Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Sergeant Jedediah Berman, an Idaho native, a constituent of mine, and a proud member of the United States Military for over 15 years. In 2004, Sergeant Berman was serving in Iraq when he was seriously wounded by an lED explosion next to his Fox vehicle. The right side of his head was badly injured. His arm was mangled, his lung had collapsed, his knee was injured, and he had shrapnel in his shoulder. He was treated first at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, then transferred to Walter Reed Medical Center here in Washington, and finally sent to Madigan Medical Center in Fort Lewis to undergo intensive treatment and rehabilitation. While his doctors were able to rebuild much of his face, they could not replace his eye or repair his hearing in his right ear. Shrapnel remained lodged in his body and his brain, his knees continued to cause him intense pain, and he had only limited use of his arm. Despite these enormous hardships and the significant pain of his injuries, Sergeant Berman badly wanted to return to Iraq to be with his unit, the Stryker Brigade Combat Team, which had been redeployed to Iraq while Berman was recovering. Last November, he received good news from the review board that he was fit for duty and would be able to rejoin his fellow soldiers. He deployed a few days before Christmas and has rejoined the Stryker Brigade in Iraq where he continues to serve our great Nation. Madam Speaker, Sergeant Berman is an inspiration and example to us all. He exemplifies the sort of brave and honorable military men and women that are protecting our Nation in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the rest of the world. I am proud and honored to represent him and many others like him in Congress, and I am grateful for their service to our great Nation. I would also like to recognize Sergeant Berman's family, and the many other military families throughout America, for their sacrifices and thank his mother, in particular, who brought her son's service and commitment to my attention. As we conduct our business in Congress, I know that my colleagues and I will continue to recognize and pay tribute to the honorable men and women who are serving our country and honor the many Sergeant Bermans who willingly make such great sacrifices to protect those of us at home. To our military men and women serving at home and abroad, the American people thank you for your great service to our country.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 42, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to congratulate the Boise State University Broncos football team on an exceptional football season and a great victory in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl. I listened with interest to the last resolution congratulating Florida and the Florida Gators and their national championship game. They truly deserved it. The Florida Gators went into the game against Ohio State as significant underdogs in the minds of most of the media, and so did the Boise State Broncos against the Oklahoma Sooners enter that game as significant underdogs. Nobody really gave them a chance. But when the Broncos defeated the University of Oklahoma in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl on New Year's Day, they completed the only, and I will repeat, the only undefeated season of any Division I-A collegiate football team in the 2006-2007 season. More than that, they showed the country what thousands of Boise State fans, known as the Bronco Nation, already know; the Boise State Broncos can play with the best. Some have suggested that maybe Boise State doesn't have as tough a schedule as some other teams. I will tell you that on their schedule this year I think they played six teams that were in bowl games in post season. They had a pretty tough schedule, and they beat them all. The 2007 Fiesta Bowl will go down in the books as one of the best and most exciting games in the history of college football. Both teams played with talents and heart, unwilling to let mistakes or shifts in momentum force their hands. And when, with only moments left in regulation, it looked like it was all over, the Broncos knew otherwise and turned to the back of their playbook. Plays like the ``hook-and-lateral'' and the now famous ``Statue of Liberty'' required creativity, skill and guts. The talented Broncos executed them perfectly, winning the game in the heart-stopping last seconds of overtime. Head Coach Chris Peterson and his players should be commended for their courage, resolve and ability. Last week Coach Peterson was awarded the Paul ``Bear'' Bryant Award and was named 2006 National Coach of the Year. He and his talented coaching staff will continue striving to make a winning program even better. The BSU Bronco football program has taken gifted, big-hearted young men and created an impressive legacy in the making. The Broncos have won the last five consecutive Western Athletic Conference football championships and, with the Nation's top scoring Division I-A football team for the last seven seasons. Their roster includes such talents as quarterback Jared Zabransky, the game's Offensive Most Valuable Player, who completed his college football career with a 33-5 record as starting quarterback; Marty Tadman, Defensive MVP of the game; and Ian Johnson, one of the Nation's most exciting running backs, who scored the game-winning two-point conversion in overtime, and after the game proposed to his fiancee, now a Boise State cheerleader. I don't know if I would have had that much courage, quite frankly, to propose to someone on national television. But it just shows the heart and courage of this team. These stars are just a few examples of the determination, talent and heart that make up the whole Bronco football team. The entire team should be commended for both its success on the field and the character displayed by each individual. The Boise State Broncos football team has made us proud; has made the State of Idaho, the City of Boise proud, and I am glad that we have this chance to recognize them today. And in case anybody wonders if this is just about football, I will tell you, in talking to the President of the University, he said that after the Bronco season, the number of applications for the postgraduate program has skyrocketed. So this is more than just about football. It is about national recognition for a team and a school, and the outstanding character of that school and the educational opportunities it provides to people from all over this country. Madam Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to speak on this and for bringing this to the floor today. This Saturday they have a parade and a day of recognition for the Boise State team, and I am sure that they will be very honored to have this.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give a speech I have long dreaded but knew would one day come. It is a speech many of us in this body have had to deliver from time-to-time--one that none of us likes to give but one that is entirely necessary and right. The speech I am talking about is one that announces the retirement of a trusted staffer and ally, someone who has worked with me since my election to Congress and served the people of Idaho's Second Congressional District with distinction, class, and a sincerity matched by none. That staffer is a gentleman named Charley Barnes. Charley has worked in my Twin Falls office for the past 8 years handling all of my agriculture outreach efforts and working day-in and day-out with the farmers and ranchers of Idaho to make sure their Government is effectively serving them. When I first got to Washington, I was immediately awarded a seat on the House Agriculture Committee. While this assignment was a great honor and of immense importance to the people of my district, it was not an assignment that played to my greatest expertise. So I knew from the start that I was going to need exceptional staff to guide me through my duties on the committee and the re-write of the farm bill. And thank god I had Charley Barnes by my side to help me out. I am proud of the farm bill we produced in 2002 and believe it has been perhaps the best farm bill this Congress has ever written. While I can't claim that Charley wrote the farm bill, he provided advice and counsel to me that was critical to my work as a member of the committee. But Charley's service to the Second District went well beyond the re- write of the farm bill or preparing me for a few committee hearings. When the farmers of Idaho's Second Congressional District were devastated by drought and disease, Charley was there to lend a helping hand and push his own boss to support disaster assistance payments that kept farmers out of bankruptcy and the economy of small, rural towns alive. When the Federal Government mistakenly sprayed a product called OUST on private land, killing the sugar beets, wheat, and potatoes of Idaho farmers, Charley was there to witness the damage, organize the Idaho congressional delegation, and push the BLM and USDA to compensate farmers for their loss. Idaho's farmers are still fighting this battle, but they have a great friend and advocate in Charley Barnes. When the USDA tried to penalize Idaho's sugar farmers for their wrongful participation in a program for which they were told they qualified, Charley was there to argue against punishing these farmers. Charley made an impassioned defense of these producers, and in the end, Charley was proven right. USDA relented and Idaho's sugar farmers saw firsthand the value of a forceful advocate like Charley Barnes. And when a farmer in my district is facing an appeal before the USDA over an issue where the farmer believes he had done nothing wrong, more often than not that farmer will see Charley Barnes attend that appeal, offer words of encouragement, and stand beside them for the duration of the hearing. Charley Barnes doesn't see his work in my office as just another job. He sees his role in my office as an advocate for agriculture, an advocate for farmers and ranchers, an advocate for rural communities, and most importantly, an advocate for rural families. Charley Barnes isn't just a congressional staffer, he's a farmer, a businessman, a husband, a father, and a very good friend. Everyone who has ever met Charley Barnes is better off for having known him. The people of the Second District are better off for having been served by Charley Barnes. And I am a better Congressman today than I was 8 years ago because I had the good sense to hire, and learn from, Charley Barnes. I know I speak for everyone in my office when I say that we are going to miss Charley's day-to-day presence in the office. But this is not goodbye, because we are going to be calling on Charley from time-to- time for some good advice, some constructive criticism, and a nudge in the right direction. As he settles into retirement, and a well-deserved break from the daily grind of a long and distinguished career, I wish Charley well in all of his future endeavors and offer my sincere gratitude for all his hard work, great advice, and dedication to the people of Idaho.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. J. Kent Marlor of Rexburg, Idaho. On August 24, 2006, Dr. Marlor retired from a 43 year career as a professor of Political Science at Ricks College and later Brigham Young University--Idaho. Throughout his career, Dr. Marlor has proven himself to be a significant member of the academic community. His contributions have included detailed and important research and publications regarding the government's role in wildlife and public land management. Just as important as his intellectual contributions, Dr. Marlor has greatly contributed to the future of his students. He has been an advisor, guide, and most importantly a friend to countless students pursuing their educations. Due to Dr. Marlor's tireless concern for his students' wellbeing, many of them have gone on to a variety of successful careers in government, law, and education. In fact, several of his former students have been employed here on Capitol Hill and in other branches and departments of the government. Dr. Marlor has positively contributed to the youth of Idaho not only through his teaching career, but also through his dedicated service in the Boy Scouts of America. For twenty-five years Dr. Marlor, an Eagle Scout himself, has selflessly served as a scoutmaster and on several scouting committees. For his devoted service, he has been awarded the prestigious Silver Beaver Award by the Boy Scouts of America. Dr. Marlor's contributions have extended to Idaho's great natural environment as well. He has been a lifelong outdoor enthusiast and for many years has selflessly donated his time and efforts to conservation and wildlife management in Idaho. Dr. Marlor has served as a chairman on the Idaho Wildlife Council, the Idaho Fish and Game Advisory Committee, and he is currently the president of the Idaho Wildlife Federation. Due to his leadership in this field, Idahoans for generations to come can be ensured a continuation of Idaho's rugged outdoor legacy. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have such a distinguished and dedicated constituent residing within Idaho's 2nd Congressional District. It is dedicated educators and volunteers like Dr. Marlor that ensure the continued success of our great nation. His contributions have been immeasurable. Men like Dr. Marlor rarely rest, and I am certain he will continue to positively contribute to Idaho and the Nation in his retirement.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I have to respond to a couple of the statements that were been made because I know that they have been made over the past by the Sierra Club and others. First of all, the Wilderness Society and the Campaign for American Wilderness would not be supporting this bill if we actually had wilderness-weakening provisions in this. And while there are compromises in that, and the comment of the ranking member, Mr. Rahall, that we should not have a quid pro quo, that is kind of the nature of a compromise, that there are some things in it that you like and some things that you do not like. There are provisions of this bill which I personally am not in favor of, but they were necessary in order to get the compromise that is necessary in order to pass this legislation and protect these lands. First of all, the land transfers that are being talked about, they total about 3,600 acres. This is in a county that is 95 public land, over 95 percent. Out of a total of 3.2 million acres in this county, we are talking about transferring about 3,600 acres. These are not the beautiful mountains that you see in the pictures. These are mostly desert lands, sagebrush lands. They will help the county do things like find room for their landfill, other things like that which will help in the economic development of this county. Most people that have looked at the actual lands that are being transferred are not opposed to them except for a small portion of them that are actually in Stanley, and in Stanley the city of Stanley has to repay the Federal Government for these lands that were actually purchased by the Federal Government. I would also say that if there was a great deal of concern about these land transfers and what it is going to do to the Sawtooth National Recreation Area, the Sawtooth Society would not be supporting this. Frank Church's wife, Bethine Church, would not be supporting this, as well as the other members of the Sawtooth Society. Neither would the Boulder-White Clouds Council be supporting in this. So it is a compromise. There are provisions in it that you can find that you do not like. One of the interesting things is that the Sierra Club says there is no Federal reserved water rights on this Moment of Silence in Memory of Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective John M. Gibson

Mr. SIMPSON. One last comment, Madam Speaker. The argument I found so strange by the Sierra Club is that they say that this does not have Federal water right protection in it. And you are right. It does not have Federal water right protection in it. It does not need Federal water right protection in it because the wilderness area is all headwaters. Whatever falls on the ground from the sky, whatever comes out of the springs there, are protected by the wilderness designation. It does not need Federal water right designation because there is no water right to protect. So I have never understood their argument. But the reality is that we protect water in this bill better than any wilderness bill that has ever passed because the Wilderness Act itself allows for the President on his declaration to go into a wilderness area and build a dam or other things for irrigation purposes if he declares that that is necessary. That is one of the actual compromises that were made when the Wilderness Act was enacted. We take away the President's right to do that. He could not go in and designate certain areas to be used for irrigation and build dams and take water or anything else. The water that falls on the land will be preserved for the Boulder-White Clouds Wilderness. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's concern, and I appreciate the fact that this is a compromise and that there are people on both sides of this issue, in fact, on all sides, there are multiple sides, who do not like this, who do not think it goes far enough in their direction. But the nature of a compromise is that you try to bring people toward the middle. You try to bring people toward a center that they can say we get more out of this bill than we lose. If we were to draft the perfect bill that you liked, that the Sierra Club liked, we could never get it passed because the people on the other side would then be violently opposed to it. So what we are trying to do is reach that balance where we can actually protect the Boulder- White Clouds, and if you have ever been there, it is something that deserves protecting.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, in regard to the opening statement, I notice that this bill really is not being rushed to the floor. It has been in development for 6 years. I wouldn't call that rushing anything to the floor. In fact, it has been in the form of a bill for over 3 years, so people have had a chance to look at it and know what we have been talking about here. Idahoans know that the Boulder-White Clouds are some of the most beautiful mountains in Idaho. They also know they have been the subject of some of the most contentious wilderness debates in our time. H.R. 3603, the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act, marks a new area in wilderness creation, one in which the needs of the people who live and recreate in the area are as important as the lines drawn on a map. The old approach to wilderness of sacrificing the needs of individuals and specific user groups to the benefit of others will not work anymore. Those who are affected by wilderness must be a part of the solution. During the past 6 years, my staff and I had countless meetings with the groups and individuals that will be impacted by my proposed wilderness designation. These meetings included Custer County's commissioners, elected city officials, ranchers, snowmobilers, off-road vehicle users, outfitters, conservationists and others, as well as public meetings in Stanley, Challis, and Ketchum. What I heard made me believe that we could find a positive outcome in the management of the Boulder-White Clouds that benefits all users. H.R. 3603 represents my best effort at crafting a compromise piece of legislation in a manner where no one is unfairly impacted. We are providing economic stability for Custer County. We are securing roads and trails for today's motorized recreation users and future generations of motorized users. We are working on providing economic viability to ranching families, and we are creating three substantive wilderness areas that have an area half the size of the State of Rhode Island. We are even creating the first handicapped-accessible wheelchair trail into wilderness. By passing this bill, we can put to rest many longstanding conflicts and move ahead to a stronger, more secure economy in the rugged, beautiful, and productive heart of Idaho. This bill meets the needs of today's users and secures the future for generations of Idahoans who want to continue using and enjoying the beautiful Boulder-White Clouds. Henry Clay once stated that ``politics is not about ideological purity or moral self-righteousness. It is about governing, and if a politician cannot compromise, he cannot govern effectively.'' Today, we have an opportunity to show that we can, in fact, govern effectively. I want to thank the following individuals who have helped me over the last 6 years in creating this bill. First, I want to thank the chairman of the full committee and Ranking Member Rahall; subcommittee Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Tom Udall for their work on this. Custer County Commissioners Wayne Butts, Cliff Hansen and Linn Hintze, Blaine County Commissioners Sarah Michaels and Tom Bowman, Stanley Mayor Hannah Stouts, Former Governor Cecil Andrus, Former Senator Jim McClure, Bob Hayes, Bethine Church and the Sawtooth Society, Rick Johnson, Linn Kincannon with the Idaho Conservation League, Bart Koehler, Tim Mahoney, Marcia Argust, Erik Schultze. And to the staff of the Resources Committee, particularly Erica Tergeson and Doug Crandall, and to Greg Kostka at the legislative counsel who drafted countless versions of this legislation. And, finally, I want to thank those who put the most work into this, my staff: Lindsay Slater, my chief of staff; Laurel Hall; Josh Heird; and Nikki Watts for their incredible efforts on this piece of legislation.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the line-item veto measure before the House today. I know the authors of this measure are sincere in their efforts and believe this measure will lead to a better Federal Government. But being sincere doesn't make their efforts right, nor does it make them wise. Rather, they are fundamentally wrong. For 200 years, the unfortunate truth is that power, slowly but surely, has been shifting from the legislative branch of Government to the executive branch. We all know this to be true. It should come as no surprise that this President, or the prior one, want this expanded power. The real surprise would be if this Congress finally stood up and said no. We all know that the President today has the ability to veto any bill Congress passes. And we all know he has not done so. Some of my colleagues will argue that we make it too hard for him to veto a bill. That is nonsense. Every day we have to vote on bills with many imperfections. They contain provisions we might support and others we strongly oppose. But we have to balance the good and the bad in each bill and then cast our vote and defend it to our constituents. Why should the President be any different? Why should he get to undo a hard-earned compromise? I need not remind any Member of this body that many times the President has a role in that compromise--yet this measure would allow him to selectively undo that deal after the fact. Let's talk for a minute about spending. Even the sponsors of this measure don't really believe it will save any taxpayer money. They talk about earmarks and equate them with wasteful spending. In reality, there are only two types of spending--that which is congressionally directed and that which is recommended by the President. This measure places the recommendations of the President higher in importance than spending directed by the U.S. Congress. If the authors of this measure have such faith in the administrative branch of Government, why do we have 11,000 unused FEMA trailers sitting in a field in Hope, AR? Why were millions and millions of dollars wasted on $2,000 credit cards that didn't go to victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, but were instead spent on things I ought not mention on this floor? I could go on and on about $600 toilet seats and $400 hammers, but everyone here gets the point. Let's be clear Mr. Speaker, the taxpayers aren't going to save a dime with the passage of this measure. Instead, we are going to weaken the Constitutional role of Congress, further strengthen the power of the executive branch, and provide a few Members of this body with the ability to go home and say they did something--however harmful it might be to the future of our Nation or inconsistent it might be with the intentions of our Nation's founders. My mother used to tell me, ``Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.'' My mother's advice would be well heeded by those who believe this measure is in the best interests of our Nation.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, in accordance with earmark reform proposals currently under consideration in the Senate, I would like to place into the Record a listing of Congressionally directed projects in my home state of Idaho that are contained within the report to this bill. These are projects that I asked the Defense Subcommittee to consider this year and I am grateful for their inclusion in this bill. I'd like to take just a few minutes to describe why I supported these projects and why they are valuable to the nation and its taxpayers. The report contains $2.7 million for a technology entitled Vacuum Sampling Pathogen Collection and Concentration. Developed by Microbial- Vac Systems', Jerome, Idaho, the advanced ``Vacuum Pathogen'' collection and concentration systems are critical to continued advancement of DOD's applications for manual and robotic sample acquisition and traceability of bio-threat agents in food safety and environmental settings. Commercialization of the technology was significantly advanced with an appropriation in last year's Defense bill but there remains a need to further develop and manufacture both systems to meet the general national defense and homeland security requirements for safe, rapid field-accessibility of sterile disposable units and improved field decontamination protocol. With the funding in this report, manufacturing capabilities will be expanded to provide military and civilian markets with sufficient numbers of sterilely packaged pathogen collection and concentration systems to meet the anticipated emergency immediate and long-term demand during hostile attacks and post-attack remediation/decontamination monitoring and verification procedures. Sample location and traceability will be enhanced with the addition of GPS or RFID tracking capabilities imbedded within the technology and activated during sample acquisition. This project was requested by Microbial-Vac Systems in Jerome, Idaho. The report contains $2 million for the Cyber Threat Validation Center at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). The INL has demonstrated exceptional capability and depth in the Cyber Security and Critical Infrastructure Protection research, development and delivery arenas. The Cyber Threat Validation Center (CTVC) for the Department of Defense (DoD) and Intelligence Community (IC) would leverage and expand the existing analytic, research, and end-to-end system testing capabilities to deliver technical grounded analysis on emerging cyber security attack techniques and their impact on critical real world systems. The analysis will focus on the investigating emerging attack techniques with the objective of understanding how they might be applied against Defense Critical Infrastructure to include vital Public Works Defense Sector systems. I chose to request this project after learning about the capabilities of the INL in protecting our Nation against cyber based attacks on critical infrastructure systems. The Department of Energy and Department of Homeland Security have significant investments in the ongoing work at the INL. This DOD project will build on those capabilities and benefit from them. The report contains $2 million for the Idaho Accelerator Center (IAC) at Idaho State University's (ISU) Small Accelerators and Detection Systems for Defense Applications program. Ongoing work at IAC suggests that transportable accelerators can now be developed to actively identify suspected nuclear materials/packages in the field, neutralize biological/chemical agents when discovered, decontaminate areas where bio/chem agents may have been released, and detect explosives and contraband in a variety of challenging circumstances. The IAC and the ISU academic community, in collaboration with scientists and engineers from the private sector and national laboratories, has been involved in developing technology for the remote detection of hazardous materials and contraband for more than 15 years. Through these associations the IAC has devised non- intrusive means to identify the contents of containers of various kinds that may contain Fissionable material, Radioactive material, Explosives, Hazardous material (biological or chemical), and Contraband (FREHC) for homeland and national security applications. This project was requested by Idaho State University in Pocatello, Idaho. The report contains $1 million for a program entitled Systematic Hierarchical Approach to Radiation Hardened Electronics (SHARE). As many of us know, consistent, reliable performance of integrated circuits (IC) used in space communication, surveillance, and guidance systems continues to be a potentially debilitating problem for the military services. The problem has been aggravated by the rapid and unsettling contraction of the industrial base needed to design and produce the specialized electronics that must perform in applications requiring high reliability in a challenging radiation-charged environment. As one of the principal users of radiation-hardened (RadHard) electronics, the U.S. Air Force is pursuing technologies that will ensure a ready and economical domestic capability for producing radiation hardened microelectronics using advanced commercial processes. SHARE has been identified by the Air Force as a critical capability that will enable collaboration among circuit designers, simulation software vendors, and foundries under the direction of SEAMS Center AFRL at Kirtland AFB, NM. This project was requested by American Semiconductor in Boise, Idaho. I appreciate the opportunity to provide a list of Congressionally- directed projects in my region and an explanation of my support for them.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of our continued mission in Iraq as part of the Global War on Terror. I am proud to say that throughout the Global War on Terror, thousands of Idahoans have fought valiantly side-by-side with their fellow countrymen and newly freed citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan. During a visit to Iraq in May 2005, I had the opportunity to visit with the brave men and women of the 116th Cavalry Brigade. I was amazed at their level of professionalism and their enthusiasm for the mission. They took great pride in their contributions and were fully committed to finishing the job. I have been similarly impressed by our nation's military as a whole. When I consider what action should be taken in Iraq I look to the advice of the experts, those who are on the ground fighting the war. The message I continually hear from our soldiers and generals is: Finish the job, complete the mission. I know there have been many calls in the United States lately to withdraw our troops from Iraq or set some kind of artificial deadline for withdrawal. Mr. Speaker, I strongly disagree with this defeatist attitude. In fact, a premature withdrawal from Iraq would be disastrous for America. In an interview with Osama bin Laden just prior to the 1998 terrorist attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, bin Laden referred to the United States as a ``paper tiger'' because of our withdrawal from Somalia after the tragic loss of 18 U.S. soldiers. Al-Qaeda learned from this, and similar events, that the United States would retreat rather than fight. During the War on Terror, Al-Qaeda has counted on Americans to similarly become demoralized and once again withdraw from the fight. It is the cornerstone of their strategy. If we lose heart and withdraw from Iraq before the mission is complete, Iraq will become a permanent breeding ground of hate and terror instead of the stable mid-east democracy it is becoming. Our enemies will become further emboldened by their perceived victory. A premature withdrawal from Iraq would only strengthen their resolve to use cowardly and barbarous terrorist attacks to achieve their ends. An artificial timeline for a withdrawal would only have similar results. The enemy need only sit back, wait, and then step forward to declare victory once U.S. forces have left. As a consequence, Americans and democratic societies throughout the world will be in greater danger than ever before. We simply cannot afford to back down, return home, and hope this threat will dissipate on its own. The terrorists must be confronted and must be defeated. We cannot pass this mission on to another generation. This is our job and the time is now. By stepping up and completing this mission we will give the gift of greater peace and stability to future generations. I can understand why so many want to cut and run, it would be the easy thing to do. I do not hesitate to say that the mission in Iraq is a difficult one and it has been costly. The price for freedom is all too often painfully high. I, for one, do not ever want to receive another notice that a fellow Idahoan, or any American, has fallen or been wounded in this war. However, quitting now would only prolong bloodshed in the long run, not end it. Once again Mr. Speaker, I support America's efforts to complete the mission in Iraq, and I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to commit to its completion. At such a perilous time in our nation's history let us stand united.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, in accordance with earmark reform proposals currently under consideration in the House and Senate, I would like to place into the Record a listing of Congressionally- directed projects in my home state of Idaho that are contained within the report to this bill. These are projects that I asked the Transportation, Treasury, and HUD Subcommittee to consider this year and I am grateful for their inclusion in this bill. I'd like to take just a few minutes to describe why I supported these projects and why they are valuable to the nation and its taxpayers. The bill contains $2,000,000 for the City of Rocks Back Country Byway in my Congressional District. This 16.7 mile long project is located on the popular City of Rocks Back Country Byway in Cassia County, Idaho and provides the only direct access to the City of Rocks National Reserve. When fully completed, the project will pave a 1.0 mile gravel segment, reconstruct 15.7 miles of deficient roadway, correct deteriorated road and slope conditions, provide a wider road with shoulders and guardrail, and improve the road's alignment by reducing the number and severity of sharp curves and steep grades. These improvements will increase safety for the driving public and provide safer access for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. These improvements will also significantly reduce the amount of on-going maintenance required to keep the route usable. This project was requested by the Idaho Transportation Department. The report contains $500,000 for the I-84, US-93 Interchange project near Twin Falls. This is funding to improve an interchange on a segment of the Interstate Highway System. The project will realign and reconstruct the interchanges south of I-84 at US-93, provide a new grade over US-93, and remove the height-restricted structures which have previously necessitated a signalized intersection. These activities will relieve congestion caused by fast growth and increase safety in the city of Twin Falls. This project was requested by the Idaho Transportation Department. The report contains $4 million for the Idaho Transit Coalition's program to improve bus and bus facilities all across the state of Idaho. The funding will assist Ada County Highway District's Commuteride, Boise State University, the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, the City of Ketchum, the Ketchum/Sun Valley Transit Authority (KART), the City of Moscow, the City of Pocatello, the University of Idaho, and Valley Regional Transit. The majority of these projects are identified in the ``Idaho Statewide Public Transportation Needs and Benefits Study'' compiled by the Idaho Transportation Department in 1996 and subsequent local studies and plans. All projects are identified in the Transportation Improvement and the Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan. The current request represents only a small amount of what will be needed to maintain and expand Idaho's public transportation capital system to meet the demands of the State's rapidly growing population. The funding was requested by the Idaho Transit Coalition. The report contains $250,000 for the Magic Valley Boys and Girls Club in Buhl, Idaho. The funding will assist in building a Boys & Girls Club youth center in the town of Buhl, Idaho, which will serve over 800 children and teens annually from the communities of Buhl, Castleford, and Hagerman. This 7000 sq. ft. facility will be adjacent to an existing approximately 7000 sq. ft. gymnasium. These federal funds constitute only a small portion of the overall funding required for this project and will help leverage significant private sector donations. The funding was requested by the Magic Valley Boys and Girls Club. The report contains $400,000 for the community of Rexburg, Idaho's Greenways and River Corridor Improvement Project. This funding represents a very small portion of the overall funding for this project. The City of Rexburg itself has jump started the project with a Rexburg Redevelopment Agency infusion of $5,800,000. The funding will help develop public access to the riverfront through river trails, build and improve city streets and parking lots in the river corridor, and construct a public amphitheater. The funding was requested by the City of Rexburg, Idaho. I appreciate the opportunity to provide a list of Congressionally- directed projects in my region and, an explanation of my support for them.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Again, we are here debating these things and whether some of these things ought to be funded at all. There are programs that are not requested in the President's budget which some of us feel are appropriate. Some of them would be things like money to reimburse States for criminal costs associated with illegal immigration. The President hasn't requested that in his budget, but many of us feel it is appropriate that it ought to be put in there. I believe even the gentleman from Arizona believes that that is an appropriate thing. Now, of course, if we would put that in there, that would be an earmark, because it would be Congress directing the spending rather than the administration making that request. Earlier the gentleman mentioned the NREL laboratory and the fact that they had to lay off something like 32 people. What wasn't said is that this committee gave them unlimited reprogramming authority, that if that was going to happen, they could have reprogrammed the money. But they didn't do that. They chose not to use it. They chose to lay the people off. And then, magically, when the President was going to come out there for a press conference, guess what? They found the money to rehire those individuals. At the same time, the Secretary goes to, I believe it was Australia, and announces a new program down there without any funding authority whatsoever. So to suggest that things done by the administration are appropriate but things done by Congress are inappropriate and, as the gentleman and I have talked many times, the fact is you are not going to reduce spending by eliminating these things. You are going to do it by getting a budget resolution which is lower so that that money isn't available. But I guarantee you if you cut out this money, or any of these other earmarked projects, the money is going to be spent on something else. That is the reality, and that is what we have to address.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This bill does in fact cut $49.7 million to State grants. This cut was done for several reasons: to fund the higher congressional priorities that were cut by the administration; in reaction to a DOE IG report regarding the implementation of the program; and an assessment of what the grant program is adding to energy research and development, the mainstay of the DOE portfolio. The IG report did say DOE does not know if the program is working. The IG report did say that States aren't sure what energy savings are coming from these State grants. The IG report did say that the States have large uncosted balances, and aren't spending the money that they do get in the grant and award process. The IG report did say energy savings proclaimed by proponents can't be tracked to State grants solely. They may be from other programs that we do support, like weatherization. But I want you to know that the IG report did say that given the broad goals of the program, funds were being spent consistently. However, I would contend we ought to look at what the States can spend this money on and do: State employee salaries, travel and administrative supplies. In fact, of the States examined by the IG, 66 percent had administrative costs in excess of 29 percent to as high as 57 percent, but these are allowable under the grant statute. Finally, I would contend that these grants may have served a useful purpose 20 years ago to raise the consciousness of energy efficiency and conservation. But, frankly, these services are not now in demand by the public, and our dollars are better suited for making the technologies available that are in demand, rather than feel-good ``coordination'' activities of this program.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding. Boy, there is more rhetoric on this floor about GNEP and what is going on there than I have heard in quite some time. The fact is the Federal Government has the responsibility under the Nuclear Policy Act to take care of the byproduct of this stuff. Those people who use energy that is partly produced by nuclear energy have been paying a tax in order that the Federal Government would build a repository and finally take control of this. If you want the byproduct, the waste product of nuclear waste to be handled by private companies and have them in control of it, then I think you are asking for big problems. For years, I have been asking the Federal Government, the Department of Energy, to give us a vision of what they see as the future of energy development in this country and how we are going to supply the baseload needs in this country. GNEP is the first comprehensive forward-looking plan for nuclear energy development that I have seen come out of this or any administration in decades. It takes into consideration the entire fuel cycle, from the mining uranium to final disposition of spent fuel. It will render civilian nuclear material unusable in nuclear weapons. I will repeat that: It will render civilian nuclear materials unusable in nuclear weapons. It will use much of the energy in the fuel rods that is left behind now. And GNEP promises to make Yucca Mountain the only repository our Nation will need for the final disposition of spent nuclear fuel. If you believe that global warming is a problem, if you believe that we can't afford to shut down nuclear power plants today that contribute over 20 percent of our electricity, and I suspect much of it in Massachusetts, the gentleman's home State; if you believe that we can't shut that down and that it makes sense to provide our baseload with an emission-free type of energy, such as nuclear power, and if we don't pursue GNEP, then we better start looking and debating on this floor where we are going to put Yucca II, Yucca III, Yucca IV, and Yucca V, because that is what is going to happen. The simple fact is, most Americans now support nuclear energy, and most Americans know that we can't meet our growing energy needs without it. I urge you to defeat this amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, in accordance with earmark reform proposals currently under consideration in the House and Senate, I would like to place into the record a listing of the Congressionally- directed project in my home state of Idaho that is contained within the report to this bill. The project provides $3 million within the Army Corps of Engineers Section 595 program for rural water infrastructure upgrades in Idaho communities. The funding was authorized in the last Water Resources Development Act. This funding is critical to assisting rural Idaho communities in upgrading their water and wastewater treatment facilities. In many cases, this funding is required to comply with unfunded mandates passed down by this Congress and federal agencies. Perhaps the most striking example of why the federal government has a responsibility to assist these communities is the burden the EPA's revised arsenic standard is having across America. In the small Idaho town of Castleford, the Mayor and City Council had to lay off their only law enforcement officer so they could pay for the arsenic study required by EPA's unfunded mandate. This small town of just a few hundred people has been forced to come up with at least $2 million--a sum that would have been wholly impossible without some assistance from the federal government. In addition, these funds help rural communities in Idaho facing economic hardship--like the rural community of Rupert. Rupert, just last week, learned that one of its major employers, Kraft Foods, is closing its cheese plant in the community. The vital water funding in this bill will assist Rupert in attracting new businesses by offering improved services at lower costs than would otherwise be possible. I'm proud to have obtained this funding for Idaho communities and look forward to working with them in the future to meet their water resource challenges. I appreciate the opportunity to provide a list of Congressionally- directed projects in my region and an explanation of my support for them. (1) Rural Idaho Environmental Infrastructure, $3,000,000--pg. 28.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, in accordance with earmark reform proposals currently under consideration in the House and Senate, I would like to place into the Record a listing of Congressionally- directed projects in my home state of Idaho that are contained within the report to this bill. These are projects that I asked the Agriculture Subcommittee to consider, both this year and in previous years, and I am grateful for their inclusion in this bill. I'd like to take just a few minutes to describe why I supported these projects and why they are valuable to the nation and its taxpayers. It is important to remember that the vast majority of these funds go to two entities. First, the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, CSREES, grants included below are targeted to our nation's Land Grant Colleges. In the case of Idaho, these funds are used by the University of Idaho to conduct research on a variety of crops important to the Pacific Northwest. I have also supported research in Washington and Oregon because their research is invaluable to my constituents as well. In assessing the value of these requests, there are some important considerations that must be made. World labor standards and costs are far below those of the U.S. Our Nation's farmers are subjected to far more stringent environmental regulations than those of many of our competitors. Input costs in the U.S. far surpass those of other nations. And energy prices, including farm diesel, are rising dramatically. So how can a U.S. farmer remain competitive in a global market? Through greater productivity and efficiency, increased yields, and better defenses against diseases. These are the very things that agriculture research funding delivers for U.S. producers--and for U.S. consumers. If you want to rely on foreign nations for our food in the way we rely on them for our oil, then by all means eliminate these important agriculture research programs. But if you believe, as I do, that maintaining a domestic capability to produce our food is a national security issue, then you ought to support these research programs and fight for their continuation. The second entity that receives the bulk of these funds is the Agriculture Research Service, ARS, and its stations across rural America. In Idaho, these institutions are conducting vital research into some of our most important crops--sugar, potatoes, small fruits, and aquaculture. I encourage all of my colleagues to visit an ARS station to see firsthand the value of this research. If you do, you will learn that these researchers are doing amazing things with very limited budgets. These projects are usually small in terms of their funding, but the benefits that flow from that research cannot be measured in dollars alone. Two of the projects below are funded through the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS. These two programs are critical to combating brucellosis in bison and cattle and in assisting ranchers whose livestock are harassed and killed by predators like wolves. The Greater Yellowstone Brucellosis funding is particularly critical to my home State of Idaho. Idaho recently lost its brucellosis free status and these funds are critical to establishing a management plan that will allow Idaho to regain its brucellosis free status. The Tri-State Predator control funding is hardly a handout to ranchers. The federal government forced wolf reintroduction on Idaho and other western states and it is duty-bound to pay for the deadly and gruesome impacts of this decision. The final project on this list is the Idaho One-Plan. The Idaho One- Plan is a unique collaboration of agencies, industries, and associations dedicated to assisting Idaho farmers and ranchers in their continuing natural resource stewardship responsibilities. The program was developed jointly with state and federal resource agencies, the University of Idaho Cooperative Extension program, the Environmental Protection Agency, and local commodity groups. It's a successful program that has enormous value to not only the Idaho agriculture community and the environment, but to other states that might be interested in a similar collaborative process. Mr. Chairman, any effort to remove these projects from the bill would not only result in zero savings to taxpayers, it would stop dead these important efforts to enhance and protect our nation's food supply. I appreciate the opportunity to provide a list of Congressionally- directed projects in my region and an explanation of my support for them. 1. ARS aquaculture research--Aberdeen ($628,843) pg. 17; 2. CSREES NW Small Fruits Research--ID, WA, OR ($443,000) pg. 36; 3. ARS Potato Breeding--Aberdeen ($365,156) pg. 18; 4. ARS Sugarbeet Research--Kimberly ($702,592) pg. 19; 5. ARS Sustainable Aquaculture Feeds--Aberdeen ($99,000) pg. 19; 6. ARS Viticulture--Corvallis, OR ($852,861) pg. 19; 7. CSREES Grain Legume Plant Pathologist--Pullman, WA ($244,125) pg. 20; 8. CSREES Alternative Crops--Canola ($1,175,000) pg. 33; 9. CSREES Aegilops Cylindricum--Goatgrass (WA, ID) ($355,000) pg. 34; 10. CSREES Cool Season Food Legume Research (ID, WA, ND) ($564,000) pg. 34; 11. CSREES Grass Seed Cropping/or Sustainable Agriculture (WA, ID, OR) ($450,000) pg. 35; 12. CSREES Increasing Shelf Life of Agricultural Commodities ($863,000) pg. 35; 13. CSREES Potato Research (national program) ($1,497,000) pg. 36; 14. CSREES STEEP III ($640,000) pg. 36; 15. CSREES Wood Utilization (multi-state) ($6,371,000) pg. 36; 16. APHIS Greater Yellowstone Brucellosis--ID, WY, MT ($10,455,000) pg. 72; 17. APHIS Tri-State Predator Control ($1,324,000) pg. 74; 18. NRCS Idaho One-Plan ($200,000) pg. 87.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me first say, the gentleman from Arizona has every right to do exactly what he is doing. I believe he is sincere in his efforts, and he is right, we are not potted plants. We are elected representatives. The funny thing about democracy is a majority has a tendency to rule, and if the gentleman offers something and a majority vote against him, then they have obviously supported what he does not. That is the way the process works. I do not ask for congressionally directed spending that I cannot justify. In fact, not all of the congressionally directed spending that I have requested is for projects in my district. Some of them are in other districts for things that I think are important. One of them is the wood utilization program. In fact, I post all of the congressionally directed spending that I have had part in obtaining on my Web site. I want my constituents to be able to see it, and I tell them if they think there is anything in there that is wasteful, that we should not be spending on, to call me and talk to me and let me know. In fact, I entered in the Record earlier today on this bill all of the projects that I had had any part in directing the congressional spending on so the people could see them, and I have put in the justification for them that I felt. The gentleman said that the Labor-HHS bill last year was the only one we got right, and I would only ask, you know, by putting no congressionally directed spending in there, who knows their districts better, who knows the needs of their constituents better, bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., or the people they elect to Congress? To suggest the only reason we put them in there is to gain the votes of a majority of this place to pass a bill, is wrong. To suggest that every congressionally directed spending earmark, as you would say, is wasteful, is wrong. Now, with the wood utilization program, I want to show you a list, and I will not enter it into the journal because it would take up too much paper, these are the saw mills that have closed since 1998. You can go through here: Alabama; geez, California's had so many, It is something like 98; Georgia, 18; Idaho, 17; Arizona, 17; Louisiana, 24; Oregon 218. These are the saw mills that have closed since 1998 because we have stopped using and cutting timber. Because of the Healthy Forest Initiative and because of fire suppression in the past, we have got a lot of stands that are small diameter timber. The days of cutting the old-growth, large trees are pretty much gone. We have to learn how to use small diameter timber, and that is what a lot of how this program is for, is how do we effectively use small diameter timber? The research that is being done in these programs at I guess 11 different State universities that receive this funding are to help the industry develop products that are used today with the small diameter timber, and there are wood byproducts that occur. To me, that is an appropriate use of congressional spending, and so I support it and I justify it, and we will see if the majority agrees with you or me.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, while I do not want to respond to this specific project, I do want to respond to what the gentleman from Arizona talked about just a little bit ago. He mentioned 10,000 earmarks and $29 billion last year. And he seeks to reduce the spending because somehow I guess the implication is that that $29 billion is wasteful spending. What that is is $29 billion that Congress has directed how it is going to be spent and not the administration. When the administration proposes a budget, it is a recommendation that comes to Congress. It is full of earmarks. Administration earmarks. Earmarks that they believe how the money should be spent. Congress in their budget process, in their hearing process, in the Appropriations Committee make certain determinations. Some of them, in fact, most of them are that the administration's requests are appropriate. Sometimes we disagree with them. We say spending ought to be done somewhere else. We have different priorities. Those are called earmarks. I call them congressionally directed spending. To tell you the truth, I wish we congressionally directed all of the spending. Remember, the President just makes recommendations. It is this Congress's responsibility to determine where the spending is going to go and to tell an administration or an agency that some of this money, a very, very small percentage of it is going to be spent in certain projects that we think are important, at least a majority here do, I think is our role. And to suggest that all $29 billion or 10,000 earmarks, whatever the amount was, is wasteful spending is to mislead the American people. Are there some wasteful things in there? Sure. But if you think giving the money just to the administration to determine how it ought to be spent rather than Congress directing it, all of the sudden it is going to be spent appropriately, then I want to know why there are 10,000 trailers sitting in Hope, Arkansas. The administration can waste money just like Congress can. Sure, there is some spending in there that we would all say is inappropriate, but that is our job to get after it.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I am sorry the gentleman from California left the floor. We do renegotiate all the time, but it is up to me to decide whether I want to renegotiate or not. What we are doing is imposing a penalty on these companies if they choose not to renegotiate. And I really don't care what CRS says. I don't think they are a bunch of attorneys down there. All I know is that in Idaho, we believe that when you write a contract you abide by the contract. We have written a contract. We ought to abide by it. We are the Government of the United States. If you can't trust us to abide by the contracts we sign, why should we trust anybody else to?

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentlemen for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I do not disagree with what the gentleman from Colorado is saying. There has been devestation in our forests. We do need the funding for firefighting and so forth. But I will tell you that taking it out of the NEA is the wrong place in the bill. Mr. Chairman, they have done a tremendous job under the chairmanship of Gioia. They have brought the NEA back to what we originally intended it to be, and that is a means of getting the arts out to the rest of America, to rural America, particularly. And if you will look at some of the programs that they have, their masters program and the Shakespeare program and others, they have done a great job of getting the rest of rural America exposed to those types of things. That is what the NEA is all about. And yes, there is private organizations that fund a lot of these. But oftentimes it is in conjunction with private and public financing. Sometimes they just finance a very small portion of it. So I think that while I agree with the gentlemen's intent in terms of fire protection, taking the money out of the NEA, which is substantially below what it was in its high peak as was mentioned, I think is the wrong direction to go and would set this program back, when it is moving in the direction that we all hope it will go. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's amendment, but I will be voting against it.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I stand to oppose this amendment offered by the gentleman from New York. In committee, the gentleman from New York offered an amendment that conditioned eligibility for future leases on renegotiation of price thresholds in old leases. Today's amendment seeks to obtain the same coercive result by indirection. I share the gentleman's concern about the lack of price thresholds in leases negotiated by the Clinton/Gore administration in 1998 and 1999. The Department of the Interior's Inspector General has appropriately launched an investigation into this, as has the Resources Committee. However, these leases were valid legal contracts signed between the government and these companies in good faith. They paid hundreds of millions of dollars in bonus bids for these leases, bidding on the basis of the royalty relief that they were being offered. If the lessees seek to maintain their valid legal rights under these contracts, the amendment would penalize them for doing so, in violation of their due process rights under the Constitution. At best, the amendment is an invitation to litigation, which the government will likely lose at a high cost to the taxpayer. A more dire impact will be the lack of development of energy resources that America badly needs. The amendment would disqualify many companies from bidding on new leases. Remember, these leases were valid leases signed by the government, legally binding. They are contracts. So what we are going to do is penalize these companies because they are abiding by their legal contracts. Sure, we want them to negotiate. We want them to renegotiate. We would like them to pay the royalties. But the Clinton/Gore administration at that time put these contracts in place. They were signed by the companies. They were signed by the government. And now we are going to go in and say if you don't renegotiate, then you are not going to be eligible for any of these contracts. If you don't pay royalties on these contracts, wherein you are doing exactly what you are required to do by law, if you don't pay royalties voluntarily, then you are not going to be eligible for any of the new leases that are out there. To me, that is discrimination against those companies. Sure, we would like them to pay the royalties. We think they should. We think they should renegotiate, but I don't think you can go in and break the contract that the government signed with these companies by pressuring them with the threat of not being eligible for future leases. Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment and we should reject it.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate what the gentleman from California was saying, but he was wrong. Just dead wrong. These leases were signed by the government. They were legal leases. They were valid leases. All we are saying is that the government ought to keep its word. When they sign a contract, they ought to honor the contract. The gentleman is absolutely wrong. Congress and the government should keep their word when they sign a contract. That is all we are saying. Do we want them to pay royalty on this? Certainly we should, and I do not know why in the world the Clinton/Gore administration, the Clinton/ Gore administration, let these leases go without any royalty. I do not know why they did that, but the reality is that they were signed contracts. And all we are suggesting is that you should not penalize those companies that actually signed these contracts in good faith. You should not penalize them for future leases. Why should we penalize them? There is absolutely no reason why we should penalize them. We should honor our word and our contracts, and then we should go forward. We hope, we hope that they will renegotiate for leases, but this is not giving a break to those companies. That is not what we are intending. We hope they renegotiate. That is the reality.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, article III of the Constitution states that ``the judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.'' At times in our Nation's history, Congress has found it necessary to realign the United States Courts of Appeals into more efficient and manageable circuits. Once again, it's time for Congress to exercise its article III powers by realigning the Ninth Circuit and creating a new Twelfth Circuit. I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner's H.R. 4093, the Federal Judgeship and Administrative Efficiency Act of 2005. In addition to creating additional federal judgeships, this legislation would divide the Ninth into two circuits. These would consist of a new Ninth made up of California, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Marianas, and a new Twelfth with Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, and Arizona. Mr. Speaker, this division makes sense. Putting aside any political, historical or emotional arguments, the numbers speak for themselves. A split of the Ninth Circuit is necessary because it has become disproportionately large and unwieldy in relation to the other eleven regional circuits. The Honorable John M. Roll, U.S. District Judge for Arizona, has recently provided me with updated statistics regarding the Ninth Circuit. This is where the Ninth Circuit stands today: The population of the Ninth Circuit is 58 million people. This is one-fifth of the population of the United States. It is also 27 million more people than reside in the next largest circuit. The Ninth Circuit consists of 9 states (including the most populous state), a territory, and a commonwealth. The other circuits average less than four states. No other circuit decides the law for 9 states. As of December 31, 2005, the Ninth Circuit had nearly 17,000 pending cases, which represents 28 percent of all pending federal appeals. According to recent statistics from the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, the Ninth Circuit is now the slowest circuit in the country, by more than 2 months, for each of its nearly 17,000 cases, from filing of notice of appeal to disposition. The Ninth Circuit has 28 authorized active circuit judgeships. The other 11 geographical circuits average less than 13. It is clear from these facts that the extraordinary growth of the nine western states comprising the Ninth has resulted in an overpopulated circuit that has become a giant among the twelve circuits. Ninth Circuit Judges O'Scannlain and Tallman hit it on the head when they wrote in the Wall Street Journal that ``. . . size adversely affects not only the speed with which justice is administered, but also the quality of judicial decision making. Consistent interpretation of the law by an appellate court requires a reasonably small body of judges who have the opportunity to sit and to confer together frequently, and who can read, critique and, when necessary, correct each others' decisions. That kind of collegiality is no longer possible in a circuit of this size.'' This statement describes precisely why we need to split the Ninth Circuit. With a fifth of the U.S. population living in the Ninth Circuit today, I would expect that this could easily become a fourth of the population. Today's 28 active Ninth Circuit judges will eventually become 35, then 40, 50 and so on. The Ninth Circuit has a history to be proud of, but how long will it be before those who seek to hold onto the past glory of the Ninth come to realize that it should not be recognized for its unique solutions for coping with staggering caseloads and an inability to readily sit all judges? Under this legislation, the new Ninth and Twelfth Circuits will be recognized as individual circuits that have been given a fresh start, fresh life, and fresh collegiality with efficiencies that allow judges in the new circuits to focus on case law and not case management. Opponents of a split have ascribed political motivations to my efforts--that I, being the author and proponent of realignment legislation, don't like the decisions of the Ninth Circuit. Well, the Ninth does make bad decisions that I don't agree with. For that matter judges appointed by Nixon, Reagan and both presidents Bush make bad decisions that I don't always agree with. Every circuit in the United States makes bad decisions that I don't always agree with. The practical effect of a court ruling is that one party will be pleased and the other disappointed. Should a circuit be realigned, or manipulated in a manner such as ``court packing'' solely for political reasons? Absolutely not. However, the fact that my colleagues and I may disagree with certain rulings of the Ninth Circuit should not automatically disqualify us from seeking to realign the circuit. Ascribing political motivations to my colleagues and me is nothing more than a disingenuous smokescreen. If judges, scholars, politicians and others have spoken to me they know that my motivations are not political. My motivation is a desire for my constituents to have an efficient, expedient and manageable court that is able to apply a consistent interpretation of the law. In the meantime, my faith in the Supreme Court and its demonstrated readiness to overturn rulings of the Ninth Circuit, alleviates any fears that I have that an egregious ruling of the Ninth will not be corrected. Of course split opponents must throw up the smokescreen that my fellow colleagues and I are politically motivated. What else can they do? It's impossible to argue against the facts. Having one-fifth of our nation's citizens in one circuit while the remaining four-fifths are in eleven circuits does not make sense. I have yet to hear split opponents or scholars state why it is good for a single circuit to have one-fifth of the nation's citizens in one circuit when the remaining four-fifths are in eleven other circuits. I do not know why having 28 percent of all pending appeals in one circuit is a sign of an effectively working court. I have not heard why it is good for a circuit to have 28 active judgeships, which is eleven more judges than the next largest circuit and more than double the circuit average of 13. I don't know why it is good for Idahoans to have their appeals heard en banc by a partial number of our court of appeals' judges when citizens in the other eleven circuits will get a hearing before all the judges of their circuit. Is this fair to citizens of the Ninth? I don't believe it is. I look forward to reading the first article, or speech from a federal judge, politician or scholar that sets aside any reference to politics or the political motivations of others and explains why it is a good thing to have a single circuit with one-fifth of the nation's population, 28 active judgeships and a procedure for a partial number of judges to hear cases. I would also take the liberty of asking a theoretical question to that judge, politician or scholar and it goes like this--if you were to start from scratch and create 12 new circuits for our nation, would you place one-fifth of the population in just one of the twelve circuits? Please send a copy of that to my office here in Washington. Something else I have heard is that our efforts to split the Ninth Circuit are ``a threat to judicial independence''. I would like to hear from any federal judge, appointed for life, whether their decisions are being influenced based on a threat that their circuit might be realigned? I find it hard to believe that judges, who at times must put their lives on the line for our country in the face of threats and intimidation by criminal defendants, are scared of politicians in Washington, D.C. Once again, please feel free to contact my office here in Washington if that is the case, I promise confidentiality. Another thing I hear thrown about is an idea I like to call ``judicial veto authority''. What I'm hearing is that since a majority of the Ninth Circuit judges might not favor a split then it shouldn't go forward. I would ask the proponents of this idea, the proposition that sitting circuit judges need approve of a split before it goes forward, where this is found in Article III? I do not believe that the composition of a circuit should be determined solely out of concern for its judges, lawyers, bar associations or even politicians. It should be determined by how best the people are served within the states it encompasses. Realigning the Ninth Circuit is about better serving the people who live and work in the nine states and two territories within its boundaries. It's about providing them with better efficiencies, a more consistent interpretation of the law based on rulings made by judges who spend more time conferring directly with one another and reading each other's decisions. In addition, although the costs of dividing a circuit are important in these days of budgetary constraint, they should not be the reason for disregarding the benefits that would befall the citizens of nine states and two territories. Opponents of a Ninth Circuit split have made note that a new Twelfth Circuit would be costly, with some estimating as high as $21 million in additional court costs annually. As a member of the Budget Committee it's a wonder that we are not today seeking the savings that would come from creating five larger circuits consisting of say: the Fourth and Sixth plus Georgia; the Fifth and Tenth plus Alabama and Florida; the First, Second and Third; the Eighth and Seventh; and the Ninth alone. Combining those circuits could save us upwards of $150 million a year in operating costs alone. The reason we are not debating whether to create larger circuit courts of equal size to the Ninth is because it does not make sense to have large circuits. We already have one large court--the United States Supreme Court. I am told that there is a saying that goes ``there is the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit, and the rest of the federal circuits.'' What we need now are 13 circuits of roughly equal proportion--not Snow Ninth and the 11 dwarfs. Two other things I would mention. I have yet to hear calls for returning the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits into their original circuit. From what I know, the division that was undertaken in 1981 has settled out well. Finally, for those who are committed to the ``old'' Ninth-- they can rest easier knowing that even after shedding seven states, the ``new'' Ninth will remain the largest circuit in the United States. As we move forward with our legislation to realign the Ninth Circuit, I look forward to split opponents coming out from behind their political smokescreens and discussing the facts at hand which are indisputable--the Ninth Circuit is too large and unwieldy. No amount of technology and innovation is going to provide my constituents with the efficiency and expediency that they deserve as well. The current judges of the Ninth deserve a collegial atmosphere where they can spend time on case law and not case management. I appreciate the leadership Chairman Sensenbrenner has provided in our efforts and look forward to working with him in the coming year as H.R. 4093 and the Ninth Circuit realignment become a reality.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate and pay tribute to all school employees who serve as Education Support Professionals in our Nation's public schools. Custodial Services Education Support Professionals are essential school employees who interact daily with students, staff and parents. Custodians enhance the school districts they serve in many ways. They provide a unique link between all of the different jobs accomplished in a school environment every day. A student's ability to learn and thrive is often directly influenced by the custodians at his or her school. A Custodian's daily work load can include managing heating, ventilating and air-conditioning for the entire school building, maintaining responsibility for the safety and sanitation of the school and managing disruptive or violent student behavior until proper authorities arrive on the scene. In addition, many schools consider their custodian to be the ``Master at Arms'' of their school building. One need only imagine the condition a school would be in without a custodian to understand the enormous importance of custodians to our Nation's schools. Today as we recognize all education support professionals, I would urge my colleagues to take a moment to express their appreciation for this fine group of Americans who are dedicated, loyal and committed to the educational enhancement of all students.