Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3986) to provide for a study of the engineering feasibility of a water exchange in lieu of electrification of the Chandler Pumping Plant at Prosser Diversion Dam, Washington, as amended.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I am pleased to listen to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and his change of heart from being 6 years in the minority, because it did not appear this way when he was in the majority, as I mentioned earlier, and I will continue to mention, that more than twice as many bills of the minority have come up under this Congress than came up the last time his body controlled the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3986 authorizes a study of the feasibility of exchanging water diverted from the Yakima River for use by two irrigation districts for water from the Columbia River. The study would be conducted as part of the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project. The legislation will promote salmon recovery in the Yakima River without reducing the amount of water available to irrigators. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the men and women who have been selflessly fighting fires throughout the western United States this summer. Unfortunately, I have the distinction of representing the district that has, what I am told, the largest fire and the most acres burned in the United States. The Clear Creek fire alone covers an area of over 200,000 acres, outside of Salmon, Idaho, an area one-third the size of the State of Rhode Island. It is but one of many that have been burning throughout Idaho and the western United States. I was fortunate that I was able to spend 2 days on the fire lines and in the camps with the men and women who have been heroically fighting these catastrophic fire. I saw firefighters on the line in the smoke and ash. I met with support crews in the camps who cook, provide firefighting supplies and equipment, make maps all night long in preparation for morning briefings, and the men who run the showers so that the firefighters can have a basic semblance of normalcy, a hot shower after 16 hours on the fire line. That is what it comes down to for front-line firefighters, food, a hot shower, and, if they are lucky, a little sleep. Many of the firefighters and support personnel are wives and husbands who have left their families in other areas of the country for weeks at a time. I met one woman from Missouri who worked at a Forest Service district office there. She was running the commissary. It is the people on the front lines and behind the scenes working together that help to contain these wild fires, with some help from Mother Nature. Without their dedication, perseverance, and individual sacrifices, many more lives, structures, and wildlife habitat would have been lost. Their commitment and dedication is unsurpassed, and they are the best in the world. Spending a couple of days in the fire camps and on the lines, I picked up a few things from the people who are at the ground level. One is obvious, and we have been discussing it for years. We have to manage our forests. They are in an unhealthy state, with the Forest Service's own estimate placing 40 million acres at high fire risk. I saw the high fuel loads; lodgepole pines so thick it looked like toothpicks had been dropped from the sky, and the high levels of brush on the ground. We need to find a way to restore many of our forests to a more healthy, natural state that includes managing prescribed burns and thinning. We may not agree on every aspect of getting to that natural state, but we can find common areas that we can agree on; that fuels reduction is better than fuels feeding these catastrophic fires in our forest. The old adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure is very appropriate. A well-funded fuels reduction program will pay significant dividends in reducing the firefighting and restoration costs over time. Think how far the $1 billion we are spending on fighting these fires this summer would have gone towards fuels reduction. We also have to come up with an approach to rehabilitate and restore these fire-stricken lands that works for all of those who are interested in the care of our Nation's forests. As I was meeting with the staff and operations managers in the fire camp, I also noticed something was missing. It took me a while to figure it out, but I finally realized that there was a lack of younger personnel who would be taking the place of the fire managers as they retire in the years to come. Recent hiring freezes and reductions in personnel have left a gap in the level of experience that we have coming up to fight future fires. Men and women who have been working for 20 to 30 years fighting fires have institutional knowledge about the dynamics and management of firefighting in these warlike conditions. Ensuring that the agencies have adequate funding for personnel in these crucial positions is critical to the security of our forests. We also need to address the current pay system that acts as a disincentive for experienced fire personnel to work on the lines, although I was pleased to hear there has been a temporary correction to this policy. Mr. Speaker, these are but a few of the things I discovered while spending time on the Clear Creek fire. Healthy forests and fuel management is an issue Congress has to spend more time discussing and finding answers to. My fellow colleagues, the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), have each been seeking more proactive ways to manage our Nation's forests. I have asked that their respective forest committees hold a joint hearing to explore future avenues for forest management, including fuels reduction and treatment, in order to decrease the likelihood of a future catastrophic fire. I am hopeful this hearing will generate the necessary dialogue so that we can start the process of restoring and rehabilitating our Nation's forests. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank George Matejko, forest supervisor for the Salmon-Challis National Forest, who allowed my chief of staff and I to get a first-hand look at the fires. I also want to thank Tom Hutchinson, fire management officer for the Valvermo Ranger District of the Angeles National Forest. Tom served as the incident commander for the California Incident Management Team 4 that was managing the fire. He and Virginia Gibbons, public affairs specialist for the Deschutes National Forest, gave us a close look at how fire operations work. Finally, I want to thank all of those who have given their time and efforts to protect Idaho and the West from these catastrophic fires. The people of Idaho and I thank you.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to vote ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 324, the H. Amdt. 905 to HR 4690, offered by Representative John Hostetler, but was recorded as voting ``nay.'' The amendment was designed to add a new section, which provides that no funds in the bill may be used to enforce, implement, or administer the provisions of the settlement document dated March 17, 2000, between Smith and Wesson and the Department of the Treasury. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution dearly defines the right of Americans to possess firearms. The Second Amendment reads: ``A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'' I firmly believe this provision prohibits the federal government from denying citizens this right. The agreement reached by the Administration and Smith & Wesson should not be used to coerce other manufacturers into abiding by an agreement of which they are not a party. On June 21, 2000, I voted to limit the repercussions of this Smith & Wesson agreement by supporting two of Representative Hostetler's amendments to the VA-HLD Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year (FY) 2001. It is my intention to vote in favor of similar amendments to future FY 2001 Appropriations bills.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, this may be the most ill-conceived amendment that we have considered during debate on this bill. Some have called this nothing more than corporate welfare. Well, I will tell my colleagues that in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana, what the Federal Government has done, at a cost of $1 million apiece, is they have reintroduced wolves into the State of Idaho as ``nonessential experimental populations.'' They are costing ranchers and farmers thousands and thousands of dollars. Not only are they costing ranchers and farmers money, they are decimating our elk and deer herds. Ranchers would like to take care of this problem themselves. Unfortunately, there are substantial penalties and fines involved. It has been said that the Fish and Wildlife Service does not use other nonlethal means of trying to maintain control of these predators. The fact is that we capture them, we trap them, we have taken them to other parts of the State, as far away as 300 and 400 miles; and we find that within 2, 3, 4 days, a week, they are back in their original location, oftentimes. In fact, last week I was in Idaho in the Saw Tooth Mountains, and I bought this book; and I would like to take just a moment to reintroduce my colleagues or introduce my colleagues to the Saw Tooth pack of wolves in the State of Idaho. Now, I have to admit, these are beautiful animals. In fact, if we look at this page here, this is their class picture in the nice, soft focus. This is Komoto, the alpha leader. He is regal, confident and benevolent. This here is Moto. He is of middle rank. He is bright, curious and energetic. He also initiates play. Unfortunately, let me show my colleagues what play looks like to Bambi. This is what play looks like to Bambi. Now, I will tell my colleagues, they are causing great problems in the State of Idaho. But we knew as part of the deal of reintroduction of these wolves as a nonessential experimental population is that we would have to manage some of them. We would have to kill some of the wolves that got out of control. That was part of the deal. Unfortunately, we have had to do that. Anyone that thought we were going to reintroduce wolves into Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Minnesota, or New York had better be prepared to deal with the problem wolves that occur. It is not just in the wilderness. We have mothers that are standing by school buses in Salmon, Idaho, because wolves are on the borders of the communities.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hansen amendment. Let me talk for just a minute if I can about the proposal being considered in Idaho to expand the Craters of the Moon National Monument into the Great Rift National Monument. It might surprise some of my colleagues that I am not necessarily opposed to the expansion of the Craters of the Moon into the Great Rift area. It is truly a unique geological area. But what I am opposed to is a process by which any administration, Republican or Democrat administration, can ignore the input of local people, can ignore the input of local- and State- and Federal-elected officials and Congress can ignore its constitutional responsibility to dictate land management policies. It is the process that is a problem here. The Secretary has been out to the State of Idaho twice. I appreciate the fact that he has called me twice when he is going out there to inform me of that. Mr. Chairman, I have requested information on the designation. Under the Antiquities Act, the requirement is that the President put the request in to the Secretary of Interior for what area ought to be designated as a national monument. I have requested the letter from the President and have not received it. Secondly, they are supposed to use the least amount of land available to protect this area. The Secretary has not sent me the information on that. Thirdly, the area being protected is supposed to be of some geological, scientific, or historic nature. The Secretary has not told me what the nature that he is trying to preserve of this area is. But, fourthly, the most important thing is the area is supposed to be under some threat, some imminent threat. So far, the Secretary has refused to tell me what the imminent threat is in this area. Mr. Chairman, this is not pristine habitat or natural forests or salmon habitat or anything like that. What it is is lava rocks. It is under no threat currently, and the Secretary refuses to acknowledge that. Earlier one of the speakers from New York said, Congress already has the authority to control this by undoing a national monument if we want to. The reality is that a former congressman tried to enact this and could not get support from his own party or the people of Idaho. I urge the support of the Hansen amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the permanent normal trade relations with China. Some people view PNTR as a gift that the United States would give to China. PNTR with China is, in fact, in the United States' best economic interest. China is a huge potential market for the United States, as has been mentioned, 1.2 billion people, or 20 percent of the world's population. Our potential to export to them is enormous. Idaho's share of those exports is significant to a small State with a million people in it. In 1998 alone, Idaho exported nearly $25 million worth of merchandise to China. And in the agricultural sector, we exported $833 million to China. Future gains are almost certain under the terms of the bilateral agreement and China's WTO accession. Upon accession to the WTO, China's average tariff rate of 22 percent will drop to 17 percent for most products. In the agricultural sector, the reduction is even more significant. The average 31 percent tariff will be reduced to 14 percent for agricultural products on average. In fact, Goldman Sachs estimates that passage of PNTR will increase U.S. exports to China by $12.7 billion to $13.9 billion by the year 2005. Although there have been some statements to the contrary that the U.S. can reap all of the benefits of this bilateral agreement when China accedes to the WTO, the fact is that cannot happen unless PNTR is granted to China. That is because one of the cornerstones of the WTO is the concept of unconditional most favored nation or normal trade relations between WTO members. In the agricultural area, PNTR wheat producers believe that they will see an increase of 10 percent sales to China with PNTR. In fact, the increase of sales of beef will increase even more, I believe, as the current tariff rates are reduced from their current level of 45 percent to 12 percent by the year 2004. China will also eliminate its export subsidies upon WTO accession. The U.S., and this is important to remember, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. is not required to change any of its market access commitments to achieve all of these benefits. In the high tech sector in Idaho, which is a growing industry in Idaho, the current duties on information technology products such as computers, electronics, fiberoptics, cable and other telecommunication equipment currently average 13 percent but will be eliminated by January 1, 2005. In addition, trading and distribution rights for IT products will be phased in over 3 years. This means that companies in my congressional district, such as Micron and Hewlett- Packard, will be able to build upon their current exports to China which currently average around 6 percent. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important vote for Congress. I understand and agree with the concerns of my colleagues with regards to human rights in China. But I believe that we will change China more by being engaged with China rather than standing back and throwing stones. In fact, it was interesting. Today I had several students from Taiwan in my office. One would think that Taiwan would be opposed to accession of China into the WTO because of the aggressive nature that China has expressed toward Taiwan but these students told me, and I have confirmed with the President elect of Taiwan that they support accession of China into the WTO because they believe that active engagement with China will make China more like Taiwan and will free Taiwan and make them more economically free. Mr. Speaker, this potentially is the most important vote that we will cast in this Congress. I urge my colleagues to support PNTR for China.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to point out that this proposal does not preclude the purchase of more Federal land. I do not deny that there are purchases out there that may be appropriate for the Federal government to acquire, for habitat and other things. I do not have a problem with that. But what I am saying is that in a State like Idaho and those States that have currently over 50 percent Federal land, and in Idaho it is 65 percent, two out of every three acres is owned and controlled by the Federal Government. That leaves little private land as a tax base to support the services in the rest of that State. But in those States, if there is an appropriate purchase of Federal land or an appropriate acquisition by the Federal Government, they have two options under which they can acquire that land. One, they can decide that there is other land that they would rather sell off so that there is a no net gain, in which they can do it without the approval of the State; otherwise they can go to their State legislature and get it approved by State law. This brings the State government into the decision-making process. I do not know why we should fear having our State legislators, those people closest to the decision-making process and how this is going to affect them, be involved in that decision- making process. I do not have a problem with that. I trust my State legislature. I come from the State legislature. They have the concerns of the State of Idaho and I am sure of the other States that they represent at heart. They will do the right thing. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden). (Mr. WALDEN of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Simpson-Walden amendment to H.R. 701 is a common sense amendment that addresses one of the major concerns that the constituents in my State have, that of giving the Federal Government $450 million annually to purchase land in States such as Idaho which already have a high percentage of Federal landownership, potentially little turning Idaho into a welfare state dependent upon the Federal Government. There are 52,960,000 acres in the State of Idaho. The Federal Government owns 34,519,000 of those acres. In other words, 65 percent of Idaho is owned and controlled by the Federal Government. There is more Federally owned land in Idaho than in the entire land mass of the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and New Hampshire combined. Removing private land from local property tax roles and not fully funding the PILT payments severely impacts Idaho's counties and local governments. Moreover, when the Federal Government absorbs private land and that land ceases to be productive, local communities are severely affected by the loss of economic activity and become more, not less, dependent upon the Federal Government. For example, when a farm or a ranch land is purchased by the Federal Government and taken out of production, those operations cease to contribute to the local economy. Hired hands go unemployed. Local stores lose businesses. Trucks and tractors remain unsold on the local dealership lots. However, in spite of this concern, this amendment does not preclude, I repeat, does not preclude Federal land acquisition. It does not undermine CARA. It only requires that the Federal Government, when acquiring land in a State which is over 50 percent or more of the land in that State is owned by the Federal Government, to do one of two things, to either dispose of an equal amount of land or to obtain the approval of the State by State law before acquiring that land. This amendment provides the Federal Government with the flexibility to actually bypass the State if they so choose. The Federal Government does not have to seek State approval if they do not enter into a purchase that results in a net gain in Federal landownership within that State. My colleague the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) and I are not asking for much, only the ability of our States to exercise some control over future Federal Government land acquisitions. At present the majority of Idaho and other western States that this amendment would affect, Alaska, Oregon, Utah and Nevada, are owned and controlled by the Federal Government. In these States where the Federal Government already owns a majority of the total land, we should not fear allowing the State elected officials to participate in the decision as to how much more Federal land will be acquired by the Federal Government. It is these State officials that can best determine the impacts that these proposed Federal acquisitions will have on their local communities. If Members truly support States rights and local control as the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) waxed so eloquently about earlier in the debate on the general debate on this legislation, then they will truly support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to point out that this does not affect the State of California and it does not affect the State of Washington, but I appreciate the gentleman's input. What it does affect is those States that already have 50 percent Federal land. Really what we are saying is, how much is enough Federal land? I think 65 percent of the State of Idaho being controlled by the Federal Government is enough. The people of Idaho think it is enough. In fact, we have legislation now that we are trying to work on and we will try to get through Congress that will allow the State of Idaho to manage some of those Federal lands because we are fed up with the Federal Government's management of those Federal lands. Mr. Chairman, to tell the truth, all this does is, it does not say that one cannot buy the land, it just says that one has to have the approval of the State legislature or a no-net gain, and if somebody out there has 20 acres or 40 acres, as the gentleman from Washington suggested, is he trying to tell me that in the 34 million acres, 34 million acres that the Federal Government currently owns in Idaho, they cannot say, well, here is 40 acres we can surrender to make this deal?

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not believe that is what it does. That individual can sell that land to who he wants to. There are private conservation groups and other groups that can acquire that land. It is only if the Federal Government, the Federal Government, with our tax dollars, tax dollars that have been taken out of our pockets, tax dollars, and I do not know where it says that the Federal Government has the right to take tax dollars from the citizens of this country and go out and purchase private land with it.

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3577 is a bill to increase the amount authorized to be appropriated for the north side pumping division of the Minidoka reclamation project in Idaho. A&B Irrigation is the contracting entity for the north side pumping division of the Minidoka project. The division, located on the southern portion of the State of Idaho, consists of some 80,000 acres. Construction of the division was completed in 1959 and control was transferred to the district in 1966. Due to the lack of natural surface drainage outlets to the Snake River and constraints associated with the drainage onto the lower-lying Minidoka Irrigation District, most irrigation return flows and stormwater runoffs are injected into drain wells which are part of the original project design. The drain wells pass the water directly into the underlying aquifer. In 1991, the United States Environmental Protection Agency designated the eastern Snake River plain aquifer a sole source of drinking water. Under provisions of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, if a sole source of drinking water is contaminated it could result in a significant public health hazard. In an effort to comply with the Act, the district and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation developed a plan to dispose of this runoff. The remaining work consists of constructing passive treatment and reuse systems at an estimated cost of $2.8 million, of which up to $1.3 million would be reimbursable to the district under a cost-sharing arrangement, 60 percent U.S. Federal Government, 40 percent irrigation, A&B irrigation. As of now, 42 of the original 78 drain wells have been closed or abandoned, but 36 wells are still active. This legislation would amend the original language to increase the authorization by $2.8 million from $11,395,000 to $14,200,000. In the energy and water appropriations bill for the fiscal year 2000, money was appropriated for the district to continue capping these wells in order to comply with the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Unfortunately, the ceiling was hit and no further funding could be used. By increasing the ceiling, the district will be able to complete its project, which in turn will help prevent the main source of drinking water from south central Idaho from being contaminated. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all colleagues support H.R. 3577.

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

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 89 introduced by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) assures that Congress recognizes the Hermann Monument and Hermann Heighs Park in New Ulm, Minnesota, as a national symbol of German heritage. Although there are currently almost 60 million individuals of German heritage residing in the United States, there is no recognized, tangible national symbol dedicated to German Americans and their positive contributions to American culture, arts, industry, military, and government. The Hermann Monument was erected in 1897 in honor of the spirit of freedom and later dedicated to all German immigrants and has been placed on the National Register of Historical Places. House Concurrent Resolution 89 would recognize the achievements and contributions of Americans of German heritage at the Hermann Monument. I ask my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 89. 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 on House Concurrent Resolution 89.

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

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 296.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Dickey) be allowed to control the time allotted to the majority.