Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON

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

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for raising these concerns about how the Forest Service is managing its roads and trails in Michigan. I will tell you that the same concerns exist around the country, in Idaho as well as other States, too. Chairman Calvert and the committee would be happy to work with you on this issue as the Interior bill moves through the process. If there is no objection, we would be willing to accept the amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 2028.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. 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 appreciate the remarks that the gentleman just made. It would have been helpful, if he was so concerned about the drought--which I am sure you are. I don't mean to imply that you are not. But it would have been helpful if you would have actually voted for some of the amendments that might have addressed the problem, like the McClintock amendment that just passed that said you can't take water and buy it and flush fish down the river when people need it. The reality is this motion to recommit will not help with the drought conditions in California at all. There are only two things that will help relieve the drought. One of them we have no control over. It comes from a higher power. It is called rain and snow. We can't legislate that. The second thing is that maybe we could start listening to some of the people who have been advocating to address this problem for several years--Congressman Nunes, Congressman Calvert, Congressman Valadao, Congressman McCarthy, Congressman McClintock, Congressman LaMalfa. They have made real proposals that would require the operation of the complex California water system so that it considered the lives and jobs and families of people before it did fish. Mr. Speaker, this amendment doesn't do anything. It won't help the drought conditions in California. We have already put money into the grid issue to try to make sure that we secure the grid so that it is not subject to attacks. The other thing I would say is that this has been a balanced bill. We have got over 60 amendments we have considered from Members on both sides of the aisle. We have adopted many of them, and some of them have been rejected. It has been an open process. It has been the way Speaker Boehner has wanted the appropriations process to work so that all Members could work their will on their appropriations bills. I don't need to go through the bill. What I would tell you is to reject this MTR and to support the underlying bill. Be happy, smile, and enjoy next week. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I 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 appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment gives affirmative direction in effect. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chair, I also have to oppose this amendment. While I appreciate the gentleman's position on the ATVM program, the elimination would hurt Federal oversight of the program of more than $8 billion in loans already given. The committee recommendations include the $6 million as a reasonable amount to provide oversight and direction to the existing loan portfolio and no more. I don't think the gentleman wants to actually eliminate the oversight of the loans that are out there that are going to be running for the next 30 years. I must oppose the gentleman's amendment in order to ensure that there is proper oversight of taxpayer funding.

Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations 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. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SIMPSON. This is the amendment that has been reported.

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. SIMPSON

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Does the gentleman have time remaining?

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. 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. 2028.