Conference Report On H.R. 2996, Department Of The Interior, Environment, And Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRNSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to begin my comments today by expressing my thanks to Chairman Dicks for the even-handed manner in which he has conducted the business of the Interior and Environment Subcommittee this year. While we may disagree about the need for a 17 percent increase in spending in this conference agreement, our work together has been a bipartisan, collaborative effort. While we certainly don't agree on every issue, when we do disagree, Chairman Dicks and I continue to work very well together.

Of the many things achieved by this legislation, I hope it will be remembered for the effort made to address the long-standing issue of adequately funding our country's fire suppression needs without bankrupting other non-fire accounts. From our hearings earlier this year, we know that almost 50 percent of the Forest Service budget is consumed by the costs of fighting wildfires. In past years, the Forest Service has had to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars from other accounts just to pay for fire suppression.

The President took positive steps this year by proposing a contingency reserve fund for fire suppression. The House and Senate also acted by approving the FLAME Act in each Chamber with overwhelming bipartisan majorities. Working together, authorizers and appropriators have developed FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve Funds, providing both the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service the additional tools they need to combat large, severe fire emergencies.

This conference report also provides needed attention to our Native American brothers and sisters. There are many unmet needs within Indian Country in education, health care, law enforcement, drug abuse prevention, and other areas, and this legislation does a great deal to address these issues. I thank Chairman Dicks for his attention to this important area of the budget.

However, while this conference agreement tackles many challenging issues, it also assumes that more money is the answer to every problem we face. I just don't believe that a $4.7 billion, or 17 percent, increase over last year makes sense. This additional spending comes on the heels of a 13 percent last year and an $11 billion infusion from the stimulus bill.

The Federal budget deficit is now a staggering $1.4 trillion, the highest deficit in history, and three times higher than that of the previous administration. Our current deficit is almost 10 percent of the gross domestic product, a level not witnessed since World War II. Remember, this is before Congress begins tackling the issue of health care, cap-and-trade, and other expensive pieces of legislation.

I believe a better approach would have been to create a balanced bill. This conference report provides a disproportionate level of funding to one agency, the EPA, and creates an imbalance that undermines what could be a very fine piece of legislation.

I question the need for a $10.2 million budget for EPA, a 35 percent increase from just last year. This is on top of the $7.2 billion the agency received in stimulus funding and the $7.6 billion it received in last year's Interior bill. Taken together, the EPA will receive more than $25 billion in this calendar year. That is about the size of the entire Interior and environment spending bill just 2 years ago.

This package also provides large increases in programs without having clearly defined goals or sufficient processes in place to measure results or the return on our investment. We are making rapid investments in water, climate change, renewable energy, and other areas, all of them worthy endeavors, but with relatively little planning and coordination across multiple agencies and the rest of government.

I look forward to receiving a detailed report from the administration on how and where climate change dollars are being spent, not just within this bill, but across all of government. Spending on climate change programs in this package alone has increased from $231 million in last year's budget to $382 million in this year's conference agreement. That is a 66 percent increase in 1 year.

As I said earlier, I have the highest regard for Chairman Dicks and look forward to continuing our work together. I would very much like to support this conference report, but regrettably, I cannot. The bottom line for me is that the conference agreement simply spends too much money.

In closing, I would like to thank both the majority and minority staff for their long hours and fine work in producing this conference report. On the majority side, this includes Delia Scott, Chris Topik, Julie Falkner, Greg Knadle, Beth Houser, Melissa Squire, Pete Modaff and Ryan Shauers. Of the minority staff, I'd like to thank my staff, Missy Small, Megan Milam, Kaylyn Bessey, and Lindsay Slater, as well as committee staffers, Darren Benjamin and Dave LesStrang.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. I will close. Again, I want to thank Chairman Dicks and the staff for the tremendous job they have done and the bipartisan way in which they have worked with us in trying to solve some problems.

Madam Speaker, I don't think there is anybody on this side of the aisle that actually disagrees with the various programs that are going on in this appropriations bill. The disagreement comes that we just believe it's too much money; a 17 percent increase on top of the $11 billion that was received during the stimulus package I think is too much, given these economic times and the hardship that is being felt by Americans all across this country.

I think that's where the main opposition comes. It's not about any particular program. We have done a tremendous job in a lot of different areas that I think all of us agree with. There are specifics that I think if I were king for a day would probably be a little different, and this bill would probably be a little different if you were king for a day.

We realize it's a compromise, and we try to work out those differences between both the majority and the minority and between the House and the Senate. I think Chairman Dicks has done an admirable job of doing that. In fact, I don't even disagree with the discussion that was going on here earlier about the Great Lakes shipping. I don't disagree with what Chairman Obey was trying to do here. I understand the impact that it would have on the economy in the Great Lakes and what is going on there.

All we ask oftentimes is that when we have those same types of issues relative to mining or timber or industries in our part of the country, that people will be sensitive to the impact that some of the regulations that are imposed by the EPA and other agencies are going to have on those, and we are only seen as trying to gut those regulations when, in fact, we are trying to do oftentimes the same thing that's being done here. I don't disagree with what you are trying to do, and I understand it. I support what you are trying to do.

While I would like to tell the chairman that I could support this bill, because I think we have done some good work here, unfortunately, I can't, just because of the spending level. I would encourage my Members to vote ``no'' on this appropriations bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source