Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman from Alaska for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4283, which is intended to authorize the use of maintenance equipment and the replacement of some outdated and potentially hazardous energy facilities at the River of No Return Lodge in Smith Gulch on the Salmon River in Idaho. As it currently sits, the River of No Return Lodge is a small outfitter on the Salmon River that provides a unique recreational experience operating under a Forest Service permit. Unfortunately, the Forest Service does not believe it has clear authorization to permit the use of necessary maintenance or replacement of facilities. This proposed bill is an effort to clarify Congress' intent in legislation passed in 2004 to retain the basic characteristics of the lodge without substantially altering the existing use. This legislation makes it clear that the owners of the lodge are authorized to use weed trimmers, chainsaws, and other maintenance equipment needed for the general upkeep of the lodge. It also will allow the outfitter to reduce or eliminate his reliance on propane fuel and replace it with modest renewable energy sources. I believe H.R. 4283 keeps recreational opportunities available on our public lands, while maintaining the ability to keep our lands in even better shape for future generations of Americans. The Congressional Budget Office has also scored this bill at no cost to the taxpayer. It should be noted that a few small changes were made during the markup of H.R. 4283 to address both the technical corrections and concerns raised by interested parties. The bill, as amended, has been crafted with the sentiments of both the Idaho Conservation League and The Wilderness Society in mind. We trust that the Forest Service will faithfully grant authorization for the maintenance and replacement activities without the burden of unreasonable environmental review costs. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation that has been carefully crafted with the stakeholders' views in mind, so the operator of the River of No Return Lodge can perform the fundamental maintenance and replace outdated energy sources needed to carry out this small business with respect to the existing law.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my thanks to a dedicated public servant who is moving on to another important assignment. Bill Magwood, currently a Commissioner on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), will depart for Paris in September to serve as the Director General of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's Nuclear Energy Agency. I want to wish Bill and his wife Janet all the best as they embark on this great adventure. I know Bill will do a wonderful job in this new position. As a Member of Congress representing Idaho's second congressional district, I got to know Bill as the Director of the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy. In that capacity, Bill played an instrumental role in forming the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 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. Bill Magwood's vision for INL and creative institutions such as the Center for Advanced Energy Studies has exceeded all of our expectations and we owe Bill a debt of gratitude for his foresight and perseverance. After leaving the Department of Energy and working in the private sector for a few years, Bill was asked by President Obama to return to government service and serve on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Bill accepted this challenge, but I do not believe he or anyone else had any idea of what was in store for him Under Bill's watch at the NRC, the Fukushima disaster hit Japan and the NRC was thrust into the spotlight to explain the situation to the American people. At the same time, the NRC was faced with serious internal challenges, which Bill met with courage and conviction, and for this he deserves our recognition and praise. Bill Magwood has served his country with honor and distinction and I want to offer my praise as he moves on to his new international leadership role.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4719, the America Gives More Act of 2014, and in particular in support of the provision that would make the current tax deduction for the contribution of conservation easements permanent. As a cosponsor of similar legislation, I am pleased to see this provision included in the bill. In my home state of Idaho, I have repeatedly seen the positive impact of conservation easements. One of my favorite stretches of river in Idaho is the South Fork of the Snake, near Idaho Falls, where I live. It is a great place to fish, watch bald eagles, or enjoy the beauty of nature without interruption, and this is due in large part to the fact that conservation easements protect the land on the river from development and created wonderful areas for recreation. More importantly, however, conservation easements have a significant benefit to our economy in Idaho. Farming and ranching have long been a way of life in my state, but increasingly what was once vast swaths of ranchland is being broken up into smaller parcels for development. The conservation easement tax incentive gives many farmers and ranchers the option to put some of their land into conservation easements, protecting habitat and scenic landscapes, instead of selling to developers. In addition, easements that allow for continued agricultural use provide certainty for those who want to keep ranching and farming. I am pleased that this provision was included in the bill, and I look forward to seeing it benefit willing landowners who are working together with land management agencies to preserve the open spaces in Idaho.

Mr. SIMPSON

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. I would agree to do so, and I believe the gentlelady from Ohio would agree to do so as well.

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

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. The Financial Services Appropriations bill has carried language for years which prohibits funding for any Federal Government contract with foreign incorporated entities which are treated as inverted domestic corporations. This language has been carried annually in the government-wide General Provisions section of the Financial Services Appropriations bill since approximately 2005 and is requested annually by the current administration. The changes which this amendment would propose to make could have significant consequences and really should be handled by the proper tax committees. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentlewoman yield?

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 reserve a point of order.

Mr. SIMPSON

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. On this particular issue, applying the referenced WRRDA provision to this fiscal year 2015 bill means that, roughly, $30 million must be provided for the harbor maintenance of the Great Lakes navigation system. The underlying bill funds the budget request, which includes approximately $100 million for the Great Lakes. Therefore, while I believe it is unnecessary, I do not object to this amendment and will support it. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), my good friend.

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

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I have to tell you that I am sympathetic to what the gentleman is trying to do. It is a concern that I have had for a number of years. And, in fact, a few years ago, when I was chairman of the Interior Subcommittee, we brought down a bill and we completely defunded any listing of new species or designation of critical habitat because the Endangered Species Act hadn't been reauthorized for, like, 26 years or something like that. Our intent was not to get rid of the Endangered Species Act or to get rid of the designation of critical habitat. Our intent was to send the message that the authorizing committees need to do their job. I was supported in that, actually, by the chairman of the Resources Committee that is in charge of reauthorizing that bill. So far that has not been done. They haven't been able to get it done. As you know, it is sometimes very difficult to pass reauthorization bills for a lot of these different programs, but many of these different programs are very, very important. I continue to try to seek a way to put pressure on the authorizing committees to actually do their job, to get these done. So far, just defunding them has not been successful in achieving that, and I don't know why that is. It is frustrating both to me and to the sponsor of this amendment. Yet this amendment would do great damage to the Department of Energy. And I guess you could use this government- wide. There are a lot of programs. You would be surprised which programs haven't been reauthorized. I think the Department of State hasn't been reauthorized. Most seniors programs have not been reauthorized. If we can find a way to put pressure on the authorizing committees to do this, I would be more than happy to work with the gentleman to try to accomplish that goal, but ending the programs this way, I think, would be too dramatic of an effect. So, while I sympathize with what the gentleman is trying to do, I have to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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.