Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, let me answer that question for you.

Mr. SIMPSON. If there are waters that the State is not regulating and they will eventually flow into navigable waters, and the only way to control the pollution in those navigable waters--the State is going to ultimately start controlling those headwaters if they're not doing their jobs. You seem to think that States have no ability to control the State waters that are under State control. They do have the ability to control those State waters, and they do a good job of it in most States. I'm not sure about Virginia. I haven't followed Virginia.

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the chairman for his recognition. I don't have the letter to read, but listen, the only argument that's being made here that makes any sense is we have got to bring clarity to this issue. We have got to bring clarity to the confusion of this issue. Well, I will tell you that a hanging is clarity, but it's not necessarily the right option. That's essentially what we're doing here. We're giving control of all these waters that have traditionally been in the control of the States to the Federal Government. And I will tell you, we will have an opportunity to debate this same issue again on the Interior bill dealing with the EPA. This deals with the Army Corps of Engineers. The fact is is that you don't need this to clarify this, the policies proposed by the Army Corps of Engineers. You can clarify it by legislatively defining what ``navigable'' means. If the Supreme Court has a problem trying to decide what ``navigable'' means, then let's address that so we know what we intend by that. The argument is made repeatedly by some of those that have supported this amendment, whether you are from Virginia or Maryland, and I will tell you, if you want in Virginia or Maryland or Washington or Michigan, the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA to control every drop of water that falls on your State, I'll help you do it. Let's write legislation to do that so that you guys can have the clarity of the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers. But in western States, we actually protect those waters by State law. What you are trying to do is exempt State law or override State law and have the Federal Government take control of these. That's just flat wrong. If you don't think Virginia protects its headwaters enough, then put a bill in to allow the EPA and the Army Corps to control every drop of water that falls in the State of Virginia. You don't need this to bring clarity to this, and the States are doing a good job that do State regulations of headwaters.

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SIMPSON. The point is that they become navigable waters at some point. If they are being polluted by waters that are controlled by the States, eventually the State is going to have to say, You know what, we have got to get control of this; otherwise, we're going to have problems downstream.

Mr. SIMPSON. I move to strike the last world.

Mr. SIMPSON. You seem to think that the only way to address this problem is to have a Federal bureaucracy. You know what, we could bring clarity to all of our problems by just eliminating the States. Why have States? Why not have everything under Federal control? That makes sense, because everything goes from State to State eventually. It makes no sense to me. This does not bring clarity to the situation and it does not help in the regulation of our Clean Water Act. This does not make the waters of the United States cleaner. All it does is give more authority to the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA. If you want to bring charity, then bring a bill down here to define what navigable means. And you can do that. As I said, a hanging is clarity--not necessarily the best outcome. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, today, June 1, 2012, marks the 25th anniversary of the first permanent Department of Veterans Affairs- administered Montgomery GI Bill. Enacted in 1987, the landmark New GI Bill Continuation Act offered a life changing incentive for veterans returning from active duty to the workforce. By offering veterans access to higher education, it both strengthened our national defense and helped revitalize our economy. The GI Bill has proved over the years to be a boon for many of our veterans. Veterans are able to return home with a plan for their future. The education they receive helps many enter the workforce and provide for themselves and for their families in ways that were not previously possible. This program has blessed our Nation and continues to do so by benefiting not only veterans, but many sectors of the economy by injecting highly qualified individuals to the workforce and the community. Veterans are able to combine the skill sets they learn both from their schooling and from their military training and often become excellent leaders and contributors to society. As I have said in the past--hiring former service members for patriotic reasons expresses appreciation and respect. Hiring them for business reasons gets results. Our veterans fought to protect our freedoms and way of life, and as they serve our Nation in this time of need, we must remember them in their time of need. Veterans have made tremendous sacrifices to preserve our way of life, and the American people are indebted to the men and women who served our Nation. I am proud of the work Congress has done to improve veterans' benefits. It is important that we continue to honor our commitments to our Nation's veterans through legislation that benefits them, like the Montgomery GI Bill. So as the former Chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Benefits, and as a grateful American, I want to pay tribute to the thousands of veterans in Idaho and the United States who have given us so much.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, this coming Sunday, May 20, Taiwan will inaugurate President Ma Ying-jeou for a second term after his overwhelming election victory earlier this year. Congratulations to President Ma and to all the people of Taiwan. They embody the vision of a representative democracy that founding father Sun Yat-sen imagined. The value of the United States-Taiwan partnership cannot be overstated. Taiwan is the ninth largest trading partner of the United States and the sixth largest agricultural market for products grown and produced here in the United States. Additionally, Taiwan has long been an important contributor towards economic and political security across Asia, benefitting the entire region. Taiwan and the United States uphold a peaceful partnership through both trade agreements and meaningful personal relationships. I was lucky enough to take a trip to Taiwan when I was a state legislator, and it is a beautiful country with a vibrant culture. I hope someday to return. The strength of Taiwan comes from its people. The people 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 a competitive footing with the most powerful and largest countries in the world. Congratulations to the people of Taiwan and President Ma Ying-jeou on his second inauguration.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2050, the Idaho Wilderness Water Resources Protection Act. This bipartisan, noncontroversial legislation is a technical fix intended to enable the Forest Service to authorize and permit existing historical water diversions within Idaho wilderness. Last Congress, one of my constituents came to me for help with a problem. The Middle Fork Lodge has a water diversion within the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness Area that existed before the wilderness area was established and is protected under statute. The diversion was beginning to leak and was in desperate need of repairs to ensure that it did not threaten the environment and watershed, but it turned out the Forest Service did not have the authority to issue the lodge a permit to make the necessary repairs. As we looked at this issue, we discovered that the Forest Service lacked the authority throughout both the Frank Church Wilderness area, of which there are 22 known water developments, and the Selway- Bitterroot Wilderness, where there are three. These diversions are primarily used to support irrigation and minor hydropower generation for use on non-Federal lands. While the critical situation at the Middle Fork Lodge brought this issue to my attention, it is obvious that this problem is larger than just one diversion. At some point in the future, all 25 of these existing diversions will need maintenance or repair work done to ensure their integrity. H.R. 2050 authorizes the Forest Service to issue special use permits for all qualifying historic water systems in these wilderness areas. I believe this is important that we get ahead of this problem and ensure the Forest Service has the tools necessary to manage these lands. For these reasons, I've introduced H.R. 2050. The legislation, which was passed by the House last Congress, allows the Forest Service to issue the required special use permits to owners of historic water systems and sets out specific criteria for doing so. Providing this authority will ensure that existing water diversions can be properly maintained and repaired when necessary and preserves beneficial use for private property owners who hold water rights under State law. I have deeply appreciated the cooperation of the Forest Service in addressing this problem. Not only have they communicated with me the need to find a systemwide solution to this issue, but at my request, they drafted this legislation to ensure that it only impacts specific targeted historical diversions--those with valid water rights that cannot feasibly be relocated outside of the wilderness area. H.R. 2050 is bipartisan and noncontroversial. I know of no opposition to this bill. It is intended as a simple, reasonable solution to a problem that I think we can all agree should be solved as quickly as possible. I'm encouraged that the committee held hearings on this bill, and I am hopeful that we can move it through the legislative process without delay so that the necessary maintenance to these diversions may be completed before the damage is beyond repair. I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding this time to me.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a member of the Appropriations Committee and the Budget Committee that marked this bill up.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I appreciate the fact that some of my good friends have a different opinion about this than I do, particularly Chairman Ryan and Mr. Van Hollen. I appreciate the bipartisanship with which they have worked on this issue; but I will tell you, bipartisanship does not make something right which is fundamentally wrong, and this is fundamentally wrong. I also feel a little bit like Custer at the Little Big Horn. I know this is probably going to pass without much doubt, but it's still wrong. For 200 years, as the gentleman from Alaska said, Congress has been shifting more and more authority to the administrative branch of government. We are doing it again with this legislation. I keep hearing people talk about earmarks and airdropped provisions in appropriation bills. I would remind the Members, in the 2011 appropriation bill there were no earmarks, there were no airdrops. In the 2012 appropriation bills there were no earmarks, there were no airdrops. We have changed the way we do business around here. Now, you might have had an argument several years ago when there were thousands of earmarks in the appropriation bill. That doesn't happen anymore. For the first time, we're trying to bring appropriation bills--for the first time in 5 years--bring appropriation bills to the floor under an open rule. We didn't get it all done last year. We ended up with an omnibus, as Mr. Van Hollen shows on his table. This year we are committed, given the floor time, we're going to bring every appropriation bill to the floor under an open rule so that every Member that has a problem with any provision can offer an amendment to have that removed. It's been said that this is constitutional, Mr. Van Hollen said, so let's take that argument away. Not necessarily and not so quickly. In conversations with members of the third branch of government, the judiciary, they have concerns that this may be unconstitutional, because what's required now is that the President presents the judicial request for appropriations, but he can't change it. He just passes it on to Congress. This gives the President a say in line-iteming specific provisions in the judicial request, which may violate both U.S. Code and be unconstitutional. So that question is still out there about the constitutionality of this. But I will tell you, in times of extraordinary circumstances, as we currently have, with a $15 trillion debt, and everyone wants to reduce that debt, nobody more than the members of the Appropriations Committee have reduced spending in the last 2 years. But in times of extraordinary circumstances, we often do unwise things in the name of trying to address that problem. Such is this bill. Most Members have never negotiated an appropriation bill with the Senate. Let me tell you how it works. We would think that the President has no say in the appropriation process until we present him with a bill. When I was negotiating the Interior bill with the Senate, I was not negotiating with the Senate. I was negotiating with the White House. They did not approve anything that was not pre-approved by the administration. And we made some deals, and we got some priorities of things that we, on the Republican side, think are important, and the President got some priorities that he thinks are important on his side. That's called legislating. But now, what you are going to do is say, okay, you make those deals. You get an appropriation bill. There's going to be things in it I don't like. There's going to be things in it the administration doesn't like. There's going to be things in it that nobody in here likes. But now you're going to give the President a second bite at the apple to break that deal. And do you think he's going to take those things that Democrats think are not their priorities and take them out of the bill? Of course not. He's going to take out Republican priorities and put them for a second vote. And a Republican President would do the same thing to the Democrats. This is going to be partisan politics. And when you say it comes back for Congress to have a final say, once it comes back to overriding a veto or overriding a rescission, it then becomes political. You, on your side of the aisle, in this case, are going to say we have to support our President. That's what happens. That's the reality. We, on our side of the aisle, would say the same thing if it were a Republican President. That's just reality. So what you're breaking down is that balance of power between the administrative branch of government and the legislative branch of government. This is, without a doubt, a step in the wrong direction. Voting for this bill will not make you a budget hawk. And frankly, I don't think it will save any money. But it will make for some good press releases. But don't go out and say that you've reduced Federal spending, and you've taken wasteful spending out of the Federal budget by passing this bill. You haven't. What you've done is said, I'm willing to sacrifice the legislative authority that was given to us in the Constitution and shift more power to the administrative branch of government. Do you honestly believe that the Founding Fathers would recognize what they built in the Constitution? Do you really think that they would look at the administrative branch of government and say we wanted this kind of Presidency and a weak legislative branch? I don't think so. This is a bad bill. I would vote it down if I were you. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire--we're ready to close--how much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), a member of the Appropriations Committee and, more importantly, the Budget Committee.

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), a member of the Appropriations Committee and the Budget Committee.

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Dicks.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, an individual who is trying to do more to reform the appropriations process by bringing individual bills to the floor.

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the former chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 2, Adoption of H.J. Res. 98, relating to the disapproval of the President's exercise of authority to increase the debt limit, I was unavoidably detained and unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, the Statement of Managers language contained in Division E of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 regarding the Boiler MACT rule is not intended in any way to convey an endorsement by the conferees of any Boiler MACT rulemaking proposal.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to clarify the intent of language included in the conference report on H.R. 2055, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY12, regarding the management of forest roads. In May of 2011 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a final ruling in NEDC v. Brown declaring for the first time that forest roads used for timber management are point sources and must have permits under section 402 of the Clean Water Act. The State of Oregon and the industry defendants have now asked the Supreme Court to review this decision. On Monday, December 12, the Supreme Court issued an order seeking the views of the Solicitor General signaling the possibility that the Court will review the case. However, the Ninth Circuit's decision remains in effect. Section 429 of Division E exempts stormwater discharges from forest roads and other forestry activities from any such permit requirement for the rest of the fiscal year. This will ensure that neither EPA nor any state is forced to impose a permitting requirement while the Supreme Court is considering whether to review the Ninth Circuit's decision. With such an abrupt change in interpretation of the Act, it is important that there be an opportunity for the Supreme Court to weigh in. We encourage the Supreme Court to proceed with its determination of whether to review of the case, and this provision should in no way deter the Court's proceedings.

Mr. SIMPSON. First, let me thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Dicks. As I've told many Members, if this is your first term or your second term or your third term here in this body, this is the first time you've actually seen an appropriation bill come to the floor under an open rule, and I know that is something we both want. The majority party wants that, and I know the minority party wants that, also. And while Mr. Hoyer was correct, we didn't get them all done, we are moving in the right direction. And we will get there where every bill comes under an open rule so that Members have input into that legislation, and that's what we're working toward. And I want to thank you for that. But first let me also thank my partner in this effort, Mr. Moran from Virginia. He's been a great asset in working out this bill. We don't always agree on every issue. I'm from Idaho, he's from Virginia, and so we sometimes have differences of opinion. But we're able to sit down and work together to solve those differences and work out a bill that I think is in the best interests of the American people. The Interior bill conference agreement is $29.175 billion, which is $384 million below the FY enacted level. The conference agreement funds the EPA at $8.45 billion, which is $233 million below the FY11 enacted level and $524 million below the President's request. The bill also includes in title IV a general provision that amends the Clean Air Act to transfer air quality permitting authority as of the date of this enactment from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Department of the Interior. This will provide regulatory parity for the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea planning areas with the western and central Gulf of Mexico planning areas. It fully funds the newly created Bureau of Ocean Energy Management with $60 million to help expedite the review of offshore exploration plans. It also fully funds the newly created Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement at $76 million, including $15 million for oil spill research. It provides authority for the collection of $62 million in inspection fees, but it dedicates funding for approving permits, expediting exploration plans, and hiring much-needed inspectors and engineers while also accelerating the approval of drilling plans. It fully funds wildfire suppression at the 10-year average. It cuts the NEA and NEH funding by $17.4 million combined in this bill from the '011 appropriation. It provides $4.3 billion to the Indian Health Service. This has been a bipartisan effort with Mr. Dicks when he was chairman of this committee, with Mr. Moran when he was chairman of this committee, and now with me that we fully fund the Indian Health Services. This is a 5.8 percent increase in this bill to address the health care needs in Indian Country, including access to Indian health facilities and contractual obligations to tribes. It provides $108 million for the Smithsonian, including $75 million for the construction of the National Museum of African American History and Culture. It does several things for Westerners that live in public land States relative to grazing. There is a new provision that requires that the administrative review process first be exhausted before litigating on grazing issues and provides protection for trailing of livestock. This, overall, is a good bill, and I think it's one that we can all be proud of. And, again, I want to thank Mr. Moran for his dedication and work on this. But, most of all, I want to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle. If you're not on this committee, if you don't work with this committee, you don't know how much time they put in, and they do an incredible job for Congress and for the American people. MR. DICKS. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member of the Interior Subcommittee, Mr. Moran.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to express my gratitude to Dr. Peter Friedman who served as my Congressional Fellow this year. Pete served as my point person on energy issues with the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee and was responsible for all nuclear and defense related issues in my office. Pete's background as chairman of an engineering department, a naval officer, and engineering background, provided me with unique technical knowledge of nuclear power and defense issues. His expertise came to the forefront during the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor accident. Pete provided me with data-driven, measured advice on the crisis which was both forward-looking and justifiable. It was an important year for nuclear energy and it was good to have Pete on my staff. In the appropriations process, Pete developed well-researched and insightful positions, which properly prioritized the spending on energy projects based on their potential impact. His astute political insights and his willingness and ability to learn the legislative process served me very well. I benefited greatly from Pete's advice, knowledge and work ethic over the past year. I want to thank him, and commend him, for a job well done. I also want to thank his wife, Sylvia, and daughter, Helen, for allowing us to have Pete for the year. I know it wasn't easy for them to have him away for such a long period. I am sure they will be glad to have him back and that he will be glad to resume his position as Chairman of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth. Finally, I want to thank the American Society of Mechanical Engineers for sponsoring Pete as a Congressional Fellow. At a time when the world is becoming increasingly technical and competitive, Congress benefits from the advice of experienced and educated experts.