Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, drastically reducing funding for the Wild Horse and Burro Program would have a devastating effect on our Western lands and the work we have done to manage the herd. For these reasons, I must oppose this amendment. I thank the gentleman for bringing up the issue. It is an issue, but cutting funding is not the way to solve the problem. If people have better ways of managing this or additional ways of managing this, I encourage them to come forward because we are willing to listen to all alternatives on what we can do. As I said, we used to slaughter them. We used to send them to Mexico for slaughter and stuff. We can't do that anymore because of the optics of it and everything else.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I understand the frustration that the gentlewoman expresses in her statement, but I must rise in opposition to this amendment. The Bureau of Land Management's funding level is already $255.4 million, or 18 percent below the FY23 enacted level. A drastic 50 percent cut to already decreased levels leaves me concerned that this would put the agency in a position where they cannot carry out critical activities to address their most pressing issues in Western States, particularly in Wyoming, Idaho, and other States. The growing backlog for grazing, energy, and mineral activity permits; population problems with wild horses and burros that were just debated on the last amendment; and the increasing demand for increased recreational access to our public lands cause me deep concern when you want to cut the BLM by an additional 50 percent. Mr. Chair, I must oppose this amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

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

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that if the gentlewoman has a problem with the Rock Springs area, that the gentlewoman address that specifically, but this cuts 50 percent of the BLM across the board. That means it is going to substantially impact Idaho, and guess what? We get along pretty well with the BLM in Idaho. If you cut this 50 percent, you are going to have tough times getting grazing permits. We have minerals in what is called the phosphate patch in Idaho that the BLM has to deal with. Our general problem is when the decisions that are made in Idaho, both by the BLM or the Forest Service or their other agencies, and those decisions come to Washington, then you have a problem. That is where the problem exists. This would cut 50 percent of, actually, the BLM across the country. That is the problem I have with this, especially when we have already made an 18 percent reduction in their budget in this bill. I understand where the gentlewoman is coming from. Wyoming might have a special problem, and an amendment should be addressed to deal with that instead of the BLM in general. I would oppose this amendment, and I hope my colleagues would vote ``no'' on it. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. While I understand the concerns from my colleagues about the CEQ's actions under this administration related to the environmental review process and other issues, I believe that the CEQ has a valuable role to play in leading the efforts to strike a balance in ensuring our environment is protected while also promoting economic development and job growth. It is important to have an agency lead coordinated efforts across the administration on issues such as conservation and preservation of our natural resources. I would say this, though: Republicans like what CEQ did under the previous administration. They actually liked what they were doing. The way to change policies of an agency is by voting in a different administration, and next year, we will have that opportunity to see how the American people feel. I would point out that we rescinded those funds that were given to CEQ in this bill also, so they don't have all those funds that are left there, and we have actually reduced the funding. I rise in opposition to the amendment, while I understand the gentleman's concern under this administration.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment to strike the provision in the bill prohibiting the use of the social costs of carbon. The social cost of carbon attempts to monetize the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions. What it really means is that it is an easy way to increase the cost of a project or of anything that will produce emissions, like driving a car, to justify regulations or halt the activity because the costs outweigh the benefits. This is even more problematic because this monetary value has fluctuated wildly in past decades from $1 to $190 per metric ton. This fluctuation tells me that the methodology and metrics are fuzzy at best and seriously flawed at worst and have lacked transparency. All of this is especially concerning given the social cost of carbon is used to issue job-killing regulations and halt energy and infrastructure projects in the United States while the world's largest polluters are not being held accountable. Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management manages the development of energy and mineral resources of the Outer Continental Shelf along our Nation's coastlines. I understand the intent of the gentleman's amendment is to eliminate the Office of Renewable Energy Programs of BOEM. I will first note the base bill already cuts funding for the renewable energy account by nearly $15 million, or almost 35 percent, so about a third of it is gone in our base bill. I am also concerned that completely eliminating funding runs counter to an all-of-the-above energy approach that is necessary to ensure a mix of affordable and reliable energy sources for our constituents and businesses, and to reduce our dependence on foreign countries, some adversaries, for our energy. Additionally, I have heard from some in our Conference about their support for offshore renewable activities, which would not move forward without this BOEM office. Mr. Chair, I must, therefore, oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, as I said, I oppose this amendment. It is contrary to what we on this side of the aisle have been preaching for a number of years, and that is the all-of-the-above energy program. It is going to take nuclear. It is going to take coal. It is going to take oil. It is going to take, yes, wind and solar. That is going to be a part of the mix. That is just the reality. We don't mean that every mile of offshore area ought to be available for wind towers in the ocean, but there are some places that are. I would oppose cutting the BOEM renewable energy office completely, and I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment which seeks to eliminate funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. While I support the gentleman's spending, this bill already significantly reduces funding including the NEA. The bill also requires--and this is what is important to me, frankly--that the NEA allocate at least 40 percent of its grant funding to State and local communities. Now, the gentleman mentioned the $24 billion that was given privately to the arts throughout the country. The problem is none of that $24 billion goes to support an arts organization in Jerome, Idaho; or in Shelley, Idaho; or in Sandpoint, Idaho. What I emphasize every time I talk to the director of the National Endowment for the Arts is that I am concerned about the arts in rural communities. I have gone out to communities throughout my district and met with these arts councils about what they do. Their funding is completely reliant--maybe completely is too broad a word--but substantially reliant on the grants that they get from the National Endowment for the Arts. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which seeks to eliminate all funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities. While I understand the gentleman's intent to reduce spending-- something that I agree with--the reality is that is exactly what we have been doing in these bills. I have seen firsthand the impact that the NEH dollars have had in my district. In fact, I contribute annually to the Idaho Endowment for the Humanities. NEA grants allow rural communities, including veterans and students, to have access to historical, cultural, and educational resources that wouldn't otherwise be available to them. What I have seen that works--and, again, I have been around to a lot of the different grants that are received--they are preserving our history. That is exactly what they are doing. I support their efforts, and, therefore, I object to this amendment and hope my colleagues will oppose it. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I would just say that I am very disappointed that the gentleman doesn't agree with us that we ought to reduce spending because that is what these bills have been doing. Anybody who suggests we are going to stop the debt clock overnight is living in a fantasy world, but we are actually reducing spending. The Appropriations Committee is the only committee in this Congress that is actually reducing spending. They are tough choices, but we have been making those tough choices. I wish the rest of Congress would also. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, first, let me say that I am not totally opposed to what the gentleman is trying to do. I think these air tours are important, but I think it is wrong to say they can't place any limitations on them. The gentleman raises the point that they have been trying to address this for a number of years, and so far, they haven't been able to do it. I think that they need to be able to do that, and the Park Service ought to be able to look at the number of air tours. I am not opposed to air tours. I think they are a great thing. I have taken a few of them. The reality is that completely eliminating the Park Service's ability to make reasonable limitations on these, I think, is the wrong way to go. It goes too far, but I understand what the gentleman is trying to say and what he is trying to do. I just don't think we can go this far. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, but I rise mainly to explain what the special hiring authority is. The so-called title 42 special hiring authority was provided to the Department of Health and Human Services to allow the agency to pay individuals above the GSA pay scale. The authority was created to allow the agency to compete with private-sector salaries for the Nation's best healthcare experts and scientists, given the critical importance of human health and the Federal role in public health. Congress then provided the EPA with this authority for the first time in 2006. It was authorized by Congress in 2006, arguing that the EPA also conducts human health work, such as research and assessment of chemicals. Most recently, the authority of the EPA was renewed in the fiscal year 2022 spending year, which capped the total number of people who could be hired using this special authority to 100 people. The current authority expires at the end of fiscal year 2025. This amendment allows current individuals to continue to be paid using the special authority but blocks any additional staff from being hired under this authority. Remember, this expires at the end of 2025, and I would hope that the authorizing committees would take it up and decide what they want to do in the future, but not do this through an amendment. I understand the gentleman's very longstanding concerns with this authority at EPA, and I agree that appropriate oversight needs to be provided so that this authority is not abused, but I do oppose this amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON

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

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I guess it is time I got off my rear-end here and talked a little bit. I want to let people know why I have opposed all the Holman rule amendments that have come before us. I think I screwed up on one and voted the wrong way, but I have opposed all of them for a number of reasons. The Holman rule was originally put in place and then it was kind of repealed over the last couple of Congresses and then put in place. If you look back at the history of it, through the whole appropriations process, I can only remember one or two times when the Holman rule was actually used. It was used because the individual had committed criminal activity. That is why they cut the salary. Obviously, it didn't pass, but that was the intent behind it. The second reason is that I question the constitutionality of the Holman rule altogether. We don't have the authority to fire someone in the administration. We don't have the authority to fire them. This is a way to get around that by reducing someone's salary to a dollar. You have essentially fired them unless they can live on a dollar for a year. I don't know many people who can do that. This is a way to get around what our constitutional responsibility is, I believe. Believe me, I don't always agree. In fact, I seldom agree with the Bureau of Land Management's decisions on a lot of things. Elections have consequences. If you disagree with them because of a policy, why do you think they were hired? They were hired to carry out the policies of this administration. Maybe you don't like those policies. I don't like some of those policies. That is a good reason to get off our rear- ends and make sure that we eliminate this administration about 12 months from now. It is not a reason to reduce someone's salary because they are implementing a policy for the administration that hired them. That is why I haven't supported any of the Holman rules because nobody stood up here and said they believe they have engaged in criminal activity. I haven't heard it. Until I do, I will continue to oppose these amendments. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.