continued care for good oral health of children.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I rise to call your attention to a notable retirement taking place at the nation's lead nuclear energy research and development laboratory. For the last thirty-one years, Cal Ozaki has served in leadership roles at the Argonne-West/Idaho National Laboratory facilities in Eastern Idaho. As director of INL's Campus Development office, Cal played a principal role in developing the laboratory's campus in Idaho Falls. As laboratory liaison to the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy in Washington, D.C., Cal was a one-stop office for the agency to access INL Facilities and capabilities. As director of INL's Facility Operations and Maintenance office, Cal was responsible for 2 million square feet of laboratory space, support facilities and infrastructure. Finally, in his current position, manager of Public Affairs & Strategic Initiatives, Cal has helped educate his fellow citizens about INL's important clean energy and national security work. But today's recognition cannot just focus on Cal's professional accomplishments. I also would like to mention his decades of remarkable public service. Cal currently serves as an inaugural trustee at the new College of Eastern Idaho. He is a past chairman for the Idaho Falls Chamber of Commerce and served on the board of directors for the United Way and Eastern Idaho Economic Development Council. And, for the last 25 years, Cal has participated in community delegation exchanges with the Idaho Falls-Tokai Mura, Japan, Sister City program. With a smile on his face and a hearty laugh in the air, Cal has made a significant contribution to the quality of life for all of us in Eastern Idaho. Cal and his wife Cindy are pillars in the Idaho Falls community and their legacy of service and giving back is greatly appreciated. It is my great honor to congratulate Cal on a notable career, thank him for his public service, and wish him and his wife, Cindy, all the best in retirement.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this conference report and commend Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Granger and their staffs for the hard work that goes into this. Not many people understand the important and long time that is spent by the staff in trying to put these bills together. I could sit here until the cows come home, which might be shorter than we think if we run out of cows and get rid of those. But anyway, I could talk about the provisions in this bill that are important to Idaho, whether it is the PILT payment, the sage-grouse listing, or other provisions, but this is an important bill. What I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention is a very important section of this conference agreement, section 7. It is with sadness that this section is included. It honors the late Stephen Sepp. Sepp, as he was known to his friends and colleagues, spent the last 8 years as a senior adviser to the House Appropriations Committee. He was instrumental in the enactment of division O of the 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act. I know this division well because it was the fire borrowing and forest management reforms I advocated and worked on for several years. Sepp steadfastly worked with Members, the committees, the administration, and staff over several years to resolve the problems that fire borrowing caused for the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior. More than that, he helped solve a problem that threatens the lives and property of people in the West and, in fact, all over the country. His strength, his courage, his sense of humor, and his vast knowledge of the Federal budget law and rules made him indispensable, especially to his colleagues. Without Sepp, division O would never have passed. Along with my fellow colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, the chairwoman, and the ranking member--and I know our former colleague had a hand in this, Rodney Frelinghuysen--we would all like to express our gratitude to his wife, Diem, and children, Ashley and Matthew, for allowing him the many, many hours he spent with us making Congress and the Nation better. Our thoughts are with him today as we pass this. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Let's put the 2019 appropriations behind us so that we can move on to 2020.

Mr. SIMPSON

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, first, I would like to assure my colleague that I am not opposed to the project she is trying to fund. I am aware of the project and its importance to Puerto Rico. In a different context, I could support it. In fact, as the previous chairman of the Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, I have worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to provide funding for ecosystem restoration projects well above the annual budget request. What I am opposed to is funding the ecosystem restoration projects in a disaster supplemental appropriations bill. A disaster supplemental is not simply a chance to clear the Army Corps of Engineers' construction backlog. That is what the annual appropriations process is for. A disaster supplemental is intended to protect storm-ravaged areas against future storms and to reduce Federal liabilities from future storms. That is why the underlying bill is consistent with previous disaster bills and limits funding to projects that provide real benefits for that type, namely, flood and storm damage reduction projects. Additionally, I would be remiss if I did not point out that the particular project of interest would not even be eligible for funding under this amendment. The underlying bill restricts construction funding to areas impacted by various storms, none of which impacted Puerto Rico. We should not raise hopes knowing the project isn't even eligible. While I am happy to offer to work with my colleague and try to support the project through the regular appropriations process, which I am sure the new chairwoman, Chairwoman Kaptur, is willing to do also, I must oppose funding in a disaster supplemental appropriations bill for ecosystem restoration projects. Madam Chair, therefore, I oppose the amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I would just say, again, it doesn't really matter whether you vote for this amendment or not. It doesn't really do anything because the project is not eligible. What we are doing by adopting this amendment is raising false hopes, knowing that the project isn't even eligible. I encourage the gentlewoman to withdraw the amendment and work with us to see if we can fund this through the regular appropriations process. Madam Chair, I encourage a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, first of all, there are no funds in this bill to expand or build detention facilities. There are no funds in this bill to expand or build detention facilities. There are no funds in this bill to expand or build detention facilities. But let me get this straight, see if I have got it straight. We don't want to enhance border security to stop people from coming across the border illegally. We have got immigration courts being overrun. And we don't want to have the necessary facilities to keep those people because they can't get into the immigration courts right away. What exactly do you want us to do? Just because Congress says, Hey, I am only giving you funding for 40,000 people. What if 100,000 people come across the border illegally? What do you expect us to do? You have no answers, except: No, no, don't detain them. Just let them go? I know how we can reduce the cost of prisons in this country. Let's only appropriate enough money to house 100,000 prisoners. Regardless of the crimes they have committed or anything else, I am only going to fund 100,000. Above that, just let them go. I don't get it. I don't know where the heck we are coming from on this. All this does is put another poison pill in this bill that will make it much more difficult to pass and will ensure that the Senate will never take it up, which I doubt they will anyway. To me, I just don't understand what the heck is going on here. We all know what the answer to this shutdown is. Every one of us, in our heart, knows what the answer is. It is a compromise. And a compromise means both sides give some and get some. That is the nature of a compromise. That means there are going to be parts in it that I don't like, but I am going to end up voting for it. That means there are going to be parts in it you don't like, but you need to end up voting for it. Anyway, we need to get back to opening this government and quit putting these poison pills and this nonsense in this bill. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I would just say that the argument I just heard is kind of ridiculous. If what we are going to do is list everything this bill, these funds, can't be spent on, I don't think we should be able to give any of this money to NASA to put a man on the moon. We could list everything that the Federal Government does except these things and say we have to specify it in the bill. No. This is a poison pill. Again, I didn't hear an answer. What do you expect to do when these people come across the border illegally? What if they are waiting for hearings and stuff and the courts are just being flooded? There are no answers. You have no answers. This is a bad amendment. Just trying to make a statement. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, my good friend, for yielding and for the job that he has done as chairman of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee in the past. Let me begin by saying that we all want the government to reopen--all on this side, all on that side. We don't agree with this shutdown. I also want strong border security, and I know you all want strong border security. We disagree about how to get there. These can both be accomplished with a little word called ``compromise.'' I heard everybody throw around that word quite a bit and then go back to their hardened positions and forget what a compromise is. So I looked it up in the dictionary, because I thought maybe I was mistaken about what a compromise is. The dictionary says it is ``a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, et cetera, by reciprocal modification of demands.'' We can't call for a compromise and then go back to our hardened positions and say: ``I want everything I want, and you get nothing you want.'' This bill is not a compromise. If you would bring up the compromised conference bills between the House and the Senate, you would have my support, but that is not what this is. This is the Senate bill. We have a conference bill between the House and the Senate that was prepared to be brought to the floor last year and never made it. Bring up that conference report. Unfortunately, by adopting just the Senate bill, we might not even have a House Chamber. Why have a House Chamber if all we are going to do is adopt whatever the Senate decides to do? This bill, as has been mentioned, reduces funding by $160 million from the House bill for Indian Country, and has a: $21 million reduction from the House bill for hazardous fuels reduction that prevents catastrophic wildfires; $23 million reduction from the House bill in sage-grouse funding, which is vital to keeping the species off of the endangered species list; $27 million reduction from the House bill for national parks funding, which is needed to solve the maintenance backlog; and $12 million reduction from the House bill for the Water Infrastructure Finance Act, which is critical to financing community water projects, given the enormous backlog that exists for our water system. The bill also leaves out vital report language directives from the House bill that were carefully crafted to represent House Members' priorities, both Republican and Democratic priorities. They are being totally ignored with this legislation. In the end, we all know that this isn't going anywhere. This is just a game. And I have got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am tired; I am tired of the finger-pointing, the name-calling, and the games we are playing. I know that on the Democratic side of the aisle you are getting phone calls by the hundreds, if not thousands, from your constituents who say: Don't give in to Trump; don't give in to any border security wall or fencing or whatever. We are getting the same phone calls on our side, who say: Don't you vote for anything that doesn't have Trump's border wall in it. The uncomfortable thing is that, occasionally, as elected Representatives, we are called upon to lead, regardless of the consequences; and I have to say, we have all failed, all of us, and for that, I am very, very sorry.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I have always found this debate interesting, but we know what this is all about. This is all about the negotiations on border security. What I found interesting is to listen to everybody talk about the President not being willing to negotiate, not being willing to compromise. Yet, he has offered many of the things that the Democrats say that they want in any border security bill. A negotiation ends when both parties can say they got something that they want. Yet, the Democratic leaders in the House and the Senate continue to say ``no'' to anything the President wants. He wants a border wall for a part of border security, and they continue to say ``no.'' That is no kind of negotiation, and we know that is what has led us here today. Every one of us wants government reopened, but we know the games that are being played here. I will tell you, the problem with what is on the floor today is that we are bringing up the Senate bills that completely ignore the priorities of House Republicans and House Democrats in the appropriations process. Most of these bills have been conferenced. Why bring up just the Senate bill and not the conference report that was done that recognizes both Senate and House priorities? Let me give you one example. The House T-HUD bill carried a bipartisan provision that raises the length limit for specific vehicles used to transport sugar beets, and only on specific routes used to ship sugar beets between Oregon and Idaho for processing. It is a provision that is supported by the Oregon Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the State of Idaho. It is very limited--only sugar beets on non-interstate highways--and everybody agrees with it. Mr. Speaker, I have a letter here from two Senators, one from Idaho and one from Oregon, who support this provision, and I will include it in the Record. U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, September 11, 2018. Hon. Richard Shelby, Chairman, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC. Hon. Susan Collins, Chairwoman, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, Washington, DC. Hon. Patrick Leahy, Vice Chair, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Washington,

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, this provision is noncontroversial. It is in the House bill. Guess what? It is not in the Senate bill. That means, if you adopt the Senate bill, you have dropped out this provision and you have dropped out many other provisions that are a priority for both House Republicans and House Democrats. Why would we turn over everything to the Senate and their priorities? You all know how this works. When we write a bill, we emphasize House priorities and we downplay Senate priorities. They do the same thing on their side, emphasizing Senate priorities and downplaying House priorities. Then we go to conference, and we work it out and find a compromise. But we are not doing that with this bill. I will tell you, if you bring up the conferenced bills, the bills that have been conferenced last year between the House and the Senate, you will have my support. I will vote for them, but not for a bill that just emphasizes the Senate priorities and ignores the work of the House and the House Appropriations Committee.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to call attention to an outstanding rural hospital in Southeast Idaho. The hospital I am referring to is the Bear Lake Memorial Hospital. This hospital was honored with two prestigious awards in 2018 by the National Rural Health Association. They were awarded Top 20 honors as a Critical Access Hospital and for Best Practices in Quality among rural hospitals. Bear Lake Memorial Hospital is located in Montpelier, Idaho, in the Southeast corner of Idaho. Montpelier is the biggest town in Bear Lake County. It is a small town with a population of less than 3,000, yet manages to provide some of the best rural healthcare in our nation. The National Rural Health Association compared Bear Lake Memorial Hospital with over 1300 other critical access hospitals. Bear Lake Memorial Hospital scored in the 99.6th percentile overall, making them one of the Top 20 Critical Access Hospitals in the country. Bear Lake Memorial Hospital was also awarded Top 20 Best Practices in Quality among the 1300 rural hospitals surveyed. This award is based on a hospital's exceptional performance across five categories of Hospital Compare Process of Care measures. Bear Lake Memorial Hospital is being recognized by National Rural Health Association for the outstanding quality of service and care they deliver to their patients and community.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Martin Epeldi, better known as Marty, for his 23 years of service as a United States Postal Service letter carrier. Marty was born and raised in our state's capital city, Boise, Idaho. Martin graduated from Boise High School and then Boise State University. He is also a proud member of Boise's Basque community. For over two decades, Marty has served our community as a letter carrier, delivering the mail `neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds' and Marty is no exception. Marty has delivered mail to my Boise office for almost twenty years. In addition to providing trusted and timely delivery of the daily mail, he is a welcome and celebrated visitor to my Boise office. Members of my staff always look forward to his friendly conversation and entertaining stories. Marty's contagious smile and laugh and his outgoing disposition will certainly be missed by the residents and business people of downtown Boise. It is an honor to congratulate Martin Epeldi on his remarkable dedication and service to the citizens of Boise. I wish him an enjoyment retirement and much pleasure spending time with family and friends.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding set of twins from Idaho: Boyd Frank Henderson and Ralph Jay Henderson, who recently celebrated their 100th birthday. Those 100 years were marked by dedicated service to their country, church, and community, and I wish to recognize them for their outstanding contributions to Idaho. As young men in 1941, the Henderson twins joined the United Sates Army. That same year, they left their wives and entered World War II in the 183 Field Artillery Battalion, fighting in North Africa and Europe. After being injured in combat, Boyd was awarded the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star for heroic achievement. Ralph showed extreme bravery and was awarded the Silver Star. Both learned and grew from their experiences in the United States Army and utilized these talents and skills throughout their lives. Before joining the Army, the Henderson twins enjoyed many of life's accomplishments together. They both graduated from Pocatello High School in 1936, and in 1937 participated in Boy Scout and an Eagle Scout Courts of Honor. In 1941, both were married: Boyd to Ethel Chilton and Ralph to Lena Rawlins. At the end of their tours of duty, the Henderson twills returned to Pocatello, Idaho. Boyd returned to his wife Ethel and had nine children. Ralph returned to his wife Lena and had five children. After Lena's passing, Ralph married LeNore Thompson Smedley in 2002. Boyd and Ralph opened Henderson Lumber shortly after returning from the war. The twins contributed substantially to building the community of Pocatello. They also contributed politically and served in various leadership positions in the community. Boyd served as a Bannock County Commissioner for six years. Boyd and Ralph were also both active in their church. In 1927, they were baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Both held unpaid, lay clergy positions that helped countless members of their church, and both were called to serve as Bishops in their geographical area. Boyd also held the position of Stake President and Regional Representative, as well as serving for three years in Australia as a Mission President. Few people live to be 100 years old and even fewer can share that day with a twin. Boyd and Ralph Henderson accomplished that on September 6, 2018. They shared their 100th birthday with each other, their families, and their friends. The 100 years that Boyd and Ralph have lived have helped shape Pocatello into the place it is today. Unfortunately, Ralph passed away on November 5, 2018. He will be missed by many, but undoubtedly none more than his twin brother, Boyd. The family, friends, and community who have had the privilege of knowing Boyd and Ralph Henderson are proud of the lives they both have lived.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. The gentleman from Virginia has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Arkansas has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I along with my colleagues Senator Mike Crapo and James Risch, I rise today to call attention to an important event taking place today at the U.S. Department of Energy's, DOE, 890- square mile site in Idaho. Today, Idaho National Laboratory, INL, personnel ran the first experiments in the Transient Reactor Test, TREAT, facility in nearly a quarter century. Idaho National Laboratory is our nation's lead nuclear energy research, development and demonstration laboratory, the place where 52 original nuclear reactors were constructed and demonstrated. One of those reactors was the TREAT facility, which operated from 1959 to 1994, and remained fully fueled while on standby status. Transient testing focuses upon testing nuclear fuel under accident conditions. TREAT is one of the most capable and flexible transient test reactors in the world. Following the accident at the Fukushima-Daiichi Power Plant in Japan seven years ago, Congress directed the DOE to develop reactor fuels that could better withstand accident conditions. During TREAT's 35 operating years, the reactor performed 6,604 reactor startups and 2,884 transient irradiations. Given this history, it made more sense to restart the facility than build a new reactor. That decision paid off when, on Aug. 31, 2017, the Resumption of Transient Testing Program was completed more than one year ahead of schedule and approximately $17 million under budget. This highly successful restart at the TREAT facility was recognized in August, when a joint DOE-INL team won the Secretary of Energy Award. This award recognizes DOE employees or contractors who accomplish significant achievements. It is the highest non-monetary internal recognition that can be achieved at the DOE. U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry highlighted the TREAT restart team's effort and efficiency, and recognized the importance of the facility to nuclear energy scientists and engineers as they work to develop advanced nuclear fuels and reactor technologies. Congratulations, INL and DOE, on the TREAT restart and for bringing back online an important national asset in the effort to develop the advanced nuclear reactors so vital to our economy, environment and national security.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I will include my complete remarks for the Record. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say how thankful I am for Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Lowey for their leadership on this bill, and for all the subcommittee chairmen and ranking members on both sides of the rotunda for the work they have done to complete this bill. Mostly, I want to thank the staff that the chairman has already thanked for the hard work they did. Most people don't realize that, when we are at home in August, they are here working hard every day, sometimes all night long, trying to come up with a compromise that maintains our House priorities. I think they have done a good job in this. It meets the NDAA requirements that were passed in the House and the Senate, and it meets the requirements of the Nuclear Posture Review and other things. So they have done a great job protecting House priorities. We didn't get everything we wanted in this bill. The Senate didn't get everything they wanted in the bill either. That is kind of the nature of a compromise. But this is a good bill. It should pass. It is our first step in restoring regular order, and I want to thank everybody who has been involved in creating this. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report for H.R. 5895, the fiscal year 2019 Energy and Water Development, Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act. Before I get into the details of the bill, I would like to thank several Members involved in this effort--my Ranking Member, Marcy Kaptur; our Senate partners, Lamar Alexander and Dianne Feinstein; our full committee leadership, Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Lowey here in the House and Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Leahy in the Senate; and all the conferees who participated in producing this final product. I'd like to assure my colleagues that the House conferees on this minibus worked diligently to ensure that House priorities were well represented in the final package. The Energy and Water bill totals $44.64 billion, which is $1.44 billion more than last year's level. Increases over last year are targeted to those areas where they are needed most to provide for our national defense and to support our nation's infrastructure.5895, the Fiscal Year 2019 ilitary Construction The conference report reflects the House priority of strong support for the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons security programs, including Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors. It aligns with the Administration's Nuclear Posture Review, or NPR, which calls for maintaining a strong nuclear deterrent to meet the challenges of a changing security environment, revitalizing the nuclear complex, and supporting effective arms control and nonproliferation efforts. Since the NPR was released after the budget submission, the House worked hard to ensure funds above the budget request were included for critical NPR recommendations. Overall funding for the national nuclear security programs totals $15.23 billion--an increase of $560 million above the fiscal year 2018 enacted level and $138 million above the President's budget request. Within this amount, $65 million is provided to support the NPR's recommendation to pursue a lower-yield ballistic missile warhead to enhance the credibility of our nuclear deterrent and $1.07 billion is provided to address the growing backlog of deferred maintenance and to recapitalize aging nuclear weapons infrastructure. Also within this amount, the budget request for Naval Reactors is fully funded, an increase of $169 million above fiscal year 2018, to support the Navy's nuclear propulsion program. The conference report provides funding increases across the Department of Energy to defend against cyber attacks and to strengthen energy sector cybersecurity preparedness, response, and recovery. Addressing our nation's critical infrastructure needs is another House priority strongly reflected in the final conference report. Funding for the Army Corps of Engineers totals $7 billion. Harbor Maintenance activities are funded at $1.55 billion, which is $150 million more than fiscal year 2018. The level exceeds the WRDA annual target and represents 92 percent of estimated revenues compared to the fiscal year 2019 target of 77 percent established in WRRDA 2014. Within the Bureau of Reclamation, the bill provides an additional $343 million for water conservation and delivery projects, including $134 million for water storage projects authorized under the WIIN Act and $99 million for rural water projects. The bill advances an ``all-of-the-above'' energy strategy that will support a strong national economy well into the future. Specifically, the bill promotes innovation and growth in nuclear energy, funding research, development, and demonstration activities at $1.2 billion, an increase of $108 million above fiscal year 2018. Research to advance coal, natural gas, oil, and other fossil energy technologies is funded at $740 million. Basic science research funding totals $6.6 billion, $325 million more than last year. Increased funding will advance U.S. leadership in high performance computing and improve science research infrastructure at our national laboratories. Finally, the conference report registers the grave concerns of many Members of Congress over judicial interference in the operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System hydroelectric dams. All in all, this appropriations package, including the Energy and Water division, is a strong bill that incorporates many high priorities of the House. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 3:30 p.m. on Monday, September 10, 2018; and, further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet on Wednesday, September 12, 2018, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of the Interior and Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. I applaud Chairman Calvert and his staff, along with Ranking Member McCollum and her team for crafting a responsible bill. As a former chairman of this subcommittee, I know firsthand the challenges assembling this bill presents. There are diverse views across the United States on how our public lands and environment should be managed. For those of us that represent states with high percentages of federal lands--more than 60 percent in Idaho--you would be hard pressed to find a more important bill in Congress. The bill before us today addresses the most important issues in Idaho. Perhaps most pressing is the need to adequately fund wildfire suppression and prevention. If you look at the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) outlook map, it indicates that almost my entire district is at an increased fire threat during July and August. Sadly, this has been the new normal. The bill under consideration today addresses this by fully funding the 10 year average for wildfire suppression and provides an additional $500 million to combat this growing threat. It also provides increased funding for prevention efforts. Next year, relief is on the way in the form of my Wildfire Disaster Funding Act, which will treat catastrophic fires like natural disasters. This will set us on a path to reduce the threat of wildfires and allow land managers to do the prevention work without their resources being stolen to fight fires. The bill also contains many other important provisions: Provides Funding for PILT that is vitally important in Idaho for rural counties that depend on it. Establishes certainty for biomass which is critical to the landscape of our forests. Rolls back regulations like the previous Administration's ``Waters of the United States'' rule. Provides increased funding to address the $12 billion backlog in to our National Parks. Provides $2.6 billion for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Loan fund, which states and localities use for water infrastructure projects. The list goes on, but the underlying point is the Interior and Environment bill is a critical piece of legislation, especially for those of us in western states. I want to reiterate my appreciation to Chairman Calvert and his staff of Dave LesStrang, Darren Benjamin, Betsy Bina, Jaclyn Kilroy, Kristin Richmond, Ian Foley, and Mac Cloyes. Their late nights and early mornings have produced a product that members of Congress, particularly in the west, should be proud of. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, for personal reasons, I was unable to vote yesterday, July 17, 2018. Had I been present, I would have voted: Yea on Roll Call No. 331; Yea on Roll Call No. 332; Yea on Roll Call No. 333; Yea on Roll Call No. 334; and Yea on Roll Call No. 335.