Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Daniel Branagan, Elizabeth Taylor, Joseph Burch, James Fincke, David Swank, and DeLon Haggard on their upcoming R&D 100 Award to be presented next month in Chicago. The R&D 100 award celebrates the 100 most significant technological achievements for the year 2001 as recognized by R&D Magazine. This talented group of scientists made this unique contribution to American science and industry as a materials research team for the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). The honor that this team has earned is the 27th such award for the INEEL. Specifically, this team is being recognized for their creation of the new material known as Super Hard Steel. Super Hard Steel, created through an innovative process that transforms steel alloy into a non-crystalline metallic glass, has hardness properties among the highest ever reported for a metallic substance. Once sprayed on, the Super Hard Steel coating cannot be removed--even with a hammer and chisel. This tough, low cost, wear and corrosion resistant coating is expected to replace, and indeed outperform, much more expensive materials in high-stress machine parts. Already, more than 15 companies are evaluating the metal with an eye towards licensing it and the Department of Defense is expected to soon begin tests of the metal in various demanding environments. Also, the story of the R&D Magazine's award, which has appeared in publications such as USA Today, has already added to the list of companies pursuing this new material. The work of this intrepid group of Idahoan scientists will soon benefit the entire American economy as their metallic coating, with wide-ranging applications in products such as knife blades and mining rock crushers, becomes integrated into products that affect the lives of all Americans. Who knows exactly how many machine parts will someday be made with Super Hard Steel. It is innovation such as this that everyone at the INEEL, and the entire state of Idaho, are proud to be a part of. Mr. Speaker, there are a series of government-funded national laboratories across this great country doing important work akin to this remarkable achievement of the INEEL. The Super Hard Steel Project was funded through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the INEEL's own discretionary research fund. As Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham recently said, ``. . . this accomplishment demonstrates the value of government-funded research to the Nation.'' Breakthroughs such as Super Hard Steel prove beyond a doubt that the investment of taxpayer money in these priceless institutions is well spent. I urge my colleagues to join me in wishing these unique individuals and the laboratories that employ them continued success in their important endeavors.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his kinds words; and I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 2540, the Veterans Benefits Act of 2001. This bill comprises several of the bills we took testimony on in the Subcommittee on Benefits on July 10 as well as administrative provisions affecting the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, all of which we marked up in subcommittee on July 12. I will briefly outline the various provisions of the bill, which makes an array of improvements to veterans benefits programs. Title I would provide a cost of living adjustment, already mentioned, effective December 1, 2001, to the rates of disability compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation. As the committee has done in the past, the rate of increase will be the same as the Social Security COLA increase. On July 9, the Department of Veterans Affairs issued final rules adding Type 2 diabetes to the regulatory list of service-connected illnesses presumed to be associated with exposures to the herbicide agents in Vietnam. VA based its decision on recent findings by the National Academy of Sciences. Section 201 of this bill codifies the VA regulations. The remaining sections of title 2 addresses issues unique to Persian Gulf War veterans. They indeed are selfless individuals who went into harm's way to fight tyranny. About 12,000 of our 714,000 service members who served in the Gulf suffer from hard-to-diagnose illnesses. Section 202 would expand the definition of undiagnosed illnesses to include fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, and chronic multi- symptom illnesses for the statutory presumption of service connection, as well as for other illnesses that cannot be clearly defined. This section also lists signs and symptoms that may be a manifestation of an undiagnosed illness. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for their work, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) for working with me on this provision. Section 203 would grant the Secretary the authority to protect the service-connected grant of a Persian Gulf war veteran who participates in a Department-sponsored medical research project. It is the committee's intention that this provision will broaden participation in vital scientific and medical studies. Section 204 would expand to December 31, 2003 the presumptive period for providing compensation to veterans with undiagnosed illnesses. This authority expires at the end of this year. And I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) for their work with us on this issue. Title 3 would provide greater administrative flexibility to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims so that registration fees paid to the court might be used in connection with practitioner disciplinary proceedings and in support of bench and bar and veterans' law educational activities. Title 3 also authorizes the collection of registration fees for other court-sponsored activities where appropriate. Section 401 would give the VA the authority to make a payment of life insurance proceedings to an alternate beneficiary when the primary beneficiary cannot be located within 3 years. Currently, there is no time limitation for the first-named beneficiary of a national service life insurance or United States Government life insurance policy to file a claim. As a result, VA is required to hold the unclaimed funds indefinitely. Section 402 would extend the copayment requirement for a VA outpatient prescription medication to September 30, 2006 from September 30, 2002. Section 403 would make the availability of funds from VA's Health Services Improvement Fund subject to the provisions of the appropriations acts. Section 404 would extend the Native Americans Veteran Housing Loan Pilot program to 2005. Section 405 would modify the loan assumption notice requirement. Section 406 would eliminate the need for a claimant to send a copy of a notice of appeal to the Secretary. Removal of this notice requirement would not impair VA's ability to receive notice of the filing of an appeal and to respond to those who are properly filed with the court. Finally, section 407 would establish a 2-year nationwide pilot program requiring the Secretary to expand the available hours of the VA's 1-800 toll-free information service and to assess the extent to which demands for such service exists. This pilot would provide information on veterans benefits and services administered by all Federal departments and agencies. I would like to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) and his staff for working with the subcommittee on this provision, along with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) for her testimony that she submitted at the subcommittee's July 10 hearing. Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank a real gentleman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Benefits, for his support and counsel in my first few weeks as chairman of this subcommittee. Lastly, we would not be considering this bill if it were not for the wisdom and foresight of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), chairman of the full committee, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans). These two gentlemen have served together on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for some 20 years, and I appreciate their leadership. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2540 is a strong bill; and I urge my colleagues support of it.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, As the graduation season comes to a close, I would like to recognize a few special graduates from the state of Idaho. Local high school students presented about 50 World War II veterans with high school diplomas they never received due to the war. These men put their education on hold, joined arms, and fought valiantly for our beautiful country. The high school diplomas are well deserved and long overdue. Retired servicemen appreciate the homage that high school students are giving, and I am pleased to see the youth in Idaho recognizing the great deeds of past generations. The Greek historian Herodotus once wrote, ``Great deeds are usually wrought at great risks.'' When faced with the dangers of war, our American soldiers proved their valor and accomplished the greatest deed of all: heroism. How can we allow Americans to forget the heroic efforts of veterans more than 50 years ago? As Memorial Day passes and Veterans' Day quickly approaches, we as a country cannot escape our obligation toward our American heroes. World War II veterans have never asked for a monument and were content without it, but it is time for us to say thank you for their courage and sacrifice through gestures such as a memorial. I am grateful that Americans have finally pulled together to honor these brave men and women of World War II with a national memorial. High school students throughout Idaho have discovered a way to say thank you to the saviors of our country. As young Idahoans helped veterans to don the traditional cap and gown this year, it reminded me that throughout these 50 years we have not forgotten these men or their important role in our American history. Through the ongoing construction of the World War II Memorial, high school diplomas, and many other events, we are demonstrating our deep reverence to the heroes of our nation and keeping their memories alive.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. That is interesting because they did not have any information for us.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to know where he got the average of $44 per farmer, because we cannot find anywhere where that information comes from. In fact, it comes to about $800 per farmer from our information. And the information that he suggests that 1 percent of those sheep producers got 25 percent of the payments is just blatantly false.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, we work in a funny place. It helps if one knows the facts; it really helps if one understands the facts. But if one neither knows nor understands the facts, it causes a great deal of confusion. Mr. Chairman, let me talk about the ``Dear Colleague'' letter that went out. It says this subsidy began during World War II and the Korean War, and obviously it is no longer necessary because the military does not need this wool anymore. This is not the original program for the military in World War II. This is an economic disaster, market loss assistance program, which was put into place. Our agricultural producers that raise sheep and mohair are suffering the same economic consequences as everybody else is in the agricultural industry; and to pick them out and say we are not going to help them, we are not going to have an assistance program for them and we are going to for everybody else is wrong. This is not the old program put into place during the war. Mr. Chairman, the other part of the ``Dear Colleague'' says, ``The average farmer received $44 for this subsidy. The largest factory farms, representing 1 percent of all growers, received 25 percent of the subsidy.'' That is blatantly not true. There are no facts which support that. To support this, the largest producer would have to raise 62,000 sheep. There are no producers that large.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I have heard several times on the floor that this does not stop funding for research, all it does is stop funding for final approval by the FDA of that research. We might as well stop funding for research, because who is going to put money into the research if there is no provision for final approval for use of that research once it is done? The FDA has the legal authority to regulate products derived from transgenic animals. Although significant public and private research to develop commercially useful transgenic fish is ongoing, none have completed the FDA process at this time. Products regulated as new animal drugs in the United States are subject to rigorous premarket requirements to determine effectiveness, to ensure food, animal, and environmental safety. This process includes targeting animal safety, safety to the environment, and safety for consumers who eat foods derived from genetically-engineered animals. The Center for Veterinary Medicine intends to use various approaches, including a contract with the National Academy of Sciences, to identify further environmental safety issues associated with the investigation and commercial use of transgenic animals. To do this, the agency will cooperate closely with other Federal and State agencies that have related authorities, such as the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, in the case of transgenic Atlantic salmon. Last year, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences concluded that the regulatory system for biotech foods is appropriate and effective. These are some of the reasons why this amendment is strongly opposed by a coalition of agricultural interests, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Soybean Association, the Grocery Manufacturers of America, the National Corngrowers Association, the National Cotton Council, the National Fruit Processors Association, and many, many more. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this step back into the dark ages.

Mr. SIMPSON. So these are decade-old figures that he is quoting to us, 8 years, from 1993?

Mr. SIMPSON. Any ones that he understands.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I am very honored to do so. I want to thank the gentleman for his support on this subject and his interest in it and his dedication to it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) in his dedication on this subject in making sure this gets done. It is a very important subject.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my support for the bill of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), H.R. 691. This noncontroversial legislation will extend the life of the Child Passenger Protection Education Grant Program for an additional 2 years. TEA-21 authorized $7.5 million for fiscal year 2000 and 2001 to fund this program. This legislation simply extends that authorization for an additional 2 years, to fiscal year 2003, making the program consistent with the reauthorization timeline of TEA-21. Forty-eight States, the District of Columbia, and the Territories have all received grants through this Child Passenger Protection Education Grant Program. These grants are designed to prevent deaths and injuries to children, educate the public concerning the proper installation of child restraints, and train child passenger safety personnel concerning child restraint use. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reported H.R. 691 by a voice vote on May 16, 2001; and today I ask that the House suspend the rules and pass H.R. 691. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material on H.R. 691.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 691) to extend the authorization of funding for child passenger protection education grants through fiscal year 2003.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, after listening to the last few speakers, I have to tell my colleagues, if rhetoric were fast food, Members would have to walk through golden arches to enter this floor, because I have never heard so much rhetoric as I have just heard from the gentleman from Massachusetts who just spoke. He talks about the beauty of these things, and many are beautiful. But some of them, my colleagues ought to come to Idaho and look at the expansion of the Craters of the Moon. It is a bunch of lava rock. And we are still trying to figure out what the imminent threat was to the Craters of the Moon when they designated it as a national monument, yet they decided they had to do it. It was under no imminent threat. That is the reality. Mr. Chairman, clearly my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are passionate about national monuments. So am I; and so is anybody on this side of the aisle. We all love our public lands and want to protect them, but look at what this amendment does. What this amendment does is say that we cannot have any preleasing, any leasing, or any related activities on a national monument as it existed prior to January 20, 2001. Now, the gentleman from Oregon that spoke said we are not going to change any of those things. If Members want to change any of those things, bring them to the floor. We have done that in this Congress. Many of my colleagues voted for it because it went by suspension. We changed a national monument in Idaho to a national preserve, so we do change them occasionally and we need to look at that. Mr. Chairman, the reality is the real purpose of the Rahall amendment is to freeze the dozens of monuments that President Clinton declared during the waning days of his administration and prohibit mineral leasing activities in these areas. That is the intent of this amendment. This would occur even if Congress enacted a law which adjusted a boundary to a national monument or if President Bush reduced the size of a monument by administrative order. The effect of the Rahall amendment will be to lock up acres of coal, gas, oil and other much needed energy resources at a time the United States needs these domestic resources to avert a further energy crisis. The House of Representatives, as I have said, has already changed one to a national preserve, so the reality is we do look at them, we do change them, we do change the boundaries. But under current law, 30 United States Code section 181, mineral leasing cannot take place on national monuments. If you look at most of the national monument designations that have been made, they prevent mineral leasing in the designation. I would bet the gentleman from Oregon that spoke earlier about the beauty of the national monument in his State if he would look at the designation would see that it is prevented in the designation of that national monument. So we are not going to go out and drill in these areas, Mr. Chairman. We should not tie Congress' hands and the President's hands with this ill-advised, unnecessary, silly amendment. Mr. Chairman, the people on this side of the aisle care as much about our public lands and our national monuments as they do. That is why we live there, because we love the beauty of our rivers and mountains and streams. That is what we want to preserve. But yes, there are legitimate reasons to look at our national monuments for other purposes. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to not adopt this amendment. It is silly and unnecessary.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to revise my earlier statement during debate on the Hooley amendment to H.R. 1157, the Pacific Salmon Recovery Act. During the debate I erroneously stated the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had ordered a landowner in my district to fill in an illegally dug stream channel. It was the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that told my constituent to fill in the stream channel.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, this is an important issue to all of us in the Pacific Northwest that care about salmon recovery. Today I rise in support of H.R. 1157, the Pacific Salmon Recovery Act. I compliment my good friend from the State of California for his efforts in directing funds to the areas where they may actually make an impact to the States and local governments of the Pacific Northwest. The Federal Government is spending huge amounts of money on salmon restoration in the Pacific Northwest. Unfortunately, the Federal efforts do not always involve the small projects, and the Federal efforts do not always put much emphasis on the projects put forward by local units of government. Mr. Chairman, I think these smaller local projects, when put together with larger Federal efforts, may actually begin to make a difference in restoring salmon populations and restoring salmon habitat. At the end of the 106th Congress, the appropriators both authorized and appropriated funds for this type of State effort. Unfortunately, the original authorization left the State of Idaho out, and therefore Idaho received no funds for habitat recovery for these magnificent fish. While Idaho is not one of the coastal States, it does in fact include much of the habitat for these spawning fish. It is a sad fact that some of these salmon are endangered. It is also a sad fact that Idaho could probably use some financial assistance to augment our salmon habitat restoration efforts. Mr. Chairman, this bill not only authorizes the funding for the State and local restoration projects, but it also takes a few steps that the current appropriation language does not take. This bill requires the State to match dollar for dollar the funding they get through this authorization. The current authorization only requires a 25 percent match by the States. This bill also requires that States develop a salmon conservation and restoration plan. This is an important provision that will ensure that funds are spent according to a publicly developed plan, rather than haphazardly funding projects with little or no coordination. This bill also requires the State plans to have measurable criteria by which the activities funded by this bill can be measured. Finally, this bill requires that the States maintain their current level of funding for salmon recovery activities and not just substitute this Federal money for currently funded State salmon programs and use their funds for other priorities. Mr. Chairman, this is a good piece of legislation, one that I believe will help the State and local governments partner in the recovery of salmon and salmon habitat in the Pacific Northwest, including the State of Idaho. As has been mentioned, this legislation in a somewhat different form passed the House twice during the 106th Congress, both times by voice vote. I urge Members to support this legislation. Once again, I compliment my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), for his effort in making sure that we do whatever we can to recover the salmon and other fish of the Pacific Northwest.

Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment. We do not intend to oppose the amendment. There are many things that do affect salmon, one of those being logging practices, not only in the United States and in Canada, but also the predators, the ocean conditions, dams, many other things, and all of those things should be looked at along with those issues relative to logging practices in Oregon. Let me tell the gentlewoman, there is one issue that we have not dealt with, and that is the differences between the agencies of the Federal Government and how they deal with this. In the Stanley Basin of Idaho, let me give you this example. In the Stanley Basin of Idaho, several years ago an illegal stream was dug around the Salmon River. It was dug illegally admittedly. Today, there is conflict going on between the EPA, which is telling the new landowner to fill in that illegally dug channel, and Fish and Wildlife who is saying do not fill in that channel, because there are spawning salmon in that channel. The landowner is stuck in the middle, the new landowner is stuck in the middle, and he refuses to fill it in. So we have not only all these other things, but we have some conflicts in the Federal agency that needs to be addressed also. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her amendment, and we do not intend to oppose it.

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and will ask the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) to enter into a colloquy. Is it the gentlewoman's intent, I want to make this clear, that this report done by the Secretary of Commerce, that the funding for that come out of the Department of Commerce and not come out of funds appropriated in this bill for salmon habitat restoration?

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about the energy policy released today by the administration. Madam Speaker, for the last several years we have had a strong economy, primarily because we have had affordable and reliable sources of energy; but now we are in an energy crisis which threatens our economic future and our national security. The President and Vice President have come together and put together a plan, and today they released their national energy policy, which I would encourage every Member and every individual in America to get a copy of and read it through. It is a comprehensive plan. The President recognizes the problem. He is concerned about the effects that high energy prices, both in gasoline and in electricity, will have on the American people and on our economy. We have a bold, new approach to addressing the energy policy in this country. We need reliable, affordable, and clean energy increases. We need improved infrastructure. We cannot meet tomorrow's challenges with yesterday's technologies. We need new technologies to meet the demands. Some people will say those technologies are not here yet. I will say, Madam Speaker, that Americans are second to none in their ability to solve problems when they set their minds to it. We are the most technologically advanced Nation on Earth. If we set our minds to solving a problem, we can do it. The President's leadership comes at a very critical time, but we must act now if we are going to have a comprehensive plan to address the energy crisis which will be with us for several years if we do not act. If anyone questions whether there is a serious energy shortage in this country, let me just give a few statistics. Over the next 20 years, U.S. oil consumption will rise by 33 percent. Over the next 20 years, U.S. natural gas consumption will rise by over 50 percent. Over the next 20 years, U.S. electricity consumption will rise by 45 percent. Since 1992, oil production is down 17 percent in this country, while consumption is up 14 percent. In 1993, we were reliant on foreign oil for 35 percent of our demands. That was during the oil crisis that we had in 1973. We said at that time we needed to become less dependent on foreign oil because our economy was subject to the whims of those countries in OPEC. Instead of becoming less reliant on foreign oil, we are now nearly 60 percent reliant on foreign oil for our oil needs. The U.S. spends roughly $300 million a day, or about $100 billion a year on foreign oil. It is obvious that the demands for energy in the future are going to increase in this country. So what have we done in the way of supply? In 1990, U.S. jobs in exploration and production of oil and gas were 405,000 in the United States. In 1999, 10 years later, U.S. jobs in exploration and production of oil and gas were 293,000, down 27 percent. In 1990, in the United States, U.S. oil rigs, we had 657 of them in the United States. In the year 2000, working U.S. oil rigs, 153; a 77 percent decline. Thirty-six oil refineries have closed since 1992, and we have not built a new oil refinery since 1976. The previous administration had no, I repeat, had no long-term energy policy. It seems the energy policy of the past administration was to shut down exploration as we became more reliant on foreign oil, to shut down refineries, to shut down research on clean coal and finding new sources of coal, to shut down nuclear research. It seems that you could sum up the past administration's energy policy as the ``Do not worry, be happy,'' energy policy. As I said, we have in this country a supply and demand problem, and that is essentially what the energy crisis is, a supply and demand problem. Let me summarize what President Bush's energy plan does. It is 105 specific recommendations. Forty-two of those recommendations are targeted at conservation. Much has been said by our opponents that the President does not rely heavily enough on conservation. Forty-two of the recommendations are targeted at conservation; 35 recommendations are targeted at energy supply; 25 of the recommendations are targeted at increased energy security; 12 of the recommendations can be done through executive order; 73 of the recommendations are directives to Federal agencies; 20 of the recommendations will require action by this Congress. Briefly, let me go through the major portions of his recommendations. First, conservation. He wants to expand government support for programs for conservation, improved energy efficiency for appliances, improved conservation efforts in Federal buildings, and support new fuel-efficient technology for vehicles, buses, transit and other transportations. In the area of renewable and alternative energies, he wants renewed focus on renewable and alternative energy, reduced delays in geothermal leasing processes, help for communities that want to use renewable energy, so that they can do so; extend and expand wind and biomass tax credits; a new 15 percent tax credit for residential solar energy. He wants to put $1.2 billion in ANWR proceeds to renewable research, a new tax credit for the purchase of new hybrid or fuel cell vehicles, expand research on hydrogen and fusion energy. It sounds to me like he has concentrated much of his effort on conservation and renewable and alternative energy sources. In clean-coal technology, President Bush wants to invest $2 billion over the next 10 years in new clean-coal technologies. In the area of oil and natural gas, he wants to review the impediments to oil and gas leasing on Federal lands; review regulations on outer Continental Shelf energy development; consider additional leases in the national petroleum reserve in Alaska, and work with Congress to look at the possibility of leasing portions of ANWR which were set aside specifically to look for new energy sources, oil and gas, to work with Congress to look at making some leases in those areas of ANWR for oil and gas exploration. In the area of nuclear energy, he wants to streamline the relicensing of existing nuclear power plants. There are many nuclear power plants that will be up for relicensing in the near future, which may not ask for relicensing because of the cost and time delays necessary to relicense these plants. Madam Speaker, nuclear energy is truly one of the cleanest and environmentally friendly forms of energy that we can have. With the technologies that are being developed today at the INEEL in Idaho and in Madam Speaker's district in Chicago, they are developing technologies which are reducing the amount of waste that comes from nuclear power plants. If we continue down this road, energy in the United States will be produced, I believe, largely by environmentally friendly nuclear energy. In the area of hydropower, the administration recognizes the clean air benefits of hydropower. It also has some problems. It dams up rivers, and that causes problems with fish, as we are seeing in the Pacific Northwest. But hydropower in the Pacific Northwest is very important. Eighty-one percent of the Nation's renewable electricity comes from hydropower. Hydropower supplies approximately 70 percent of the electricity in the Pacific Northwest. The administration supports reform of the relicensing process for hydroplants. Today in Idaho we have a series of dams in the Hell's Canyon complex which have been there for some 30 years. I can understand the length of time it would take to license a new dam. If you have a free-flowing river and you suggest putting a dam in there, you would do substantial environmental studies to see the impacts that dam would have on the environment and the species and so forth. Those dams have been there for 30 years. We are trying to get them relicensed. Idaho Power is. It has taken over 10 years to relicense those dams, and millions and millions of dollars. And the people that are going to pay those dollars are the ratepayers. We need to streamline this relicensing process not only for dams but for transmission lines, for transmission pipelines, for oil and natural gas and other things. Some people will say that this policy concentrates too much in one area and not enough in another area. I will tell you there are no silver bullets. We cannot conserve our way out of this problem. We cannot find enough oil or natural gas to get ourselves out of this problem. Nuclear power will not do it. It takes a combination of all of the efforts that we can bring to bear on this problem. Conservation, renewable new sources of energy, new technologies, clean coal, new exploration, and nuclear energy, those are the things that are going to be necessary if we are going to address this energy crisis in the long term. And if we do not address this energy crisis in the long term, it will be back to visit us again. Madam Speaker, I am glad that we have a President that recognizes the importance of reliable, affordable energy and the impact that it has on our economy, and I look forward to working with him to enact this policy.

Mr. SIMPSON

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

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I think the point has been made that unfortunately, the environmental movement has become far too extreme. That does not mean that there are not good environmentalists out there. There are many housewives and husbands across the Nation that want to take care of our land and our country, I being one of those, and I am sure the gentleman from Utah and the gentleman from California also. But as I was saying earlier, many of these things do not really address the environment, they hurt it more than they address it. They are trying to use environmental issues for other means, and I will tell my colleagues an example in Idaho. We have a sage grouse problem, declining sage grouse populations, and we are trying to find out why and what we can do to control it. The Fish and Wildlife Service and the Idaho Fish and Game have been studying this for 20 years, and they decided that predators are a main problem with sage grouse populations. They eat the young chicks. So they proposed a study to take 2 areas, one where they do some predator control this year and the other one where they did not do any predator control and examined the 2 of them and watch the sage grouse populations. But 2 environmental groups have sued them to stop the study because they want to protect the sage grouse, they say, but their real goal is, their argument is to get cattle off of this land. And if it is shown that sage grouse can be protected by removing some of the predators, the argument for removing cattle goes away. So they do not want this study done. So is it truly their aim to try to save the sage grouse, or is it their true aim to try to get cattle off of public land, regardless of what cattle does to the sage grouse? When I want to look at a true conservationist, an original conservationist, I look at the farmers and ranchers of this country, because it is the land that produces the crop that produces the grass that the cows eat, that is what they do for living and they take care of it; overwhelming majorities of them take care of it. So when I want some true conservation issues, I generally talk to my farmers and ranchers. I yield back to the gentleman.