Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, we have now seen amendments to put more money into the EERE and amendments to take money out of the EERE and now an amendment to eliminate the EERE. I have to rise in opposition to this amendment. This bill supports an all-of-the-above approach to utilize our abundant natural resources and advance energy in new technologies to increase our energy security. A part of that approach includes strategic investments in the EERE accounts. I agree that there are many activities in this program that could use a closer and more critical look. That is why this bill focuses funding on basic technological research and manufacturing advancements in this account. The bill reduces the EERE by $266 million over last year's level, but this amendment, I believe, would go too far. I must support the strategic balance of this bill. Therefore, I must oppose my colleague's amendment, and I urge others to do the same. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

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

Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate my friend's leadership on the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act and can confirm that this bill funds the establishment of at least one new center. I look forward to working with you on these issues in the future and as this bill moves forward.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. Hydraulic fracking has been going on for 40 or 50 years in this country, by the way. This year the committee continues its responsibility to reduce government spending, and we have done that. We have worked tirelessly to that end. The bill already cuts energy efficiency and renewable energy programs by $266 million below last year's request and $1.1 billion below the budget request. The fossil and nuclear energy programs receive targeted increases of $34 million and $23 million, respectively. The increase to fossil energy targets advanced research that will increase the efficiency of power plant turbines and conserve water usage during electricity generation. The increase to nuclear energy will support security upgrades for the Idaho National Laboratory to protect the Nation's nuclear energy materials and a range of nuclear security programs at the NNSA, Homeland Security, and other Federal agencies. Although my colleague asserts the amendment would keep the government from intervening in the private markets, these applied energy programs are strategic investments for our energy independence. I appreciate my colleague's desire to reduce the size of the government. I agree with him. This amendment goes too far by eliminating the strategic investments we need to make for our future. I therefore oppose this amendment and ask my colleagues to oppose it also. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) which was signed into law on April 10, 1979. For the past 36 years, the TRA has facilitated a partnership committed to increasing trade and investment as well as regional security. The TRA serves as the cornerstone of the relationship between the United States and Taiwan that has been of mutual economic, cultural, and strategic benefit. Taiwan has been an important contributor towards economic and political security in Asia for decades, and continues to be a major and invaluable trading partner with the United States. Taiwan's citizens continue to benefit from self-governance and free-elections, and the open society and democracy of Taiwan allows for innovation and growth that puts it on competitive footing with the largest and most powerful countries in the world. In celebrating another milestone in the relationship between the United States and the people of Taiwan, the 36th anniversary of Taiwan Relations Act (TRA); we not only say thank you, but make certain those provisions of the TRA continue to provide the security necessary to maintain the strength and character of one of our closest allies and economic partners. I am honored to recognize Taiwan on the 36th Anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act, and I am grateful for our longstanding friendship and our shared commitment to promoting enduring stability and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the spirited debate we have had, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I agree with many of the comments made by my colleague from Kentucky and the people that have spoken during his time. The problem is I don't see a path to victory with what they are looking at. What they want to do will not result in defunding the President's actions, because there is no funding in this bill for the President's actions. There is no funding in this bill for the President's actions. Everybody knows that, don't we? What it will lead to is a closedown of the Department of Homeland Security. And that is not a victory. That is dangerous. Mr. Speaker, there is a difference of opinion between the Republicans and Democrats and between the administration and Congress as to whether the actions that the President made were constitutional or not. I have actually voted for something in this body several years ago that I thought was perfectly legal and perfectly constitutional. The court later found out it was unconstitutional and told us it was unconstitutional. That is why you have a court. When there are differences of opinion as to what is constitutional and what is not constitutional, a court makes that determination. It has happened since the Founders who wrote our Constitution disagreed about what they had written--Marbury v. Madison. It was up to the courts to make the determination of what the Constitution said. As for voting for this hurting our case--it is not our case; it is the Attorney General's case of the States--that is before the courts currently, if this voting to defund Homeland Security that doesn't have any funding for the President's action hurts our case, then I would say that any law that passes Congress can't be declared unconstitutional because we all voted for it. That is not reality. Again, let the courts do their job. Now, it is true that a majority in this Congress and in the Senate voted to defund the President's actions, but because of the Senate rules, it didn't pass. We didn't even get to go to conference because of the Senate rules. Some people suggest maybe we ought to change the Senate rules. We ought to insist that the Senate change their rules. For the last 4, 8 years, I was kind of glad the Senate rules were the way they were. They prevented what I believed to be a lot of bad stuff from coming over here from the Senate. I don't know that I would go that way because, remember, at some point in time in history--I hope it is not soon--but at some point in time in history, my party is going to be in the minority over there, and it is going to be nice to be able to control some of the agenda. Let's remember, the underlying bill is a darn good bill, and we need to pass it, and we need to pass it for the security of the American people, and for the employees that work at the Department of Homeland Security, so that those that are considered essential don't have to go to work without pay. That is irresponsible. That is us not doing our job. I will fight with anyone, and I will stand on their side--as long as they can show me a path to potential victory. Let's get this bill passed. It is a good bill. I encourage all my colleagues to vote for this. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the motion.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today with a motion that will move us forward to ensure the security of our Nation by keeping the Department of Homeland Security funded until the end of the fiscal year. Funding for the Department of Homeland Security will expire this week. To allow a shutdown of these critical functions would be an abdication of one of our primary duties as Members of Congress. It is the constitutional duty of this body to provide funding for the Federal Government, all of the Federal Government, and this should be without the threat of shutdowns or the lurching uncertainty of continuing resolutions. The House acted in January to fund DHS for the year and has extended short-term funding several times in order to maintain the critical security activities that keep our Nation safe. The Senate has now done all it can do, given their unique procedural constraints. It is clear that the legislation before us, while not exactly what the House wanted, is the only path forward to avoid a potentially devastating shutdown and to provide stable, continuous funding for the agencies and programs tasked with defending the home turf. Let us remember that the underlying legislation--and this is important--is a great bill. The security of our homeland is one of our highest priorities, and this bill provides $39.7 billion for that purpose. It will assure that we can defend our Nation against threats of terrorism and that the men and women on our front line remain well- equipped and trained. We are now nearly halfway into the fiscal year, and it is imperative that we get this bill enacted. At the same time, Congress must continue to fight the President's executive actions on immigration that I do not support and the American people do not support. We must continue this vote, but we must also allow funding for critical security functions to move forward. These two priorities are not mutually exclusive. We can and should do both. For now, the President's executive actions have been stopped in court. This is where we must focus our efforts and continue to battle against this unconstitutional overreach. Mr. Speaker, it is high time to act to provide responsible, adequate funding for the Department of Homeland Security to protect the people who elected us and to defend this great Nation. I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged motion under clause 4 of rule XXII at the desk.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 240) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. We have no other speakers, and we are prepared to close.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Mr. Anthony Chung- Yi Ho. Mr. Ho has served with distinction as Deputy Director of the Congressional Liaison Division of the Taiwan Economic and Cultural Representative Office. His leadership and expertise have been invaluable in working with me and my staff and many other congressional offices on Capitol Hill. I want to congratulate him for moving back to his home country of Taiwan, and thank him for his many years of service. Mr. Ho has worked closely with my staff for many years on many matters related to U.S.-Taiwan relations. Thanks in large part to his efforts, my staff and I have engaged many times on matters important to Taiwanese-American interests and our shared values of democracy, freedom and human rights. In addition, over the years the State of Idaho has maintained a fruitful relationship with the Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Under Mr. Ho's guidance, our office has cultivated a valuable relationship with the Taiwan Foreign Ministry, which has benefited both Idaho and Taiwan greatly. Taiwan is one of Idaho's top trading partners, and many sectors of the Idaho economy benefit from the strong ties between the U.S. and Taiwan. Mr. Ho has fully dedicated himself to strengthening this relationship, and my constituents and I are very grateful for his efforts in this regard. I commend Anthony Ho for his dedication to the enduring friendship and respect between the U.S. and Taiwan. It has been an honor and a pleasure to work with him, and we will greatly miss him when he leaves Washington, D.C. I join many of my colleagues and their staffs in recognizing the devotion of Mr. Anthony Chung-Yi Ho and for his exceptional service and immense contributions to strengthening relations between Taiwan and the United States.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. It should be noted also, Mr. Speaker, that this is the last time we expect to see you presiding before you retire also. You have done a marvelous job, and thank you for your service to this institution. I hope this vote doesn't go on for 3 hours and 45 minutes, but if there is anybody that can handle that, I am certain you have that experience. I am pleased that after months of work, the committee has been able to bring this package together before the full House. I would like to thank my ranking member, Ms. Kaptur, for her close collaboration throughout the entire process of putting together the Energy and Water sections of the omnibus. I would also like to thank the hard work of our Senate counterparts, Senator Feinstein and Senator Alexander, for their hard work in bringing this package together. Now, I want to be clear: I didn't get everything I wanted in this bill; none of us did. But we have worked hard to ensure that the bill clearly reflects the will of the American people. The bill makes critical investments and makes important policy changes that we will continue to build on in coming years. For instance, I am pleased with how strongly it invests in our national defense and water infrastructure. Weapons activities receives the largest increase in this bill, $387 million over last year. Within this level is full funding for the critical warheads such as the B-61 and the long-range standoff. Investment in naval reactor programs increases by $144 million, including the full request for the Ohio class replacement reactor. Funding for the Army Corps of Engineers is modestly increased from last year, including not less than $1.1 billion for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund activities. Last year, we directed no less than $1 billion. We also include some policy changes critical to supporting our country's economic development in a responsible manner. New this year, we included provisions prohibiting the regulation of certain agricultural activities such as the construction and maintenance of farm ponds or irrigation ditches under the Clean Water Act. This is a major victory for our country's farmers and ranchers who consistently tell many of us that they are concerned about the potential of the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers' overreach into their operations. We continue prohibitions from last year against changes to the definition of fill material under the Clean Water Act and the implementation of the new lightbulb efficiency standards. These are commonsense provisions that protect consumers' choice and responsible commercial operations. I think every one of us in this body including myself can think of other things that they wanted to see in this package and things they would have liked taken out, but overall, this bill moves the country forward in a balanced way and allows the new Congress to proceed with its most important obligation, that of governing this country. I want to echo the words of my chairman, Mr. Rogers, how important the staff is in putting these bills together. Most people that don't serve on the committee don't know the time that they put in. They are here on Thanksgiving Day, trying to put together this package so that it will be ready for the floor, and they do incredible work, not only of the subcommittee that I am lucky enough to be the chairman of, but the staff of all the subcommittees, and they do a tremendous job, and we owe them a great deal of gratitude. Mr. Speaker, this deserves our support.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman from California. The gentleman from California mentioned something that is very important that a lot of people don't realize: it takes a special individual and a special relationship with your spouse, be it husband or wife, to be able to serve in this place. Most people don't realize how many nights you spend away from your family when you are here. I am certain that with most spouses--when I look at mine and when I look at Tom's Kathy--this was not something that they had planned on when they got married. To be able to, I want to say, put up with that and the separation that it causes and the pressure it puts on a family is extremely difficult. Kathy is, truly, a person who is special and has put up with him for 20 years in the House and 39 years of marriage. She has really put up with him for a long time, and we are honored to have spouses like that who support us and keep us going. The reason I asked for unanimous consent at the first of this Special Order--for people to insert their comments--was that tonight is the White House Christmas reception for Members of Congress, so there are going to be a lot of people getting ready to go down to the White House. Now, one of those individuals who had some responsibilities tonight but who wanted to be here was the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, who is one of Tom's best friends. They have been together ever since I have come, and, consequently, I have been allowed to associate with him--I don't know why--but we have gotten along and have done some great things. We are going to miss Tom, but this process goes on. People will get elected--whether it is any of us--who will replace us, and they will step up to the plate and do the job. It is an amazing system that we have been given by our forefathers. At this point, I yield to my good friend from Iowa, Tom Latham.

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman from Iowa. Let me say, Madam Speaker, that Mr. King just mentioned the difference between Iowa and Idaho. I will tell you a funny story. When I was first elected, Tom had been here for 4 years. When I got elected, they used to have a function with a lot of the D.C. reporters and political reporters in town at the Washington Hilton, and they would select a freshman Republican and Democrat from both the House and the Senate to give little speeches, and they were supposed to be kind of funny speeches and stuff. So I didn't know what to do. They selected me as one of them. So I decided that I was going to explain the difference between Iowa and Idaho because there is a difference. So I went through all the differences in Idaho and Iowa. Of course I recorded it, and I got home and turned it on to see how I had done. Underneath, and this is on C-SPAN, underneath it said, Congressman Mike Simpson, Republican, Ohio. So we not only get mixed up with Idaho and Iowa also, but also between Ohio and Idaho and Iowa. So that has always made it a little more challenging. But Tom and I have served together on the Appropriations Committee for, I guess the last 12 years that I have been on it, and he was on it before that. He has been, as was mentioned, the chairman of the Transportation Committee and chairman of the Energy and Water Committee, both committees very important to both Idaho and Iowa and to the country. We have been able to work cooperatively to try to address issues that affect the country and our respective States. The thing I have always noticed most about Tom, and both speakers have already mentioned it, is the way he works, the way he gets things done. I have always noticed that Tom takes the job that he was elected to do very seriously, but he never takes himself too seriously, which is an important characteristic, I think. Others have enjoyed working with him on both sides of the aisle. I have certainly enjoyed working with him. And again, we are going to miss him. At the end of the each session, some people, as Steve King mentioned, decide that it is time to retire, and Tom has decided that. Not only are we, in Congress, as friends, going to miss him but, frankly, the country is going to miss him. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman. Again, Tom, we are going to miss you. We have become good friends. Don't become a stranger. You still have another week or two to serve before we sine die, and there are some important votes to cast. Now that you qualify for Medicare, I wish you and Kathy the best in the next part of this journey of life, and I am sure you will do fantastic. Make sure you get out to Idaho when you get an opportunity, and we will take some famous Idaho potatoes and some famous Iowa corn, and we will put them together with some steak and have a little barbecue. I thank you for your service to this institution, to the State of Iowa, and to the country. We will miss you. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman from Iowa for his statement. Now I would like to yield to another gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, we are here today under a Special Order because at this time of year--at the end of a session--we have Members that are retiring, Members that deserve recognition, and Members that other Members of the House would like to talk about for a few minutes. Today, we have one of the best that, unfortunately, is retiring at the end of this year. He is a gentleman that I have known since I came to Congress and have become good friends with. We have had many entertaining times. I am sorry to say that the thing that people in Washington are going to miss the most, probably, is a rendition of Roy Orbison duets by Mr. Latham and myself. I don't know how, but we certainly had fun with those at various events. Before I say anything else, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).

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 subject of my Special Order.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hastings for bringing this bill and the subsequent bill that will follow to the floor and see rapid action. I thank the gentleman for his support of this. Let me also say that this is the last year that Chairman Hastings will be in Congress. He has chosen to retire at the end of this year, and it has been a pleasure to work with him on both resource issues and on energy and water issues that I am involved with. We are going to miss him and his 20 years of service representing Washington and all the people in this country. So I appreciate the work that you have done, and we will miss you. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5050, the May 31, 1918 Act Repeal Act. This is a simple but significant piece of legislation addressing issues that impact the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in Idaho. As its name suggests, H.R. 5050 would repeal the 1918 Act that gives the Federal Government authority to unilaterally take Shoshone-Bannock tribal land out of trust and transfer it to a local government for use as a township. This act is antiquated, and any purpose it may have served toward its stated goal of providing trading opportunities for the tribes has long since expired. Today, thanks to an MOU dating back to 2009, the local county government has granted jurisdiction over the remaining town-site to the tribes for law enforcement, emergency services, roads, and infrastructure. It is time to wipe this 1918 law off the books. From a practical standpoint, the tribes are already managing the land in question, for which the county has no interest in being responsible. From a more general point of view, allowing the Federal Government the authority to unilaterally take tribal land out of trust violates the spirit of the relationship the government should have with the tribes. Repealing this act is the right and sensible thing to do. Mr. Speaker, as I conclude today, I would like to take note that H.R. 5050 has been introduced by my colleagues in the Senate and was unanimously passed out of the committee, and I am hopeful that the Senate would take action on this quickly so that this bill and the subsequent bill can be signed into law and the tribes can move on these issues.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the chairman for bringing this piece of legislation to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2040, the Blackfoot River Land Exchange Act of 2014. This important bill provides a needed fix to a longstanding problem regarding the northern boundary of the Fort Hall Reservation of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in Idaho. When I grew up in Blackfoot, which was on the northern side of the Fort Hall Reservation, the Blackfoot River was the designation of the northern boundary of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation and the southern part of the city of Blackfoot. As I was growing up, I can remember in the early days it used to ice up because it was a meandering, small river, and it would ice up, flood, and cause havoc. Since its designation, however, in 1960, the Corps of Engineers flood control project changed the flow of the river, leaving some tribal land located north of the river and some non-Indian land located south of the river. For years, the tribes and affected landowners have collaborated to find a solution to this problem that works for all concerned. S. 2040 is that solution. The bill is a simple land exchange that would make both the tribes and the affected landowners whole. S. 2040 is the result of cooperation and give-and-take. The bill passed the Senate in September with unanimous consent, and the House version of the bill was passed unanimously by the committee this fall. I look forward to seeing it signed into law before the end of this year. It will solve a longstanding problem for the Fort Hall Indian Reservation and the city of Blackfoot.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my thanks to Teri Ehresman, a dedicated public servant who recently retired from the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). As a Member of Congress representing Idaho's Second Congressional District, I got to know Teri as the communications lead for the Nuclear Science and Technology Division of Communications and Governmental Affairs at INL. In that capacity, Teri played an instrumental role in spreading INL's influence as the nation's lead lab for nuclear energy, and that designation has served the nation, the nuclear energy industry and the State of Idaho very well. For all of her hard work and the extra effort she always gives to her tasks, Teri deserves our recognition and praise. I want to wish Teri all the best. Teri Ehresman has received communications awards from Media Network Idaho, National Federation of Press Women, Idaho Press Club, and the Society for Technical Communications. She was also named Idaho's 2008 Communicator of Achievement by Media Network Idaho, and in 2010 received a ``Presidential Citation'' from the National Federation of Press Women President for her volunteer efforts. She is currently serving as first vice president of the National Federation of Press Women, a national organization for communications professionals. She has previously served as second vice president and secretary of the national organization. Additionally, Teri is active in the Idaho affiliate, Media Network Idaho, where she organizes a yearly writing contest for high school journalism students throughout the state. Teri served two years as chair of the Idaho Section of the American Nuclear Society (ANS), and during both of those years, the local section received the honor of being named ``Best Local Large Section'' while she was leading the 500 plus member organization. Teri has been an elected board member for ANS and helped to organize several international meetings for the national organization. She was also appointed by the American Nuclear Society president to the ANS Public Information committee and helps organize communications-related sessions for the organization's national meetings. Teri Ehresman is a wonderful lady and she has served honorably and with distinction. As a valuable contributor to the State of Idaho and to the country, I want to offer my praise as she moves forward to the next stage in her life.