Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. SIMPSON. Would the Speaker tell us how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, might I inquire as to the amount of time remaining?

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a valuable member of the Resources Committee, the authorizing committee, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to another member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), another member of the subcommittee.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to begin my comments today by expressing my thanks to Chairman Dicks for the even-handed manner in which he has conducted the business of the Interior and Environment Subcommittee this year. While we may disagree about the need for a 17 percent increase in spending in this conference agreement, our work together has been a bipartisan, collaborative effort. While we certainly don't agree on every issue, when we do disagree, Chairman Dicks and I continue to work very well together. Of the many things achieved by this legislation, I hope it will be remembered for the effort made to address the long-standing issue of adequately funding our country's fire suppression needs without bankrupting other non-fire accounts. From our hearings earlier this year, we know that almost 50 percent of the Forest Service budget is consumed by the costs of fighting wildfires. In past years, the Forest Service has had to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars from other accounts just to pay for fire suppression. The President took positive steps this year by proposing a contingency reserve fund for fire suppression. The House and Senate also acted by approving the FLAME Act in each Chamber with overwhelming bipartisan majorities. Working together, authorizers and appropriators have developed FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve Funds, providing both the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service the additional tools they need to combat large, severe fire emergencies. This conference report also provides needed attention to our Native American brothers and sisters. There are many unmet needs within Indian Country in education, health care, law enforcement, drug abuse prevention, and other areas, and this legislation does a great deal to address these issues. I thank Chairman Dicks for his attention to this important area of the budget. However, while this conference agreement tackles many challenging issues, it also assumes that more money is the answer to every problem we face. I just don't believe that a $4.7 billion, or 17 percent, increase over last year makes sense. This additional spending comes on the heels of a 13 percent last year and an $11 billion infusion from the stimulus bill. The Federal budget deficit is now a staggering $1.4 trillion, the highest deficit in history, and three times higher than that of the previous administration. Our current deficit is almost 10 percent of the gross domestic product, a level not witnessed since World War II. Remember, this is before Congress begins tackling the issue of health care, cap-and-trade, and other expensive pieces of legislation. I believe a better approach would have been to create a balanced bill. This conference report provides a disproportionate level of funding to one agency, the EPA, and creates an imbalance that undermines what could be a very fine piece of legislation. I question the need for a $10.2 million budget for EPA, a 35 percent increase from just last year. This is on top of the $7.2 billion the agency received in stimulus funding and the $7.6 billion it received in last year's Interior bill. Taken together, the EPA will receive more than $25 billion in this calendar year. That is about the size of the entire Interior and environment spending bill just 2 years ago. This package also provides large increases in programs without having clearly defined goals or sufficient processes in place to measure results or the return on our investment. We are making rapid investments in water, climate change, renewable energy, and other areas, all of them worthy endeavors, but with relatively little planning and coordination across multiple agencies and the rest of government. I look forward to receiving a detailed report from the administration on how and where climate change dollars are being spent, not just within this bill, but across all of government. Spending on climate change programs in this package alone has increased from $231 million in last year's budget to $382 million in this year's conference agreement. That is a 66 percent increase in 1 year. As I said earlier, I have the highest regard for Chairman Dicks and look forward to continuing our work together. I would very much like to support this conference report, but regrettably, I cannot. The bottom line for me is that the conference agreement simply spends too much money. In closing, I would like to thank both the majority and minority staff for their long hours and fine work in producing this conference report. On the majority side, this includes Delia Scott, Chris Topik, Julie Falkner, Greg Knadle, Beth Houser, Melissa Squire, Pete Modaff and Ryan Shauers. Of the minority staff, I'd like to thank my staff, Missy Small, Megan Milam, Kaylyn Bessey, and Lindsay Slater, as well as committee staffers, Darren Benjamin and Dave LesStrang. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, in accordance with the policies and standards put forth by the House Appropriations Committee and the GOP Leadership, I would like to submit a listing of the congressionally- directed projects I requested in my home state of Idaho that are contained in the Conference Report accompanying H.R. 2996, the FY2010 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill. Project Name: City of American Falls Wastewater System Improvements Amount Requested: $300,000 Account: EPA/STAG Recipient: City of American Falls Recipient's Address: 550 N. Oregon Trail, American Falls, ID 83211- 1800 Description: The city's recently completed wastewater facilities planning study evaluated numerous options to address the city's wastewater infrastructure deficiencies and meet U.S. EPA and IDEQ regulations. Based on input from the city, IDEQ, citizens of American Falls, and the consulting engineers performing the study, it was determined that a new wastewater treatment facility incorporating membrane technologies was the best solution to meet the needs of the city. Such a treatment facility utilizes state-of-the-art treatment technology that would be able to meet current and anticipated future State and Federal requirements. In addition, it would provide future flexibility to the city for pursuing other treated wastewater disposal methods. Total project cost is over $10 million. The people of American Falls will be absorbing the majority of costs for this project. Project Name: City of Buhl Wastewater System Improvements Amount: $750,000 Account: EPA/STAG Recipient: City of Buhl Recipient's Address: 203 North Broadway, Buhl, ID 83316 Description: The city is periodically exceeding the NPDES limitations under the Clean Water Act and was recently fined by EPA for non- compliance of their pH, Total Suspended Solids (TSS), and Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) IDEQ and EPA have mandated that the city build a new wastewater treatment center. Buhl, a town of less than 5,000 residents, recently passed a bond election for $15 million to help pay for the required improvements to their water system. The loan funds will be a burden to the residents--many of whom are elderly (19% of the community) and the majority of whom are low to moderate income--and will increase monthly water bills by over $100, but even this will be unsustainable without additional assistance. Funding for this project will enable the City build a new wastewater treatment center that would meet the Federal and State mandates imposed on the community. Project Name: Historic Old Pen Site Stabilization Project Amount: $150,000 8 604 Account: National Park Service/Save America's Treasures Recipient: Idaho State Historical Society Recipient's Address: 2205 Old Penitentiary Road, Boise, ID 83712 Description: This project will provide stabilization to the Old Idaho State Penitentiary historic site, which is operated by the Idaho State Historical Society. The Old Pen is one of the West's most significant prison sites and one of the most visited cultural facilities in Idaho. It thus plays a key role in the economic vitality of Boise and the Treasure Valley. Funding would be used for work needed immediately to stabilize the site. In addition, funding would be used for an historic structures report to help better anticipate future maintenance and repair needs before they become emergency situations. Project Name: Idaho Sage-Grouse Management Plan Amount: $1,000,000 Account: Fish and Wildlife Service/ESA Resource Management Recipient: Idaho Governor's Office of Species Conservation Recipient's Address: 300 N. 6th Street, Boise, ID 83702 Description: Sage-grouse are on the verge of being listed under the Endangered Species Act, with a decision on listing expected this spring. Idaho is taking proactive steps to recover this species before a listing is required. The management plan, which is a partnership with private landowners, is an attempt to be wise stewards of the nation's wildlife without being compelled to do so by law. Project Name: Piva Parcel Land Acquisition Amount: $400,000 Account: USFS/Land Acquisition Recipient: U.S. Forest Service, Sawtooth National Recreation Area Recipient's Address: 5 North Fork Canyon Road, Ketchum, ID 83340 Description: Funds will be used to enable the Forest Service to acquire the 160-acre Piva parcel from a willing seller so that it can be used for public recreation and access to the Redfish Lake recreation area from the town of Stanley. The Forest Service currently has a conservation easement on the property, but acquiring the land is necessary to carry out planned improvements. Project Name: SNRA Trail Maintenance and Improvements Amount: $1,200,000 Account: Capital Improvements and Maintenance (Trail Construction) Recipient: U.S. Forest Service, Sawtooth National Recreation Area Recipient's Address: 5 North Fork Canyon Road, Ketchum, ID 83340 Description: Funds will be used for trail construction, maintenance, and improvement in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area. Of the funds appropriated for trail maintenance and improvement in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area, $500,000 is for trail improvements; $500,000 is for maintenance of existing motorized trails and areas; and $200,000 is for the improvement of two existing trails to provide primitive wheelchair access at Murdock Creek and Phyllis Lake. I appreciate the opportunity to provide a list of congressionally- directed projects in my district that have received funding in the Conference Report accompanying the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2010 and provide an explanation of my support for them.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Reclaiming my time, I would yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SIMPSON. Now I'm really confused. I'm really puzzled. I don't understand what the gentleman is saying.

Mr. SIMPSON. Reclaiming my time, I will point out once again, this is the Appropriations Committee. The authorizing committee specifically exempts all animal agricultural source from greenhouse gas emission reporting. We got 100 percent of the legislation under the requirement the EPA can't oversee the emissions from the ships on the Great Lakes. We need to stand up strong, and we need to stand up for what the House voted for, not once but twice, what the committee voted for. We need to stand up in the conference committee with the Senate. I encourage the chairman to do just that. I encourage my colleagues to vote for this motion to instruct. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to instruct at the desk.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before I get into the substance of this motion to instruct, I want to thank Chairman Dicks and his staff for listening to the views of the minority during our preconference deliberations. While we may not agree on everything in this Interior Appropriations conference agreement, our staff discussions have been very productive. The motion I am offering today is very straightforward and does two things. First, it would insist on section 425 of the House bill regarding a prohibition on funds to implement any rule requiring mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from manure management systems. Secondly, it would require that the Interior Appropriations conference report be available 72 hours prior to House consideration for the public and Members to read. This motion to instruct simply insists upon the House-passed bill's position relating to the Latham amendment. The Latham amendment simply says that the EPA cannot implement a rule that requires mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from cow, pig, or chicken manure. The Latham amendment was offered in full committee and was one of the very few amendments passed this year with strong bipartisan support. Every Democrat on the Appropriations Committee with agricultural interests in his district supported it, and no one made an effort to strike the language on the House floor. Now, of course anyone could have done that--excuse me, I was wrong. We didn't consider this bill under an open rule, so they would have had to go to the Rules Committee, but no one did go to the Rules Committee to get an amendment approved so that they could offer it on the floor. It was part of the House-passed Interior Appropriations bill and should be a part of the Interior Appropriations conference agreement. According to the EPA, livestock manure management systems account for less than 1 percent of all human-induced greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Over 85 percent--that's 85 percent--of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture in total come from sources other than manure management systems, and these sources are not subject to the reporting rule. By the EPA's own admission, regulating these sources would be overly expensive and burdensome. Members of the Agriculture Committee have been warning us for years of the danger of climate change rulemaking outside of the legislative process. This EPA rule is clear evidence that the chickens have finally come home to roost, as have the cows and pigs. If you have livestock or a family farm in your congressional district, you will want to support this motion to instruct. The simple truth is that the livestock industry is being hammered by the downturn in our national economy. If you are raising animals for food, you are either losing your shirt or you are going out of business. That's the truth. It's not an exaggeration. Frozen credit markets have left farmers and ranchers without the credit they need to run their day-to- day operations, and many have been forced to sell their land or declare bankruptcy. It was only a few weeks ago that we added $350 million to the Ag Appropriations conference report to bail out the dairy industry, which is collapsing under the strain of the credit crisis and low milk prices. And in the Interior conference report, we're not only making it more difficult for farmers to succeed, we are setting them up to fail. There is another irony here worth noting. The Interior Appropriations conference agreement is likely to include an exemption to a clean air rule affecting ships on the Great Lakes. Chairman Obey recognized that the excesses of the EPA would place additional hardships upon an economy already devastated by the recession, so the chairman has done what anyone in his position would do to help his constituents--he took action. I happen to agree with him. That's no different from what Tom Latham is trying to do to help farmers, ranchers, and livestock producers in Iowa and across the country. The only difference is that Mr. Latham's amendment was in the original House bill and Chairman Obey's rider was airdropped in at the last minute. So we are going to protect the Great Lakes on the one hand while we regulate farmers out of business on the other hand. If the EPA had existed in Biblical times, there is no question in my mind that it would have regulated gas emissions from Noah's Ark. Poor Noah and his livestock; they could withstand a 40-day flood, but they would never have survived the EPA. I encourage Members on both sides to take a step back and think about this. Let's use a little common sense here. I urge Members, especially if you support agriculture, farming, and the livestock industry, to support this motion. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. SIMPSON. I would just remind the chairman that what we have is an authorizing committee that ought to be doing this and not the Appropriations Committee that ought to be doing this. This is the result of language put in an appropriations bill. We have authorizing committees like the Ag Committee which ought to be looking at this and overseeing it, not the Appropriations Committee. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. SIMPSON. May I inquire of the Speaker as to how much time we have remaining?

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for entertaining this motion to instruct. I said earlier that we had authorizing committees to do this. Some have suggested maybe they don't do their job and the Appropriations Committee has to do it for them. I don't think that's right. But I will tell you that in the only comprehensive climate change bill that's passed the House, the Waxman-Markey bill, it exempted all animal agriculture sources from greenhouse gas emissions reporting. We have two bills now that have passed the House, and the House has stated they do not want to have to report animal emissions to the EPA, Waxman- Markey and the Interior appropriations bill that passed. Now remember this legislation, or this amendment by Mr. Latham, was not in the original Interior bill as it came before the Appropriations Committee. It was added as an amendment. We affirmatively said we do not want the EPA to implement this rule on greenhouse gas emissions from animals. We affirmatively said it. It was not an oversight. That's what the committee said. When it came to the full House, no one offered an amendment to remove that language. I think that we ought to insist on the House language that is in this bill. Now I am puzzled a little bit when the chairman says ``we'll do our best'' and then stands up and defends the rule. What is ``our best''? I don't know where we are headed with this. Let me tell you how this process works just a little bit. Preconferencing goes on between the House and the Senate, generally between the staffs; they talk with the Members of Congress and so forth, but the preconferencing goes on. Apparently the Senate didn't like the Latham amendment, and we caved. And we said, No, we'll drop the Latham amendment. I think we need to insist on the Latham amendment. It's been the only expression by either body of the direction we ought to go, that we are opposed to this mandatory reporting by the EPA that's going to cost us, I think the gentleman from Iowa said, $115 million a year. Remember, we just gave the dairy industry $350 million because of the hardships they are currently suffering. And now we are going to impose these kinds of costs on them. We need to go to conference, and when we say we're going to do the best we can, if, when we go to conference, if the preconferenced conference report does not have the Latham language in it, that means we can offer an amendment to put it in the language, in the appropriation bill. But if the Senate doesn't have the votes to pass it there, then it's dropped and it's out. If it goes to conference with the language in, they have to get an amendment both past the House and the Senate to drop it. It's to our advantage and to the will of this House that it have the language in the preconferenced report before we go to conference, and apparently we've dropped it. So when the chairman says we'll do the best we can, I don't know exactly what that means.

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

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, in accordance with the policies and standards put forth by the House Appropriations Committee and the GOP Leadership, I would like to place in the record a listing of the congressionally directed project I requested in my home state of Idaho that is contained in the Conference Report accompanying H.R. 2892, the FY2010 Homeland Security Appropriations bill. Project Name: Power and Cyber Systems Protection, Analysis, and Testing Program Amount: $3,000,000 Account: NPPD Infrastructure Protection and Information Security Recipient: Idaho National Laboratory Recipient's Street Address: 2525 North Freemont St, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 Description: This funding will be used to conduct vulnerability analysis, testing, and protection of power and cyber connected systems for the Department of Homeland Security, utilizing the unique resources available at the Idaho National Laboratory, such as the electric grid, SCADA and control systems, cyber and communication test beds, and the explosives test range. The project entails collaboration with leading universities and other National Laboratories to leverage ongoing research at these institutions and advance the state of the art in building resilience into infrastructure systems. The funding will be used to obtain full-scale systems in sectors of interest to DHS for testing of vulnerabilities, identification of protection strategies, and evaluation of resilient designs; partner with universities and National Laboratories to develop resilient control systems; and establish a program that develops new protection schemes. The INL is uniquely placed to carry out this program, which leverages its ongoing work in this area sponsored by DOD, DHS, and Intelligence Agencies and its established relationships with industry, universities, and National Laboratories. I appreciate the opportunity to provide a list of the Idaho project that has received funding in the Conference Report for the FY2010 Homeland Security Appropriations bill and provide an explanation of my support for it.