Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's concern for the budget deficit and reducing the budget deficit, but I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment would limit the BLM from spending $4.5 million of offsetting collections for the processing of application of permits to drill. The BLM still collects the fees, they just wouldn't be able to spend the funds. Mr. Chairman, this makes little sense as those fees offset the cost to administer the oil and gas permitting program. In other words, these programs are paid for by the industry, not by taxpayers. In other words, the BLM will have the cost of these programs but won't be allowed to spend the fees it has collected. So I have a problem with this amendment, and I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for his question. The gentleman from New York has spoken to me about these concerns, and I am aware that this is a serious issue that will have an immediate impact on the State of New York and other Great Lakes States. Before conference, I will work with you, Congressman LaTourette, and other Great Lakes Members to try to resolve these concerns.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The amendment would take $3 million from the BLM Management of Lands and Resources and transfer it to the EPA's Urban Waters Initiative. The BLM Management of Lands and Resources account has already been cut by $43.5 million below the FY11 and $15.5 million below the President's budget request. This account funds the management of the BLM's more than 245 million surface acres and 700 million subsurface acres. Further cuts to this account would not be appropriate. We eliminated funding for the EPA's new Urban Waters Initiative because it was duplicative funding. Regardless of whether a water body is in an urban or a rural area, EPA and States should be addressing the most impaired waters first, and there are a number of well-established programs that handle that. There is no need for a separate, duplicative initiative in order to protect our urban waters; it only results in duplicative spending. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from New York for the purpose of a colloquy.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and while I appreciate my good friend from Kansas's passion for cutting spending, the reality is that this is exactly what we're doing. This bill comes in under the allocation. We passed the budget earlier this year on the floor--we're the only body to have passed a budget, actually. The Senate has not passed one yet. We were given an allocation, and this bill comes in under that allocation. We all know that we cannot balance this budget simply by cutting, but we also know that reducing Federal spending is a necessary priority and a first step toward getting us toward a balanced budget. I think that this amendment goes too far. It would take $3 billion from the numerous accounts in this bill, including the BLM, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, NEA and NEH, as was mentioned, and transfer it to the budget reduction account. While I appreciate the gentleman's concern that he expressed about the impact that the EPA is having in this country on job creation, and I have said repeatedly that when I go out and give a speech somewhere to a chamber of commerce or Lions Club or whatever, I'll talk about the Interior bill and the agencies that we fund, and when I get to the EPA, someone in the audience will say, Just defund it, get rid of it, and it's the first applause line in the speech. That's the reputation the EPA has out in the public, and that's the concern that the public has about the direction that the EPA is headed. So I appreciate the gentleman's concern about the EPA; but as I try to explain to people, you can't just do away with the EPA because if you're out there and you have a business and the underlying law requires you to get an air quality permit or a water permit or something like that and you call the EPA to get your air quality permit and no one's there to answer the phone, to help you with that, then you've got a problem. We don't want to eliminate the EPA. What we want to do is rein the EPA back in, because I think they've got an overly aggressive agenda; and, as I have said, I think they're the biggest wet blanket on the growth in our economy that there is. I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I would hope that my colleagues would oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from Virginia. Honoring our Nation's obligations to American Indians and Alaskan Natives is an unshakable bipartisan sentiment shared by Members of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and is an accomplishment in this bill that I am most proud of. This bill increases funding for Indian Health Services by $392 million over the current fiscal year while almost virtually everything else is being cut, a 10 percent increase that also happens to be one of the rare and, by far, the largest increases in this bill. This bill includes the same $19 billion cut for sanitation facilities that was proposed by the President. And I note that the President's Indian Health Service budget was an additional $162 million higher than this bill. The problem is the offset. The BLM's management of land resources account has already been cut by $43.5 million below the FY 2011 and $15.5 million below the President's budget request. This account funds the management of the BLM's more than 245 million surface acres and 700 million subsurface acres. Further cuts to this account are not appropriate. Mr. Chairman, am I proud of the increases we were able to provide in this bill and in previous bills by my predecessors Mr. Moran and Mr. Dicks? You bet I am. Will I continue to fight for more funding for Indian country despite the attacks from virtually every other interest group who isn't happy with their share of the pie? You bet I will. Will I stand by and let my friend and colleague from Virginia continue to systematically dismantle the budget of the largest landowner in the West, the BLM? Absolutely not. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. I agree with the gentleman from Missouri, and I want to be clear. I hope the Secretary of the Interior and the Fish and Wildlife Service hear us clearly when we say that it is the sense of the committee that under these acts the Secretary of the Interior may issue permits for the importation into the United States of live polar bears for the purposes of public display at appropriate accredited zoological institutions upon a finding that such importation will benefit the health and welfare of the animal or is otherwise consistent with the conservation of the polar bear. I thank the gentleman for raising the matter and for working with me on this important issue.

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding. I am aware of this issue. This is one of those times when a law whose intent is to protect may be unintentionally causing harm.

Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SIMPSON. The manager's amendment before us makes several technical and conforming changes to the bill. These are all noncontroversial changes, and they have been shared with the minority. I believe the minority is supportive of the amendment, and I urge its adoption. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield 2 minutes to the esteemed former chairman of the full committee, the member emeritus of several subcommittees, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer a manager's amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to consider the amendment en bloc and at this point in the reading.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), a valued member of the subcommittee.