Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

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

Mr. SIMPSON. First, let me thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentleman from New York for their amendment. I'm sympathetic to what they're trying to do and the work that they do in the National Heritage Caucus, and it's important work. But I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment. While I'm sympathetic to the intent of the amendment and the increased funding for the National Heritage Areas, I'm concerned that the offset would take funds away from the account providing funds for operations of our national parks across the country. One of our goals in this bill was to provide sufficient funding for park operations so that every Park Service unit in the country would be open for business next year, without the threat of layoffs or furloughs for full-time or seasonal employees. My fear is that reducing this account by $8.8 million would undermine the operation of our national parks. Let me also point out that, while the amount in the bill is reduced from the fiscal year 2011 enacted level, the National Heritage Areas are funded in the bill at the amount requested by the President's budget. These National Heritage Areas are supposed to become self- sufficient, and the problem is we're going to see that when that doesn't happen, the funding request from the President is going to not be in their budget and, consequently, there's not going to be any money for these National Heritage Areas requested by the administration. We funded this at the President's level. I appreciate what the gentlemen are trying to do. I support the National Heritage Areas program, but I, because of the offset, reluctantly oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Bishop had it exactly right. We all want the same thing. We want the Endangered Species Act, but we want the Endangered Species Act to work. And as you mentioned, Senator Kempthorne worked on it very hard, got it through the Senate when he was a Senator before he became Governor of Idaho. And it was some Republicans frankly in the House that stopped it because they didn't think it went far enough. Unfortunately, if we just continue to do what we've done in the past, we're going to get exactly what we've gotten in the past, and that is no incentive for people to sit down and say we've got to work on this and we've got to get it done. And that's all we're trying to do.

Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I agree with the words that were spoken by the gentlemen from Virginia and from Washington. In these tough economic times, it is important that we keep some things that are very important, I think, to the American people. If you look at the programs that have been put on by the Capitol concerts on the Fourth of July and on Memorial Day and what they've done for our troops and for really the spirit of America, I think is vitally important. They do things at Ford's Theater and other places around this country. We have to remember: this is our Nation's Capital. The things they do here are important. They're important for our country, not just for this small piece of land we call Washington, DC. So I hope that Members on both sides of the aisle would recognize the importance of these programs and the work they do and the importance that they have for the American people and would reject this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for offering his amendment. We had to make some tough decisions with this bill. Some of them were with the money that we spent in the Geographic Programs. I believe every geographic program had reduced funding in this bill. Last year, they were funded at $300 million. I think the President requested $350 million for the Great Lakes geographic program, and we funded it at $250 million. While I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do with his amendment--and I thank him for offering it--the fact is we just don't have that kind of money. The offset of this is $24 million out of the Secretary's account, and we earlier took $20 million out of it. I don't believe the Secretary is sleeping very well tonight. Pretty soon he won't have any money left in his office, as a matter of fact. So that is a problem. It's not what the gentleman is trying to do. I fully support what the gentleman is trying to do. It's the offset and trying to get the $20 million out of the Secretary's account which causes the problem for me. And I would hope that my colleagues would reject this amendment as we work on trying to make sure that we, in conference, can do what's necessary to fund those programs that do protect the Great Lakes, the Puget Sound, the Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound, San Francisco Bay, some of the other great water bodies in this country. I appreciate the gentleman's amendment, but I have to rise in opposition to it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. I don't disagree with anything the gentleman just said. It's also important to remember that this amendment would take the caps off that have been in place since President Clinton and would undermine the Fish and Wildlife Service's budget to a great degree because it would then be controlled by the courts and by lawsuits. That's not where we want to go.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate the gentleman from New York's observation that we are working with some very difficult numbers, and he's absolutely right. And this is an account, frankly, that I think is important. The invasive species and trying to control invasive species across this country is of high importance. It's as of high importance in Idaho as it is in New York and other places across the country. But as the gentleman noted, the concern is the offset. While we actually treated this account better than most other accounts within this budget, we actually only reduced it by 2\1/2\ percent. Some other accounts, EPA's account is down 18 percent, and some other things. Most accounts received substantially less funding. And where you're taking this money from, as I said on the last amendment, the Office of the Secretary is funded in this bill $33\1/2\ million below the budget's request. That was before we took out another $20 million in an earlier amendment to put it into the Land and Water Conservation Fund. So now we're doing $53\1/2\ million. We add this to it and we are going to be down $62 million. Sometimes these, what appear to be small amounts, add up. If we're going to have a Secretary's office that actually functions, we have to keep enough resources there so that he can do his job. And while I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do, I sympathize with what he's trying to do and support the effort of what he's trying to do. The fact that the offset affects an account that we have substantially reduced already is a problem, so I would oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the amendment. I understand what the gentleman is saying. I agree with what he's saying. I think the Members have a concern that we are not allowing these oil companies to go out after the permits, and we're trying to send a message to the Secretary. I understand that, and I don't have a problem with sending a message. The problem is--and this is a little bit of inside baseball, I guess, to talk about it this way--the problem is that under the rules we have, you can reduce an account by a certain amount and put that money in the budget reserve account which then reduces the allocation that the committee has to spend. He takes the $420,000, I think it is, out of the Office of the Secretary and reduces our allocation by that much. And as Members have heard that have listened to this debate, there are both Republicans and Democrats that are concerned about some of the funding allocations in this bill of the various accounts. People want to put more money into the Land and Water Conservation Fund. People want to put more money, as the last amendment did, into the invasive species program, taking care of invasive species. If you go throughout, there are Members on both sides of the aisle that believe that various accounts are funded at too low of a level. So to take this money and put it into the budget reserve account and take it out of the Interior appropriations bill means that that is money that could go into another account. Now, this bill comes to the floor under the budget resolution that was passed by the House under the 302(a) and the 302(b) cap, the allocation that was given to this committee. It's a tough allocation, but we've made those tough decisions, and I don't like to see money to send a message to the Secretary, money taken out of his account and put into the budget reserve account when there are other accounts within the appropriation that could obviously use the funds. So if we weren't putting it into the budget reserve account, I don't have a problem with the message you are trying to send. I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do, but I would reluctantly have to oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SIMPSON

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

Mr. SIMPSON. First, let me apologize to the gentleman from Virginia for the last amendment. We both had some concerns, that he expressed very well, about taking $20 million out of the Secretary's office and the impact that that could have. As we discussed during his debate, I think both of us are concerned about the underfunding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and would like to see that fund increased. During his debate in opposition to the amendment, we decided to accept the $20 million in the amendment from the gentleman from New Hampshire and the gentleman from Connecticut's amendment. So I apologize for the confusion in the middle of all that. The gentleman's issues that he raised about the Secretary's budget and the impact that could have are real. We will have to address those in conference, and I want to work with you to do that. Let me rise in opposition to this amendment. I have concerns that this is eliminating all of the funds, especially since we just increased them by $20 million. When we had this limited allocation, we had to make some tough decisions. The Secretary wanted it fully funded at $900 million as did the Obama administration. We simply did not have that kind of money, and to put more money into it, given our allocation, we would have had to take the money out of some other programs that are very important to other people. What we did do is put enough money in it to keep the programs and the purchases and the deals that had been made with citizens to acquire land that were already in progress so that those could be completed. We didn't put additional money in there. I happen to be a fan of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I think it has done some great things. I've seen it do things in Idaho and I've seen it do things in other States, things that are very important. Westerners, though, have a different view of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and let me tell you where it comes from. It's that most of the money that's put into the Land and Water Conservation Fund, at least a large percentage of it, is used to buy land in States in the West. Those are States that are already highly leveraged by the Federal Government. In Idaho, 64 percent of the land is owned by the Federal Government. So a lot of westerners say, Listen, if you want to put money in the Land and Water Conservation Fund, if you want to buy the whole east coast, we don't care; but what we want in Idaho and what we want in Western States is some private land to be able to pay the taxes to support our education system and other services that are necessary. I have one county in Idaho that is 96 percent Federal land--96 percent Federal land. It's bigger than the State of Rhode Island. That means 4 percent of the property is paying property taxes to deliver the services to these people. Several years ago, a mountain climber, not from Idaho but from somewhere else, came out and was climbing the mountains of Mount Borah. He died. It took their entire search and rescue budget for the year for that county to retrieve that one body off Mount Borah. That means everybody else who recreated in that county did not have that backup, did not have that search and rescue available, because they had no funds, because they had no private land to pay the taxes to fund those services. That's the problem that westerners who are in States that are highly owned by the Federal Government have with the Land and Water Conservation Fund, but I'll be the first to admit that it does some wonderful things. If you float down the South Fork of the Snake River, you will see one of the most beautiful canyons and one of the best fishing rivers in the country; and if the gentleman from Washington wants to come out, I'll float him down it. It is an incredibly beautiful place, and it has been done through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. So I believe in the importance of this program. I apologize to the gentleman from Virginia as to our previous confusion on that; but I oppose this amendment, and I would encourage Members to oppose it. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SIMPSON. I rise in opposition to the amendment by my good friend from Washington (Mr. Dicks). I respect where my friend is trying to go; but not only does this amendment not get us there, it's downright dangerous. Let me explain why. Since the Clinton administration and response to lawsuits and court orders that were crippling the agency's budget, there has been a statutory cap on how much the agency is permitted to spend on ESA listings. There's been a statutory cap in place since the Clinton administration. A cap on critical habitat spending was added in 2002. The Obama administration requested new caps for petitions and foreign species listed in 2012. In short, support for ESA funding caps has had bipartisan support in Congress and in the White House and was in place when the gentleman from Washington wrote the Interior bill and when the gentleman from Virginia wrote the Interior bill. Those spending caps were in place. This amendment proposes to do away with funding caps altogether and gives the green light to those who have made a living suing the Fish and Wildlife Service. As a result, the litigants will act, the courts will all act, and the Fish and Wildlife Service's entire operating budget will be at risk of being raided in order to fund court-ordered mandates to list species and designate critical habitat. This service will have no choice but to raid other funds from its resource management account, which is already decreased by $146 million, or 12 percent, in this budget. Having said that, the heart of the issue isn't about funding. It's about the fact that the Endangered Species Act is broken and is badly in need of review, revision, and reauthorization by the Natural Resources Committee. As I have said before, there's been about 2,000 species listed and 21 recovered. Unfortunately, the Endangered Species Act has become not so much about saving species as it has been about controlling land and water. I'll give you an example. We all talk about the fuzzy and warm animals that we all like and all want to save. Nobody talks about the slickspot peppergrass, endangered. Nobody really cares about the slickspot peppergrass, except that it's listed. And you know what it does? It prevents cattle grazing on public lands and is used to prevent cattle grazing on public lands and move cattle producers off of public lands. That's the only reason that the slickspot peppergrass is really listed. That's unfortunate. When you start using what was an act that was bipartisan and almost had unanimous agreement in the House and Senate, was a good Act--the intent of the Endangered Species Act is right, and we need to do it. We need to protect species that are endangered. Unfortunately, that's not what it's being used for today, and you can't get the stakeholders to the table to do a reauthorization bill because there are groups that like it the way it is. They want to control land and water by using the Endangered Species Act. How do we get the message out to them that we need to do a reauthorization? The only way I can think of is to say, You know what? This has been unauthorized for 20 years. Now, you talk about policy riders in this bill that you don't like. This is a policy rider that you're attempting to add. It's an unauthorized program. Just because we have continued to fund it for 20 years, that's not the answer; that's the problem. And we need stakeholders to come to the table, sit down with the Natural Resources Committee and write a reauthorization. That's what this is all about. It is a shot across the bow. I believe there are 56 or 58 programs in this bill that the authorization has expired. Somehow we need to send a message that we have a process around here. It's authorization, then appropriation. Not authorization, expired appropriation, and appropriation and appropriation and appropriation. It's the only way those things keep going on. We are trying to send a message. You will find that I am supportive of reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act, and I am supportive of the Endangered Species Act as it was originally intended. But I would urge my colleagues to vote against this dangerous amendment which would undermine the Fish and Wildlife Service's budget because it would lift the caps that have been in place since the Clinton administration, and Fish and Wildlife Service would have no other alternative but to raid their accounts in order to fund court orders, suits, and other things that would come along. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do. As I said, we do have some concerns with the offsets, but I am more than willing once this bill goes to conference in whatever form, depending on the outcome of this amendment, obviously, to work with the gentleman to see what we can do with the geographical programs, not just the Great Lakes programs, but there are both Republicans and Democrats that care about the geographical programs. We've tried to do the best we could there, but there are other geographical programs that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) is concerned about and that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) is also concerned about. We will work with the gentleman in conference in trying to address the concerns expressed by the gentleman.

Mr. SIMPSON. I move to strike the last word in opposition.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. In closing, I thank the Members for the debate that has gone on with regard to this bill. I notice that Members on the other side of the aisle continually refer to some of the policy provisions that are in this bill as policy rider/special interest legislation. In fact, they were called ``earmark legislation'' in this bill, but they are special interest. Let me tell you that the only special interest that I care about right now are the unemployed people in this country who are looking for a job. If you talk to any business in this country, the one thing they will tell you is the uncertainty created by the potential regulation and proposed regulation by the EPA is stopping them from expanding their businesses because they have no idea--no idea--what it's going to cost to hire a new employee. They are the biggest wet blanket on our economy that we have today, so we need to do something about it. We need to rein them back in because they are totally out of control. That's what this bill does. This is under an open rule. That means Members will have the opportunity, if they have different ideas and if they can get a majority of the votes, to remove some of these things. If so, they can remove them, but I'd suspect more are going to be added rather than removed as this bill moves through its full consideration.

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