Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2025
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. 8998 and that I may include tabular material on the same.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, I am pleased to begin consideration of H.R. 8998, Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2025.
First, I commend Chairman Cole for his leadership of the Appropriations Committee and for his continued support of the Department of the Interior bill. I also thank Ranking Member Pingree for her partnership as well as Ranking Member DeLauro of the full committee and the subcommittee Members for their work on this bill.
H.R. 8998 provides $38.4 billion in new non-defense discretionary spending, which is $72 million below the fiscal year 2024 level and $4.4 billion below the President's budget request. The bill also rescinds $55 million provided to the Presidio Trust through the Inflation Reduction Act.
Cutting funding is never easy, but with the national debt of nearly $35 trillion and inflation at an unacceptable level, we had to make tough choices in this bill to rein in unnecessary discretionary spending.
This legislation prioritizes critical needs and addresses specific interests and concerns brought to our attention through more than 8,800 Member requests.
H.R. 8998 fully funds the payment in lieu of taxes program, estimated at $600 million, which includes over $330 million to permanently address Federal wildland firefighter pay and capacity. The permanent pay fix included in this bill would improve firefighter recruitment and retention and provide financial certainty to the men and women protecting our communities from catastrophic wildfires.
I will say that, last Wednesday, I was up at what is called the Bench fire in Idaho. I talked to the firefighters and the fire incident commanders up there and spent a day with them. I can tell you they do tremendous work at great risk to themselves. This is something that has to be done.
It also signals our commitment to upholding the Federal Government's trust and treaty responsibilities, providing $2.81 billion for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, a 14.5 percent increase, and $1.7 billion for the Bureau of Indian Education, a 7.5 percent increase. This includes robust funding for the law enforcement programs, including an additional $13.5 million for the missing and murdered indigenous women initiative.
The bill also provides over $8.5 billion for the Indian Health Service, fully funds current services for key healthcare programs, and covers the estimated increased contract support costs resulting from the recent Supreme Court decision.
To address these priorities while right-sizing the agencies under our jurisdiction, the bill reduces funding for most other accounts in the bill. For example, the EPA is cut by 20 percent below the enacted level, with reductions targeted at operating programs and regulatory activities. The bill still includes community funding projects for clean drinking water infrastructure projects in 285 Members' districts.
The requested amount greatly exceeded the funds available for projects, but we did our best to provide some funding for all eligible projects, given the impact these dollars will have on communities across the country.
In terms of policy, the bill takes critical steps to reduce regulatory burdens imposed by the EPA and promote domestic energy production. Such efforts include halting heavy-handed, job-killing EPA regulations, limiting the abuse of the Endangered Species Act and ensuring continued access to our public lands, expanding access to hard-rock and critical minerals, and requiring oil and gas lease sales and limiting fees on producers. These policies will help boost our national security, reduce energy costs, and create American jobs.
Madam Chair, this bill permanently fixes wildland firefighter pay, helps manage our public lands wisely, upholds our commitments to Indian Country, and restores the fiscal responsibility necessary to get our country back on track.
Madam Chair, I urge its adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Duarte).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just have to respond a little bit. Cutting spending is never easy, and I did not hear from any of the people who spoke on the other side of the aisle that we have a $35 trillion deficit. That is what is endangering this country.
If we could just spend more money, I would love to address some of the problems that they say exist. They do exist. You have to make choices, and that is what we have done here. We have made choices to make sure that we fully fund PILT payments, to make sure that we fully fund our treaty responsibilities with our Native Americans, and that we take care of the wildfire pay issue that had to be done. Those are boosts in this bill. That means cuts had to come someplace else.
If you want to go find me another $20 billion to spend, we can do a lot of things. One thing we can't do by spending $20 billion more is address the $35 trillion debt that exists in this country today.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 1370, I offer amendments en bloc.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, this bipartisan en bloc was developed in coordination with our colleagues across the aisle. It contains noncontroversial amendments addressing important issues in this bill that have been agreed to by both sides.
For example, the amendments en bloc highlight the importance of the Rural Water Technical Assistance grants as well as the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds.
It emphasizes the support for Indian Health Services and national heritage areas and support for research to harmful algal blooms and provides assistance to the Holocaust Memorial Museum.
Madam Chair, I support its adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I have no more speakers on this, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I don't have any further speakers if the gentlewoman is ready to yield back.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I see that we are going to have several Holman rules coming up.
When the Holman rule was originally put in place years ago, it was meant to identify people who had committed crimes and we have had some of those that have been fired. It wasn't meant to identify people who had policy differences.
Those are what elections are about. Anybody who suggested that on this side of the aisle we were going to elect the Biden administration, Biden-Harris administration, that the policies that they enacted were going to be things we supported, I think we are living in a different world.
They are enacting their policy. Instead of doing these types of amendments, and I have opposed every one of them except one, instead of doing these types of amendments, what we need to do is, if we oppose them, get out, and elect another President to get the job done.
This doesn't do anything. If you could tell me that they had committed some crime, something that they didn't have the authority to do, then maybe we would consider it, but I noticed on all of these things, there are an awful lot of Holman amendments.
I am only going to speak on one of them. The same message goes for all of them. Frankly, I don't think we have the authority to do it, even though the rule of the House says we do.
They are appointed and they are confirmed by the United States Senate, and this is essentially firing. When you reduce the salary to $1, you are firing the individual.
I don't think we have that authority. Unless you can show me that they have done something illegal, high crimes or misdemeanors, something like that, I think this is silly, but we are going to have more of them. That is okay. I just wanted to speak on one of them because I don't want to repeat myself over and over and over again.
It gives sponsors of these amendments the chance to complain about what the administration is doing and that is okay, but I oppose the amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I rise in support of this amendment to provide additional funding for the EPA Office of Inspector General to conduct the important and necessary oversight agencies.
I have spoken with several of the inspectors general who have said that with all of the funding that went out last year, funding that went out to the EPA and to other things, they don't have enough money to do the oversight to make sure that the money that was spent in the Inflation Reduction Act, the infrastructure bill, and other things is properly spent, and so they asked us actually and several of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, and Ms. Boebert and Mrs. Bice have also suggested that we need more money in the inspector general's accounts. I am supporting this amendment, and I hope my colleagues will also.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment.
This administration continues to put out rulemaking that seeks to attack American energy producers with burdensome costs and regulations. These new costs will ultimately be passed along to consumers, driving up energy costs for American families and further shifting production to countries that are not our friends.
We must utilize an all-of-the-above approach to energy production and stop hampering domestic energy production.
It would be interesting to note, in the year 2020, we were actually energy independent in this country. We are no longer. Yet, we have the energy here in this country, but we refuse to use it. Therefore, I support the gentlewoman's amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. When we reduce spending overall, we have to make decisions. We have to make priorities. One of the things that we have tried to protect to the extent possible, because it was such a small part of our overall bill, was the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities because I have seen what they do in communities all across Idaho and across this country. Through the NEA grants, Americans in communities that we represent have access to arts and art programs.
I am not worried about the arts in Washington or in New York or in Los Angeles, but I am worried about the arts in Shelley, Idaho, a small town, but they have an arts council, and they do a great job.
I continue to see the impact that funding has, and most of these grants go out, as the ranking member said, to small communities to help with their art councils and so forth.
While I appreciate my colleague's effort to rein in spending, I cannot support this deep cut of the National Endowment for the Arts, so I oppose this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment much like the one previous amendment with the arts.
I appreciate the gentleman's attempts to reduce Federal spending. When he says that this is a small portion of the overall budget, it is a third of the budget of this agency, so it is significant to them.
I have worked with the National Endowment for the Arts, I have worked with the National Endowment for the Humanities, and I have worked with the State Endowment for the Humanities.
The work that they have done has been incredible. They preserve history in the State of Idaho. They bring in speakers. They have book signings and authors that come in. They come into towns in Idaho that would have never had these types of opportunities. It is amazing, the turnout that people exhibit when they go to these authors' speeches and so forth.
They help support our museums and other historical sites. I think this is one of the really good things the government does, so I am going to oppose this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Jackson of Texas) having assumed the chair, Mr. Huizenga, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 8998) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source