Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have no problem sharing with you the colloquies that we engage in.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to an esteemed colleague and member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman. It is important that authorizing committees like yours be able to modernize landmark laws like the ESA--laws that were widely supported when they were passed but no longer work as Congress originally intended. No less than 56 agencies or programs in this bill have expired authorizations, and stakeholders and interested Members of Congress should know that these programs are also at risk of defunding if they are not reauthorized. Our bill, hopefully, will provide incentive for stakeholders who have been unwilling to participate in the reform process to finally entertain serious reform of the ESA, which I am sure your committee will actively pursue.

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Yes, today's ESA is so highly contentious, political, and litigious that it has become a failure of public policy. Funding authorization for ESA programs expired nearly two decades ago, but because we have continued to fund them, ESA reform continues to stay on the back burner. This bill calls for a ``timeout'' for unauthorized funding of new critical habitat or ESA listing decisions in order to encourage authorizers and stakeholders to come to the table to bring the ESA into the 21st century, which it is not now.

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Yes. Our intent is to make it clear that States with approved management plans should be given authority to manage delisted wolf populations in their States. The language in the bill ensures that delisting decisions are made by scientists on the ground, not judges in courtrooms. The report language clarifies that similar bill language should apply to areas where wolves have expanded beyond their original population boundaries once State management plans are in place and the Fish and Wildlife Service determines that the population should be delisted. That language is intended to address States that currently face mixed management challenges, like Washington, Oregon, and Utah. I know your concern about this issue, and Representative Walden from Oregon has shared with me similar concerns as well.

Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for the purpose of colloquy.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the esteemed chairman of the full committee.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2584 and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring to the floor H.R. 2584, the fiscal year 2012 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. As we begin, I want to personally thank Mr. Moran, Mr. Dicks, and each of the members of our subcommittee for their active participation in the bipartisan spirit that has been part of our deliberations this year. Regardless of our positions on this bill, I do sincerely appreciate their constructive contributions. Mr. Chairman, we're living at a time when the Federal Government borrows more than 40 cents on each dollar that it spends. We are also living in a time of record deficits and debt. While reductions in discretionary spending alone will not totally erase the deficit, we all know that reducing Federal spending is a necessary first step. The fiscal year 2012 Interior and Environment bill is funded at $27.5 billion, which is $2.1 billion, or 7 percent below the fiscal year enacted level, and $3.8 billion, or 12 percent below the budget request. Overall, funding within this bill is essentially level within fiscal year 2009 spending. The subcommittee has made some very difficult choices in preparing this budget proposal. In total, 235 Members of the House submitted over 1,700 programmatic requests to the subcommittee for consideration. While the bill makes significant spending reductions across many agencies and programs, it also provides ample funding to address the needs of key accounts supported by a bipartisan cross-section of Members. For instance, fire suppression at the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service is fully funded at the 10-year average. The bill includes a $37 million increase over fiscal year 2011 for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to hire new inspectors and move forward with offshore oil and gas permitting and leasing while also improving safety. And Members will be pleased to know that the operations of our national parks are sustained at levels only slightly below last year, which means every park unit in the country will be operational and fully staffed without the threat of furloughs or layoffs. Finally, this bill also makes critical investments in Indian Country. Building upon efforts initiated by Mr. Dicks and Mr. Moran, this bill continues to make investments in human health and wellness programs in Indian Country, affecting health care, education, and self- determination. Overall, the Department of the Interior is funded at $9.9 billion, which is a $715 million, or 7 percent, reduction below last year's enacted level. As I mentioned, we've done some things that Secretary Salazar will support. The Secretary and I have had many discussions about these issues as well as some areas where funding isn't what he would like to see. One of those areas relates to the funding of the Endangered Species Act. Since the ESA was enacted, there have been 2,018 species listed and only 21 species recovered. By any calculation, that's a pretty poor track record. Any other program with such a poor rate of success would have long since been terminated. There isn't one member of this subcommittee opposed to recovering endangered species; but the ESA has become so contentious, so political, and so litigious that it has become a policy failure. The authorization for the ESA appropriation expired 20 years ago, and the assumption has been that the Appropriations Committee would continue to fund it year in and year out, as it has in the past. In fact, Members might be interested to know that 26 percent of the funding in this bill is for programs in which the authorizations have expired. That's not how the process is supposed to work, Mr. Chairman. And just as we are going back to regular order and passing appropriation bills, we need to return to regular order when it comes to working with the authorizers to update and fix laws that no longer work or have expired. It's time to fix the ESA. The best way to do that is for the authorizers and stakeholders in the conservation community to come to the table to fix what is broken so we can actually begin recovering species. We are sending that message today. Climate change is another item of interest to members of this committee. Most of the Members know that I am not a climate change naysayer. The fact is that climate change funding has been increasing over the past few years, and no one has any idea how or whether its funding is being coordinated between various agencies. The GAO came to the same conclusion in a report released in May of this year. The GAO said: ``Without further improvement in how Federal climate change funding is defined and reported, strategic priorities are set, and funding is aligned with priorities, it will be difficult for the public and Congress to fully understand how climate change funds are accounted for and how they are spent.'' As a result of this ongoing concern, climate change funding in this bill is reduced by $83 million, or 22 percent. The bill also makes significant reductions in funding for land acquisition. Land acquisition was funded at $301 million in the current fiscal year. The President had requested $900 million for next year. We funded it at $66 million in this bill to complete land acquisitions currently under consideration. I would personally like to see more funding in the LWCF. The problem is, we just don't have the money. It's also worth noting that while we increase funding for oil and gas rig inspections, we don't pay for them by including the President's proposed $38 million increase for additional onshore gas and oil fees or the $55 million increase for additional offshore oil and gas fees. These issues are best left to the authorizing committees of jurisdiction. And I hope that by next year, the authorizing committees will address this issue. There are a few other items that may be of interest to Members that I'll mention briefly: The U.S. Geological Survey is funded at $1.1 billion, which is $30 million, or 3 percent, below the FY11-enacted level. The next-generation LandSat satellite imaging program, which has been a cooperative venture with NASA, was proposed to be transferred entirely to USGS without any corresponding funding from NASA. Because projected costs are estimated to increase tenfold over the next 2 years and because LandSat is a widely used governmental and private sector resource, this bill sends the proposal back to the administration with instructions to start over. Within the EPA, the bill includes $15 million for a new competitive grant program to fund rural water technical assistance, which is widely supported on both sides of the aisle. The NEA and the NEH are both funded at $135 million, which is a level too low for some Members and too high for others. It's worth noting that both sides worked together in a effort to maintain several longstanding proven programs that the administration had slated for termination. The bill provides funding for the Smithsonian at levels just below the FY11-enacted level and includes $50 million to begin construction of the National Museum of African American History and Culture and $75 million for revitalization of existing Smithsonian buildings. The bill also provides a $30 million down payment to begin construction next year of a memorial to honor the memory of Dwight D. Eisenhower. I suspect that most of the headlines from House consideration of this bill will focus on the committee's attention to the EPA. We need to continue funding the EPA in order for business to obtain the necessary permits to operate in accord with the environmental laws. Through EPA funding, we also continue to address our Nation's critical water and wastewater infrastructure needs. However, one of the major underlying themes to this year's work is the sheer volume of regulatory actions being pursued by agencies in the absence of legislation and without clear congressional direction. My intense opposition to the EPA's efforts to control nearly every industry in this country is no secret. The EPA's unrestrained effort to regulate greenhouse gases and the pursuit of an overly aggressive regulatory agenda are signs of an agency that has lost its bearings. Wherever I go, the biggest complaint I hear about the Federal Government is about how the EPA is creating economic uncertainty and killing jobs. This isn't a partisan issue. Members of both parties have said that the EPA's regulatory actions vastly exceed its authority and congressional intent. The responsibility to determine whether or not to expand that authority rests solely with Congress, not with the EPA. We have included a number of provisions in the base bill to address some of these issues and more were added in full committee. We saw during consideration of H.R. 1 earlier this year and we will see again on the House floor even more efforts to rein in the EPA. I know some of my Democrat friends will be especially critical of the spending reductions in EPA accounts. While we all recognize the importance of the clean drinking water and safe drinking water State revolving funds, we also know funding them, as we have in the past, is not possible. We need to find a better long-term funding source for water infrastructure projects, something that a number of Members have been working on. It's also worth pointing out that these accounts received $6 billion in Recovery Act funds in 2009 and still have nearly $3 billion in previously appropriated funding that they have yet to spend. In calendar year 2009, the EPA received over $25 billion in combined stimulus funding and regular appropriation. So it should come as no surprise that the funding for the EPA was reduced by $1.5 billion, or 18 percent, from current levels. Much will be said today about the subcommittee's allocation of the policy provisions in this bill; but just remember, at the end of the day, what this committee is attempting to do is all about reducing spending, creating more certainty in the marketplace, and promoting an economic environment conducive to job growth. If there's one thing that we should have learned in the last couple of years, it's that we can't spend our way to an economic recovery. That didn't work. All it did was make the hole we're in much deeper. I know Mr. Moran and Mr. Dicks may not agree, but the legislative provisions in this bill and those that will be added today and on the House floor, they are not special interests. They're about jobs. They're about protecting businesses and hardworking Americans from frivolous lawsuits. They're about creating certainty in the marketplace, and they're about assuring businesses that employ people that it's safe to begin hiring people again without the threat of the EPA, under the guise of protecting our environment, imposing millions of dollars of penalties through regulations that are unreasonable or simply defy common sense. Is this a perfect bill? No. But I've never seen a perfect bill. This is a bill that makes some very tough choices on spending. It's a bill that attempts to rein in the excesses of the EPA, and it's a bill that sends a clear message to stakeholders in Congress that it's time to get busy on renewing expiring authorizations. I wish we had more money to spend on a variety of programs that I, and other Members, believe are important. I also wish we didn't have a $1.6 trillion deficit. I wish we weren't $14.5 trillion in debt. I wish the economy was booming and that unemployment was something we only read about in history books. Unfortunately, wishing doesn't make it so. These are the economic and political realities that we have to face. In closing, I'd like to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work in producing this bill. Most Members don't realize how much time and effort staff members put into this. On the minority side, I'd like to thank Rick Healy and Shalanda Young, as well as Tim Aiken and Pete Modaff. They have played an integral role in the process, and their efforts are very much appreciated. On the majority side, I'd like to thank the subcommittee staff: Colin Vickery, Grace Stephens, who, by the way, just had a baby last week-- she held off until she was sure we had this bill through the full committee--Erica Rhoad, Jason Gray, Darren Benjamin, and Dave LesStrang. I'd also like to thank Missy Small, Kaylyn Bessey and Lindsay Slater on my personal staff for their great work. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.022 I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I would like to express my appreciation to the Chair and Ranking Member of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee for the work they and the subcommittee staff have done in developing the FY12 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. It is impossible to make everyone happy when the fiscal reality requires reductions, but at a time when we borrow 40 cents for every dollar we spend we need to be willing to set priorities and make difficult decisions. The bill before us makes responsible investments in energy research and development and it funds critical waterway infrastructure improvements, but it does it in a responsible and sustainable manner. One of the lessons that we all should have learned over the past several years is that it is in nobody's interest to expand budgets at an unsustainable rate. We are now faced with the unpleasant task of trimming back the budget to remove the excesses of the past several years so that we can get back to a responsible baseline. The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee has always worked in a bipartisan basis to address the energy and infrastructure challenges facing our nation, and I believe that this product is better for the cooperative and problem-solving approach of both the staff and subcommittee members. It is an honor for me to be able to serve on this subcommittee, and I am pleased to be able to support this bill. I would also like to speak directly to the Administration and NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko. I'm deeply concerned that Chairman Jaczko has allowed politics to influence the NRC's decisions, and in my opinion, in order to restore public confidence in the NRC, the Chairman should step aside. Absent that, the President and Chairman Jaczko should take note that the bill we are passing contains funding to continue with the Yucca Mountain repository and the associated licensing activities in the NRC. Congress is making a statement here: continuing funding of Yucca is the fiscally responsible thing to do to prevent billions of dollars in future liability and to ensure that the $15 billion already invested has not been wasted. Again, I want to express my appreciation for Chairman Frelinghuysen, Ranking Member Visclosky, and the subcommittee staff for the fine work they have done this year.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 332, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 1657, Revising Fraud Penalties, I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 330, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 1627, Arlington National Cemetery Monuments, I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 331, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 1383, the Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act of 2011, I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 1407, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of Living-Adjustment Act, I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Harold Blackman, an Idahoan who has made a difference. When the Battelle Energy Alliance was selected by the Department of Energy to manage the Idaho National Laboratory, the contract called for the development of a research institution to link the Lab to the three Idaho state universities--the University of Idaho, Idaho State University and Boise State University. Ultimately, Dr. Harold Blackman was chosen to serve as Director of the Center for Advanced Energy Studies and a landmark institution in Idaho began to come together. The Center for Advanced Energy Studies, or CAES as it is known in Idaho, brings INL researchers, university faculty and students, and industry together to partner in research and development activities. At the outset, Harold faced the challenge of getting the three Idaho universities to view the Lab as a partner and, perhaps the even more difficult challenge to get the three schools to work together. Previous efforts to bring our national labs and universities together in lasting partnerships have not always been successful and were it not for Harold Blackman's patient manner and his willingness to listen, learn and implement, CAES would have been another failed attempt. Instead, CAES is a smashing success and much of the credit goes to Harold Blackman. CAES has developed into a state of the art research facility with world class equipment that gives its researchers a competitive advantage pursuing research proposals. Also, the partnership is helping fill the pipeline for the next generation of energy professionals. At a time when Idaho, like every other state in the Union, is facing severe budgetary pressure, Governor C.L. ``Butch'' Otter and the Idaho Legislature have continued to provide funding to support university faculty participation in CAES. Through CAES, Idaho universities have increased the role they play supporting nuclear energy research in the US, and undergraduate and graduate student enrollment in nuclear engineering classes has soared. As a result of the expertise and credentials of the staff Harold Blackman has assembled, CAES now administers the Department of Energy's Nuclear Energy University Program which funds R&D, fellowships, scholarships, and infrastructure investments across the country. In addition to fostering a new collaborative climate between the Idaho universities, Harold Blackman and CAES were instrumental in establishing a high-speed network researchers could tap into across the state. The Center for Advanced Energy Studies is a model for national laboratory, university and industry collaboration and Harold Blackman deserves a large amount of credit for making this institution a success. Harold will now be tackling new challenges at INL, and I am sure he will bring his exceptional professionalism, listening skills and commitment to success to these new tasks. Thank you, Harold.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the chairman for yielding, and let me thank you for all the hard work that you've done on this appropriation bill in bringing it to the floor. I know it's been a tough task. Mr. Speaker, the budget for fiscal year 2011 is now 6 months and 2 weeks overdue. It's time to finish this budget. Through this legislation, Chairman Rogers and the Appropriations Committee achieved what some thought would be impossible. We have succeeded in cutting $40 billion--that's $40 billion--from current spending levels. No other single bill in history has cut more spending. Think about that for just a minute. While the $40 billion reduction in spending--and it is $40 billion, contrary to some of the reports that have been out there that it is $300 and-some-odd million or something like this. This is $40 billion in real reductions in spending. While this is $40 billion, it is just a step. But it is a step in the right direction. We should also think about how the nature of this national conversation on spending has changed. For several years, we debated in Congress how much we were going to increase spending each year. Our debate today centers not on whether we should cut spending but how much spending should be cut. That is a sea change in the debate--both in Congress and in the Nation. And it's a change in the right direction. The Interior Subcommittee, which I am privileged to chair, has cut spending by 8.1 percent, or $2.62 billion below the FY10 enacted level. Virtually every agency within the budget has been cut. The CR cuts EPA funding by $1.6 billion, or 16 percent below the FY10 enacted level. Funding levels for land acquisition programs are reduced by $149 million, or 33 percent, and on and on. Even with these deep cuts, funding levels for operational accounts are sustained to prevent employee furloughs and the closure of national parks and forests, wildlife refuges, Smithsonian museums, and other sites. Let me just say for a minute about the Energy and Water appropriation. Although no funds were included in the Energy and Water appropriation to continue and proceed to build Yucca Mountain, I don't want anyone--and I'm speaking particularly to the NRC and the Department of Energy--to misinterpret this vote. Congress has voted and spoke many times on the issue of Yucca Mountain. Do not misinterpret this vote that this is a vote against Yucca Mountain. What we are saying to the NRC is proceed with Yucca Mountain, and NRC, do your job, which they have failed to do. As I close my remarks, I want to echo what both Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Dicks said about the staff. Unless you've been on this committee or on any of the committees, the public generally doesn't know the hard work that goes on behind the scenes to make this all possible. I want to thank the staff of both the Appropriations Committee, and really the staff of the House, the staff who sits up here on the dais. They do a tremendous job for us for which this Congress would not be able to operate as effectively as we do. Some people think that's not too effectively. But, actually, we wouldn't be able to do our job. And most people don't understand that when we went home last Friday after extending the government funding for a week, we went home. They were here all day Saturday until well into Sunday morning, and then all day Sunday until well into Monday morning in order to get the job done so that we could do this for the American people. So I want you to vote for this budget. I urge an ``aye'' vote so that we can get on debating what the minority whip mentioned, the important priorities for the FY12 budget in the Ryan Republican budget. We appreciate that.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. There is a way to avoid the consequences of a government shutdown that the government from Virginia (Mr. Moran) spoke about just a few minutes ago, and that is to pass this CR, put it on the President's desk so that he will sign it. And I believe he will sign it. The gentleman from North Carolina said this could have been avoided. He's absolutely right. This could have been avoided. It could have been avoided when the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate and the Presidency last year by actually passing a budget or passing an appropriation bill on the floor of the House. Guess what? That never happened. You left us with this mess. And now you complain about the way we're trying to clean it up. The gentleman also said this is an ideological position on which the Republicans will not yield. He's right. And that ideological position is, this country is in a fiscal crisis, and we are going to get our house back in order. If that's the position that we're being criticized for, I welcome that criticism. Mr. Speaker, nobody wants this government to be shut down. And frankly, there is absolutely no reason to close down the government. The smart thing to do would be to pass this 1-week CR that saves the taxpayers $12 billion and addresses the dual goals of addressing the fiscal crisis that we're in and averting a government shutdown. It also funds our troops for the rest of this year. It enables our congressional leaders and the White House to dot the I's and cross the T's on the final spending bill for 2011. That would be the smart thing to do. Many of the spending reductions contained in this CR are spending reductions that the President has submitted to Congress in either his FY11 or FY12 budget request. Almost $1.3 billion of the spending reductions come from my own subcommittee, the Interior and Environment Subcommittee. And these are spending reductions that will probably be in any final agreement that is made between Republicans and Democrats. So the $12 billion is not extreme. It will be in the final agreement, whatever that agreement is. There is absolutely no reason why the Senate cannot pass this bill and send it to the White House. I believe if you put it on the President's desk, he will sign it so that our troops are funded.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I rise today in support of H.R. 872, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011. This bill is a much-needed legislative fix that clarifies how pesticide application should be regulated. Congress never intended for pesticide applications that are already regulated under FIFRA to also require permits under the Clean Water Act. Yet because a Federal court did not interpret congressional intent correctly in a 2009 ruling, Congress must act to ensure that farmers, ranchers, forest managers, and other water users, as well as mosquito abatement districts and local governments, won't face unnecessary and duplicative regulations that would make it more difficult to do their jobs. Everyone here supports protecting our water supplies from polluters acting in violation of our Nation's environmental laws and regulations; but it is also clear that pesticides used around streams to spray for mosquitoes and other pests are already adequately regulated under statute. Adding another layer of regulation by requiring NPDES permits for application of these pesticides doesn't make them safer. It only piles unnecessary paperwork on top of day-to-day operations for small businesses, farmers, and local governments. My good friend from Oregon mentioned that in Oregon the application is only three pages long. So why should it be a problem? It misses the point. It doesn't matter if it's one page long or 100 pages long. The question is unnecessary dual regulation. The legislation before us today would clarify Congress' intent that existing FIFRA regulations are adequate for aquatic pesticide use and provide needed certainty for farmers and ranchers who provide our Nation's food supply. I urge our colleagues to support this important legislative fix.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I can tell the gentleman that just spoke, the minority whip, a good friend of mine, what we can pass in this House and what our conference will agree to, and that is the $61 million in cuts or $100 million overall that we have already agreed to and already passed. We can pass that in this House. I have heard that this is no way to run a railroad. My good friend from Virginia said this is no way to run a government. I have heard this is operational outrage. I will tell you the outrage here is that we are having to do this because the former majority, when they had the majority in the House, the majority in the Senate and the White House, failed to pass an appropriation bill. They left the American people in this country with this pile of crap. They should not complain about how we try to clean this up. Mr. Speaker, by the end of this week, the appropriations subcommittee which I am privileged to chair, the Interior and Environment Subcommittee, will have had 12 budget oversight hearings over the past 3 weeks. That is 12 hearings addressing the fiscal 2012 budget that we will soon be writing. It is worth noting that we are now 5\1/2\ months into the fiscal year 2011, and we still don't have a budget to fund the government through the end of the current fiscal year. The CR we are considering today keeps the government operating for another 3 weeks. And you're right: We need to solve this within this next 3 weeks. The problem is you cannot negotiate with a body across the Rotunda that fails to act. We can't be the only ones at the table. We have to have something to negotiate with. We don't have that. This CR saves taxpayers $6 billion, including $650 million in spending cuts from the Interior Subcommittee accounts that Republicans, Democrats, and the administration agree are reasonable and supportable on a bipartisan basis. The overall savings achieved through this CR, at a rate of $2 billion per week, is the 3-week equivalent to the $100 billion in cuts achieved in the long-term CR passed by House Republicans several weeks ago. In the Interior budget alone, we have cut $380 million out of earmarks. We have cut the National Park Service Preserve America Program, eliminated it, and other programs, Save America's Treasures in the National Park Service, programs that the administration did not request funding for in their 2012 budget. So these are things that are agreed on by both Republicans and Democrats. Now that the Senate has voted down two versions of the year-long CR, the Republican version, H.R. 1, that cut spending by $100 billion and the Democratic version that cut substantially less, it is time for both sides to come together on a funding bill for the rest of this year. The truth is that we really need to get the fiscal year 2011 budget written, passed, and signed into law so that we can turn our attention to next year's budget. In the midst of the back and forth debate on spending, it is important to remember that these funding bills don't write themselves. Our Appropriations Committee staff have been working day and night, 7 days a week, for months now writing one CR after another, even as they prepare for hearings and study budget proposals for next year. I encourage my colleagues to support this CR to keep the government open while both parties work to identify an acceptable level of spending cuts for the rest of the year. We can and should cut more from the spending budget, and I encourage my colleagues to support this CR.

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman. On behalf of the majority, I would like to echo the comments of my good friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). Chris Topik came to the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations as a detailee from the Forest Service in the mid-1990s and, since that time, has worked on a nonpartisan basis to address many of the most critical issues facing our land management agencies. Chris is one of the most professional and widely respected individuals on the Appropriations Committee staff. His dry wit and friendly disposition will be greatly missed, and his institutional knowledge of Forest Service issues will be impossible to replace. Chris, we appreciate your dedication and commitment over your many years of public service and wish you all the best in your future endeavors.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 163, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 570, the Dental Emergency Responder Act of 2011, I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the chairman for yielding. Madam Speaker, if this wasn't such a serious subject that we're discussing here, the Federal budget and how we're going to fund it for the next 2 weeks, it would almost be funny. Almost every Member of the Democratic Party that has stood up and talked about this CR has said something like this--even the sponsor of this motion said something along these lines: Democrats know we have to reduce spending. Democrats want to reduce spending. Yet the very first time they have a chance to vote to reduce spending, reductions that the administration agrees with in its 2012 budget and eliminating earmarks, the Democrats vote ``no''? It's strange but true. In fact, instead of cutting spending, they propose to increase revenue. Or increase taxes. In this fragile economy with energy prices rising, we should be encouraging more energy and gas development and production in the United States. We need more supply, not less supply. This would reduce the supply. Oil prices are rising again; and with the wave of unrest in the Middle East and North Africa, there are fears that we could soon see a return to $4 or $5 gas in the United States this summer. The moratorium put in place following the Deepwater Horizon accident was lifted last fall by the administration; but the administration has issued just one deepwater permit in the gulf, and that was issued just yesterday. The Federal judge called this de facto deepwater drilling moratorium unreasonable, unacceptable, and unjustifiable. The public will have no patience for more delays, more excuses, and higher taxes if gas prices continue to rise, especially when we have untapped resources here in the United States not being utilized. We need to be encouraging more production in this country, not discouraging production in this country. Oil and gas from Federal lands, both onshore and offshore, provide an important energy source and domestic jobs and billions of dollars of revenue to the United States. This is a job-killing proposal. This is an issue that needs to be addressed carefully and in great detail. A rush to impose new taxes and fees through a motion to recommit is hasty and unwise. We ought to let the committees of jurisdiction address this issue. I strongly, in the strongest terms, encourage my colleagues to vote against this ill-conceived motion to recommit.