Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the generous donation by Chobani who paid the school lunch debt for the entire Twin Falls School District for the 2018-2019 school year. This act of kindness is just another example of Chobani's commitment to being a good neighbor in the Magic Valley. The State of Idaho is fortunate that Chobani chose to build North America's largest yogurt plant in Twin Falls in 2012. Since arriving, Chobani has benefited the local economy including the dairy farmers in Idaho who supply milk to the plant. It is estimated that Chobani's direct and indirect employment is roughly 7,000 jobs in Idaho including roughly 300 refugees from the local center at the College of Southern Idaho. Due to Chobani's economic success, additional food producing businesses have located facilities in Twin Falls, which has resulted in the local unemployment rate dropping as low as 2.2 percent. I believe any organization or business starts with the tone set by their leader. Chobani exemplifies that through their founder, chairman, and CEO, Hamdi Ulukaya. I consider Hamdi a friend to me and to the State of Idaho. Hamdi grew up on a dairy farm in Turkey and immigrated to the United States in 1994. He took over a yogurt factory in 2005 with a loan from the Small Business Administration. Today, he is the CEO of the number one strained yogurt brand in the United States. He has shared his generosity with local communities like Twin Falls and also announced he would hand over ten percent of the shares of the company to its employees. To quote the Twin Falls Mayor, ``Chobani is the gift that keeps on giving.'' I thank Hamdi and Chobani and I look forward to their future growth and partnership with the State of Idaho.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a great friend to Idaho, Mark Benson, who is retiring after a 42 year career with PotlatchDeltic. The last 13 years he has been Vice President, Public Affairs. However, his title to me is a friend and trusted advisor. I met Mark when I was in the Idaho Legislature. He quickly established himself as a valuable advisor on forestry and paper products which is a large economic driver in Idaho. Mark has the unique ability to explain an issue and the impacts from every perspective and gives always gives an honest assessment of the status. Mark worked at nearly every level of PotlatchDeltic, starting as a field forester in 1974. He has left his mark on the industry and will be remembered for founding the National Alliance of Forest Owners who is a leading voice on all the issues facing forestry. Mark has been a great friend to my staff and me. To Mark, PotlatchDeltic was not just a job, it was a lifestyle and he treated his colleagues like family. Mark is also an incredible husband and father as witnessed by his supportive wife Patti and three amazing daughters who now have families of their own. No doubt, this will be the focal point of his retirement alongside his many hobbies including golf, hunting, and travel. If I have one gripe with Mark, it is that he never let me win on the golf course. As kind and generous as he is, he could never seem to find it in his heart to let a putt or two slide by. Perhaps I will be able to change that now that he has more time to hit the links. I wish Mark and Patti and the rest of their family a terrific and well-deserved retirement. I look forward to keeping in touch with him as a friend and seeing him back in Idaho.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I would like to address what the gentlewoman just said in just a minute. While I may have been able to support some of the amendments that have been considered individually--and I noticed that as we listed the Members that have offered amendments they were all Democratic amendments; none of them were Republican amendments--the majority's decision to package them together like this means I must oppose an en bloc amendment. I have concerns with multiple pieces of this en bloc amendment, but I would like to focus on two of them; one that was just spoken about by the gentlewoman from Florida. First, this amendment includes language that would prohibit the Army Corps of Engineers from issuing a section 404 permit for any project in a specific geographical location. Legislatively deciding individual permit outcomes is something the Energy and Water Subcommittee, under both Republican and Democrat leadership, have previously avoided. That restraint was not because we were never asked to legislate the outcome of a permit. We were asked many, many times. Rather, it was in recognition that Congress has established a process by which the technical experts within the Federal agencies would evaluate projects to determine whether environmental impacts could be avoided or minimized such that the project could move forward. Injecting politics into the process by inserting language into an appropriation bill sets the wrong precedent. It suggests that any future permit decision could be decided by the whim of a majority of Congress. The second issue I would like to discuss is the language prohibiting the Department of Energy from finalizing the rule relating to the efficiency standards of light bulbs. I know there are some parties who have characterized the proposed rule as a roll back of efficiency standards. What it really does, though, is ensure the Department is following the law. The previous rule, a rule promulgated at the very last minute of the Obama administration, revised certain definitions contrary to statutory language. That rule was challenged legally, and the settlement acknowledged the mistake. The current proposed rule reduces the regulatory uncertainty by making clear that several types of light bulbs will continue to be sold. It also shows DOE's commitment to following the law, a novel concept. We should all support following the laws that Congress passes. For these reasons, I must oppose this en bloc amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the en bloc amendment. I thank Chairwoman Lowey and Chairwoman Kaptur for working with our side to include many provisions important to our Members. I appreciate the decision to offer this bipartisan en bloc amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer), my good friend.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, let me just say, first of all, that everything you have heard from the former attorney for the NRDC is just nonsense, and the reason it is nonsense is because he doesn't know. Nobody knows. That is why we have a review of these procedures. That is why we have NEPA. That is why the National Environmental Policy Act is in place, which many of my friends across the aisle view as the foundational environmental law. It requires Federal agencies to evaluate the environmental impacts of projects before the project can be approved. The Corps is in the process of doing that. Now, I don't know if he is worried that the outcome might not be like he likes, but if everything he said is true, then they certainly won't permit it. To be clear, I am not advocating for or against this particular project; I don't know enough about it. But what I am saying is Congress should stay out of the process of individual reviews. Setting the precedent of injecting political opinions into the NEPA process simply means that any project in the future will be subject to the whims of the majority party at the time. Such a scenario should be a concern for all Members, Republicans and Democrats alike. Perhaps next time the interest will be in legislatively approving a specific project. This amendment would serve as a precedent. What I am saying is let the process work. We have put in place the process. So all of the scenarios that he claims are going to be true, we don't know if that is true or not because nobody knows yet. They are just opinions. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, if those are flaws in the process, then I am sure that a court challenge by the NRDC will actually bring those out. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), my friend.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I appreciate my friend from Louisiana's passion on this issue. Saying that the Corps has $100 billion backlog, it is not really the Corps' fault for that. It is our fault in that we haven't appropriated money. And if you look back through the years, the Bush administration, the Obama administration, and, currently, the Trump administration, always propose a budget that slashes and burns the Corps' budget. And it is the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Subcommittee that won't let them do that and keeps putting money back into it. Last year, the Office of Management and Budget issued a plan for reorganization of the Federal agencies that included moving the Civil Works program from the Army Corps of Engineers to multiple other agencies. Yet, very few details were provided to Congress. Congress was not consulted, and no statutory changes were enacted. Yet, some in the administration took steps to try to begin implementing the reorganization proposal. In response, that is why the language was put in last year's act, and that is why it is in this year's act. I will tell the gentleman that we have had this discussion many times with General Semonite, and he is a go-get-'em guy. When he is given a mission, he will do whatever it takes to get that mission accomplished. I like what he is doing. I wouldn't want to go with OMB in saying we are going to reorganize the Corps and not know exactly what they are going to do and have Congress have no input. But I appreciate the passion that the gentleman has for this, and I understand his frustration. And I think that it is better placed on the Transportation Committee in seeing if there are some reorganizations that can be done within the Corps and done legislatively that make sense. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the distinguished career of Dee Sarton. Four decades ago, she started working at KTVB Channel 7 in Boise, Idaho. Idahoans who live in both the Treasure Valley and the Magic Valley know Dee as the face of the evening news. She is the anchor on KTVB's 4 p.m., 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. newscasts. But Dee is so much more than an anchor, she is a friend of the community who cares deeply about the people around her and it shows every day. Make no mistake, Dee is a compassionate reporter, but she isn't afraid to tackle hard hitting news or ask the tough questions. Dee is a great storyteller, and she tells stories about people of Idaho. She asks the right questions and is very engaging. When Dee talks, people listen. I've had the pleasure of knowing Dee throughout my political career. I have always appreciated her thoroughness when covering a news topic and I will miss seeing her at KTVB. Not only is she an incredible news anchor, Dee is also an Idaho Hall of Fame journalist and a National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences Silver Circle inductee and a champion for children and education, serving on numerous non-profit boards, including the Special Needs Adoption Board of Directors, Children's Home Board, the Hidden Springs Charter School Board, the Literacy Lab Advisory Board and the Assistance League Community Advisory Council. Her weekly Wednesday's Child feature helped hundreds of Northwest foster children find adoptive homes. Congratulations to Dee. I am happy for her and I know she will enjoy the next chapter in her life.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairwoman for yielding time. I rise today in reluctant opposition to H.R. 2740, the four-bill fiscal 2020 appropriations package that includes the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. As ranking member of that subcommittee, I know there are several bipartisan priorities in the bill, but, unfortunately, the overall four-bill package is too flawed for me to be able to support it at this time. First and foremost, these bills were developed using top-line funding levels that do not reflect a bipartisan, bicameral agreement. The reality is that we are dealing with monopoly money here, and we all know that. These will not be the final numbers that come out whenever we reach an agreement. The majority's budget framework also promotes the misguided notion that increases to defense spending must be matched or exceeded by increases in nondefense spending. In the Energy and Water bill specifically, a bill that was roughly half defense and half nondefense spending in fiscal year 2019, the increase for nondefense programs is more than 1\1/2\ times the increase for defense programs. While I support many of the nondefense programs in this bill, we need to know the broader budgetary context before we can decide whether individual programs are funded appropriately. We must work together with the Senate and the White House and develop an agreement on overall spending caps. Only then can we write bills that can be passed by both Chambers and that the President will sign. Speaking of the Energy and Water bill specifically, one of my highest priorities in this bill is the Department of Energy's nuclear energy program. The bill includes many good investments within that account, but, overall, the account is kept essentially flat from last year. This decision is a bit perplexing. The bill's allocation is well above last year's, and the majority has stated an intent to focus on technologies to address climate change. The subcommittee held several hearings, at which Members of both parties and witnesses discussed the necessity of advanced nuclear technologies in any kind of low-carbon energy future, yet the nuclear energy program does not share in the funding increases provided for almost all of the other nondefense programs. I am hopeful that, as the bill moves forward, we can address this issue and create a stronger bill. The bill continues significant investments in our Nation's water resources infrastructure, including harbor maintenance activities. Unfortunately, while the majority included additional funding for critical water storage projects, they also decided not to allow previous appropriated dollars to be put to good use. The exclusion of the Shasta Dam and Reservoir Enlargement Project amounts to throwing away a key opportunity to enhance water security in the drought-prone West. The full House should have been allowed to consider the Calvert amendment to correct this problem in the bill. While the majority has referred to funding increases for the National Nuclear Security Administration, the truth is the bill does not sufficiently prioritize activities to maintain and modernize our nuclear weapons stockpile. The Weapons Activities program is $648 million below the budget request. That is more than half a billion dollars below the budget request. As detailed in the Statement of Administration Policy, these cuts to the budget request will delay efforts to improve safety and security features and disrupt alignment with the Department of Defense's plans. Since this delay typically leads to increases, reduced spending does not actually save money; it costs money. We must make the investments necessary to invest in a safe, reliable, and effective stockpile. Finally, I am disappointed that the bill does not include any funding to advance the Yucca Mountain licensing application process and, instead, offers a false promise of interim storage as a solution to the nuclear waste issue. Funding for interim storage alone cannot solve the issue of nuclear waste disposal, especially since current law strictly limits Federal action in this area. Additionally, interim storage locations will be much more difficult to site if there are no assurances of a permanent disposal, as the interim sites would become de facto permanent sites. The Governor of New Mexico recently raised this very point in expressing her concerns about a private interim storage site proposed to be located in her State. Continuing the licensing process is a necessary step to establish a permanent repository for our Nation's defense and commercial nuclear waste. Over the past few decades, electricity consumers across the country have paid roughly $41 billion, with accrued interest, into the Nuclear Waste Fund for permanent disposal of nuclear waste. Due to the political decision to halt advancement of a permanent repository, however, it is the taxpayers--not ratepayers but taxpayers--in all 435 congressional districts who currently are paying $2.2 million a day, more than $800 million per year, to cover the cost of temporary onsite storage. My colleague from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) filed an amendment to address this, but it was not allowed. We have had strong bipartisan support in the past for this issue. Despite our disagreements over the issues that I have mentioned, I want to close by thanking Chairwoman Kaptur and the majority staff and my staff for their dedication and hard work on this bill. Ms. Kaptur and I have worked together on the Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee for several years now; and, while we don't agree on every issue, I value our friendship and continue to appreciate the collegial and cooperative tradition of the subcommittee. I would also like to thank Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Granger of the full committee for their leadership and support for the important programs in the Energy and Water bill.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Rick Johnson upon his retirement as Executive Director of the Idaho Conservation League. His leadership will be greatly missed by myself and many others. For the past three decades, Rick has been the seminal leader in Idaho protecting Idaho's outdoors and environment. Whenever I am asked who in the conservation community to speak to in Idaho, the answer is always Rick Johnson. When I first met Rick in the 1990s, I would describe the environmental community as having a single mission of fighting and objecting to almost anything proposed by the resource industry. Through the years, I am pleased to say that both Rick and I have evolved and recognized that there are other ways to accomplish conservation. Rick's willingness to recognize the needs and concerns of others and his willingness to look for options where all parties can win, have made him a leader in the nation in finding ways to reach consensus on difficult conservation issues. Rick and I have been through many battles together. We started with a not so harmonious discussion of nuclear power at my first wild Idaho and one day we ended up in the Oval Office with the President signing the Boulder-White Clouds and Jerry Peak Wilderness bills. You learn a lot about an individual when you work for 15 years together on a wilderness bill and go camping in the mountains you are both trying to protect. They also learn a lot about you. Rick was able to recognize my sincerity and concern for Idaho's special areas and more importantly convey that to others. Rick wasn't a partner in crime, he was a partner in conservation. We were both able to maximize ``wins'' for our respective sides that they could take to the bank. He conserved hundreds of thousands of acres of wilderness and I was able to create security and certainty for counties, ranchers and motorized users. Working together we were able to find the proverbial ``win-win'' that everybody is looking for but always seems elusive. We found it, and Idaho is better off for it. As future generations of Idahoans gaze over the beautiful vistas of the Cecil Andrus-White Clouds, the Hemingway-Boulders, the McClure-Jerry Peaks, and the Owyhees, they should be thanking Rick Johnson for his work, his effort, and most importantly his ability to compromise with others. I will miss Rick greatly as a leader and as my partner in conservation, but I know he is not leaving us forever. I will always have my friend I can call on. I am wishing Rick and his wonderful wife Roberta, the best of luck in their future endeavors and retirement. I thank them for all that both of them have done for Idaho.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 35th anniversary of Sawtooths and Other Ranges of Imagination: Contemporary Art from Idaho. In 1983-84, the Smithsonian American Art Museum (SAAM) featured an exhibition titled Sawtooths and Other Ranges of Imagination: Contemporary Art from Idaho that exclusively showcased artwork by acclaimed Idaho artists. The exhibition was shown at SAAM and then at the Boise Art Museum. Curated by Barbara Shissler Nosanow from the Smithsonian, the exhibition was realized thanks to the strong influence of Louise McClure, wife of U.S. Senator Jim McClure (Idaho). Louise, Senator McClure, Barbara, and one of Senator McClure's staff toured Idaho in a five-seat plane, stopping in at least five locations to jury entries submitted by Idaho artists. The opening reception featured Idaho food, including a special potato chip made by Ore-Idaho and fresh huckleberries. In 1991, President George H.W. Bush appointed Louise to the National Council on the Arts, the body that oversees the National Endowment for the Arts. She helped guide the National Endowment for the Arts through a challenging period during her six-year term of service. In addition to this important role in arts policy, Louise also advanced the arts in Idaho, including service on the Lionel Hampton International Jazz Festival Board, Boise State Public Radio Community Advisory Board, Boise Philharmonic, Women's and Children's Alliance, and many others. Louise's work has supported and fostered a strong arts culture in the capital city that continues today. In 2010, Idaho Governor C.L. ``Butch'' Otter honored Louise and Jim by bestowing the Lifetime Achievement Award at the Governor's Awards in the Arts. On May 15, 2019, the James A. and Louise McClure Center for Public Policy Research, along with the University of Idaho's College of Art and Architecture, will partner with the Boise Art Museum to host a reception celebrating the 35th anniversary of this exhibition and the policymakers who value and support the arts, including Louise McClure. There is no question that Senator McClure had a huge influence on me and my political career. I strive every day to represent Idaho in the manner which he did, and Louise has always been a close, personal friend of Kathy and mine. It is truly an honor to recognize her today and thank her for all she has done for Idaho.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a true public servant on her retirement. Wendy Baron retires today from the Idaho National Laboratory as the Emergency Communications Department manager. Her remarkable journey at the lab started in the early 1980's. She first held a summer job at Argonne National Laboratory-West while she was in college and then returned after earning a degree in communications at Idaho State University in the public affairs office. She left to work in private consulting in the 90's but found her way back to the lab in 2000. During this time, she also began volunteering with the Chubbuck Fire Department. I am not sure if it was that first EMT call to the Chubbuck Flying J where she delivered a baby in the front seat of a minivan, but it was in this job that Wendy discovered a passion for firefighting and emergency response. So Wendy turned her volunteer passion into her career. In 2005 at 41 years old, Wendy became a member of the Idaho National Laboratory Fire Department. She trained hard to pass the physical test, including dragging a toboggan loaded with rock salt around her neighborhood at 4 a.m. Wendy immediately became active in union activities and leadership at the INLFD and just two years later, she helped lead the effort to reorganize the 75-member department into the International Association of Firefighters and served as the new local's president. That same year, Wendy was named the 2007 INL Firefighter of the year and was elected to serve on the executive board of the Professional Fire Fighters of Idaho (PFFI). She was then named PFFI Fire Fighter of the Year in 2009. In 2013, Wendy was promoted to assistant fire chief for planning and logistics. Today, there are seven women in the INLFD, one of them a battalion chief. Fire Chief Eric Gosswiller credits Wendy for laying the groundwork for them. Wendy is quick to credit those around her for her success. But even despite her humility, it is clear that Wendy is extraordinarily talented, hardworking, and dedicated. These qualities have resulted in the great respect and affection that her colleagues share for her. I know Wendy looks forward to spending more time with her family in retirement, especially her husband Victor. She will also enjoy more sailing, backpacking, scuba and participating in competitive swimming and running events. On behalf of a grateful community, I congratulate Wendy Baron on an incredibly successful and admirable career, and I wish you all the best in your well-deserved retirement.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure and a little sadness that I rise today to recognize Ed Cannady and the great service he has given to our country, conservation and recreation as he retires from the United States Forest Service. One of the great aspects of serving in Congress is meeting people, and Ed will be one of the individuals I remember most. Over the years, Ed has been a guide, a teacher and a friend to me and my staff. I first met Ed in the early 2000s when I began working on my Boulder- White Clouds Wilderness bill. I thought it would be important to get a first-hand look at the lands I would be proposing for wilderness designation so I asked the Sawtooth National Forest Supervisor to set up a backpacking trip for my staff and me. It was my good fortune that Ed was given the assignment to take a Congressman and his staff into the Boulder-White Clouds. I'm not sure that Ed thought the same. He decided we would hike to the foot of Castle Peak in the Chamberlain basin. It was the middle of August-- summer mind you--and when we got our tents set up that afternoon it began to snow. It snowed more and blew some and snowed more. When we woke the next day to a winter scene and the chance of even more snow, prudence dictated that it was time to pack up and go home early. While it was a short trip, it made for a great story and was the first of many enlightening trips and learning experiences into what is now the Cecil D. Andrus-White Clouds Wilderness that Ed took us on. I also want to give special recognition to Ed for the help and expertise that he provided me and my staff as we developed the Boulder- White Clouds and Jerry Peak wilderness package. As far as I know, there is only one person alive who has been through and over every acre of those mountains and it happens to be Ed. As we were determining wilderness boundaries, roads, trails, creeks, snowmobile areas and helicopter landing and ski areas, Ed was the one person who could always give me the answers I needed. More importantly, I could always count on Ed to give me both sides of the issue in an impartial manner that was fair to all parties. He also identified potential conflicts for me with boundaries and uses so that we could resolve problems before they were locked into legislation. I can say with confidence that it would have been very difficult to write the bill without his help and expertise and for that I want to say ``thank you Ed.'' Ed Cannady is one of the good guys and my staff and I are going to miss him. Fortunately, we know he's not really going away and we will keep in touch in the many years to come. Good luck and enjoy your retirement Ed