Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. 4821, and that I may include tabular material on the same.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I am pleased to begin consideration of the H.R. 4821, the fiscal year 2024 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
Before I get into the bill, I commend Chairwoman Granger for her steadfast leadership of the Appropriations Committee and her ongoing support. I thank the ranking member of the full committee, Ms. DeLauro, for her work on this important legislation and other things. I thank Ranking Member Pingree for her partnership and the subcommittee members for their work on this bill, although Ms. Pingree and I may have some differences of opinion on this bill.
H.R. 4821 provides $25.4 billion in new nondefense discretionary spending, which is $13.4 billion, or 35 percent, below the fiscal year 2023 level. The bill also rescinds $9.4 billion in unnecessary funding provided to the EPA, the Presidio Trust, and the Council on Environmental Quality through the Inflation Reduction Act.
Cutting funding is never easy or pretty, but with the national debt in excess of $33 trillion and inflation at an unacceptable level, we had to make tough choices to rein in Federal spending.
Last Congress alone, $3 trillion was spent outside the normal appropriations process. That is $3 trillion that went into the national debt.
Simply holding funding flat is not enough. We must work to curb our out-of-control spending and get our budget back on track. This bill does that. This legislation prioritizes critical needs within our reduced allocation and addresses specific interests and concerns brought to our attention through more than 8,000 Member requests.
H.R. 4821 fully funds the payments in lieu of taxes program for fiscal year 2024, which is estimated to be $515 million. It also makes critical investments in Indian Country by providing funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Indian Education, and Indian Health Service at fiscal year 2023 levels or above.
To combat catastrophic wildfires and protect communities across the country, the bill includes a $1.6 billion discretionary increase to fund wildfire activities without budget gimmicks. It also provides a $2.65 billion cap adjustment for wildfire suppression activities, as authorized.
To address these priorities while rightsizing the agencies under our jurisdiction, the bill reduces funding for nearly every other appropriation in the bill, and many agencies received double-digit percentage reductions. The EPA is reduced by $4 billion, or 39 percent, below the fiscal year 2023 level.
In terms of policy, the bill makes important steps to reduce regulatory burdens imposed by the EPA, expand access to critical minerals and natural resources, and promote domestic energy production. Such efforts include halting the EPA's job-killing regulations, such as repealing the recent waters of the United States regulations and rules that target reliable energy sources and domestic manufacturing; limiting abuse of the Endangered Species Act regarding species such as the sage grouse, gray wolf, bison, and lesser prairie chicken; expanding access to critical minerals and promoting proper management of our Nation's forests; and requiring oil and gas lease sales. These policies will help boost our national security, reduce energy costs, and create American jobs.
Mr. Chairman, this bill will help manage our public lands wisely, meet our commitment to our brothers and sisters in Indian Country, and restore the fiscal responsibility necessary to get our economy back on track.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just note that neither the chairwoman or the ranking member of the full committee or the ranking member of the subcommittee in their comments never mentioned the $33 trillion debt, and over the last Congress, there was $3 trillion that was spent outside of the regular appropriation process. That is what is causing this. That is what is causing the problems in this country.
This is what reducing spending looks like. Every time you try to reduce spending, Mr. Chairman, you would think it is nothing but death and destruction. If I believed what was just said, I wouldn't vote for this bill, but I think she is wrong on so many counts.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Carl).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for drawing the House's attention to the Department of the Interior and Bureau of Land Management's responsibilities under the Mineral Leasing Act. I would be pleased to continue to work with him on how the agencies in this bill handle royalties on Federal lands as we move through the FY 2024 spending process.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Yakym).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close.
The challenge here, as I stated earlier, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle never saw a problem that they didn't think a government program could solve. Anybody that thought that we were not going to have to reduce spending I think was living in a different world. When you are facing $33 trillion and getting on to $34 trillion in debt, the reality is you are going to have to cut spending.
Now, this is not a criticism of them. I think they honestly believe that all the profligate spending that went on the last couple of years was absolutely necessary. I think the American people expect us to start addressing the debt that our children, grandchildren, and great- grandchildren are going to face, and this is what cutting spending looks like.
It is easy to write a bill. Anybody can write a bill if you have unlimited funds, and that is pretty much what they have had last year and the year before. In spite of almost having unlimited funds to write the Interior bill, they actually took $1.6 billion in wildfire fighting costs and made it emergency spending. We had to bring it back into the bill, where it should be, instead of using budget gimmicks. That put us $1.6 billion behind.
We said we are not going to hurt Indian Country with this bill, even with the cuts that we had to make. We were going to fully fund PILT payments. We were going to make sure that we took care of those things that were necessary, like wildfire fighting, because those costs are going to go up. That meant the rest of the bill was going to take some cuts. We used rescissions by pulling back some of the money that was spent over the last several years to make sure that the cuts in this bill were not as dramatic as they would otherwise have been. This is still a 10 percent reduction in the overall bill.
I disagree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Death and destruction will not follow if we pass this bill. I encourage my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 838, I offer amendments en bloc.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan en bloc amendment was developed in coordination with the minority. It contains noncontroversial amendments addressing important issues at the agencies funded in this bill that have been agreed to by both sides.
It provides support for the Department of the Interior's efforts to identify critical minerals in the United States. It highlights the importance of the rural water technical assistance grants, as well as the clean water and drinking water State revolving funds. It emphasizes support for the Federal wildland firefighters and Bureau of Indian Affairs road construction. Finally, it includes additional support for research into harmful algal blooms and provides assistance to the territories.
Mr. Chair, I support the adoption of this en bloc, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I have no further speakers on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment to decrease funding for the Bureau of Land Management's Wild Horse and Burro Program.
I understand the gentleman's frustration. Many of us have been addressing this for a number of years, trying to find the right solution. We haven't found it yet. They used to take these horses to slaughter. You can't do that anymore. The public won't accept it, and frankly, neither will I.
In the West, continuing the Wild Horse and Burro Program at sustained levels is vital to controlling the population. Even with the funding provided, BLM will not be able to manage and curb the exponentially increasing number in the herds.
Failing to manage wild herds in the West would have devastating effects on rangelands and all the animals that depend on them. Therefore, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Living in the West, I have seen this problem and what it does to rangelands. If there is a better solution rather than just cutting funding, let's hear what that better solution is because, believe me, this committee has been working hard to try to find what to do about it because we don't want to see these populations grow either, but it is a reality that we have to deal with. That is why it has increased funding in this bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, drastically reducing funding for the Wild Horse and Burro Program would have a devastating effect on our Western lands and the work we have done to manage the herd. For these reasons, I must oppose this amendment.
I thank the gentleman for bringing up the issue. It is an issue, but cutting funding is not the way to solve the problem. If people have better ways of managing this or additional ways of managing this, I encourage them to come forward because we are willing to listen to all alternatives on what we can do.
As I said, we used to slaughter them. We used to send them to Mexico for slaughter and stuff. We can't do that anymore because of the optics of it and everything else.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, we are looking at sterilization of some of those and the success or not success rate of what we are doing, but I guess the expert on this whole issue was the former Congressman from Utah (Mr. Stewart). He worked on this continuously, trying to address it, and he has since retired. That was a great loss to all of us, but this is a perplexing problem.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for bringing the amendment up and discussing it, but I must oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I understand the frustration that the gentlewoman expresses in her statement, but I must rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Bureau of Land Management's funding level is already $255.4 million, or 18 percent below the FY23 enacted level. A drastic 50 percent cut to already decreased levels leaves me concerned that this would put the agency in a position where they cannot carry out critical activities to address their most pressing issues in Western States, particularly in Wyoming, Idaho, and other States.
The growing backlog for grazing, energy, and mineral activity permits; population problems with wild horses and burros that were just debated on the last amendment; and the increasing demand for increased recreational access to our public lands cause me deep concern when you want to cut the BLM by an additional 50 percent.
Mr. Chair, I must oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that if the gentlewoman has a problem with the Rock Springs area, that the gentlewoman address that specifically, but this cuts 50 percent of the BLM across the board. That means it is going to substantially impact Idaho, and guess what? We get along pretty well with the BLM in Idaho.
If you cut this 50 percent, you are going to have tough times getting grazing permits. We have minerals in what is called the phosphate patch in Idaho that the BLM has to deal with.
Our general problem is when the decisions that are made in Idaho, both by the BLM or the Forest Service or their other agencies, and those decisions come to Washington, then you have a problem. That is where the problem exists.
This would cut 50 percent of, actually, the BLM across the country. That is the problem I have with this, especially when we have already made an 18 percent reduction in their budget in this bill.
I understand where the gentlewoman is coming from. Wyoming might have a special problem, and an amendment should be addressed to deal with that instead of the BLM in general.
I would oppose this amendment, and I hope my colleagues would vote ``no'' on it.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
While I understand the concerns from my colleagues about the CEQ's actions under this administration related to the environmental review process and other issues, I believe that the CEQ has a valuable role to play in leading the efforts to strike a balance in ensuring our environment is protected while also promoting economic development and job growth.
It is important to have an agency lead coordinated efforts across the administration on issues such as conservation and preservation of our natural resources. I would say this, though: Republicans like what CEQ did under the previous administration. They actually liked what they were doing. The way to change policies of an agency is by voting in a different administration, and next year, we will have that opportunity to see how the American people feel.
I would point out that we rescinded those funds that were given to CEQ in this bill also, so they don't have all those funds that are left there, and we have actually reduced the funding. I rise in opposition to the amendment, while I understand the gentleman's concern under this administration.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment to strike the provision in the bill prohibiting the use of the social costs of carbon.
The social cost of carbon attempts to monetize the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions. What it really means is that it is an easy way to increase the cost of a project or of anything that will produce emissions, like driving a car, to justify regulations or halt the activity because the costs outweigh the benefits.
This is even more problematic because this monetary value has fluctuated wildly in past decades from $1 to $190 per metric ton. This fluctuation tells me that the methodology and metrics are fuzzy at best and seriously flawed at worst and have lacked transparency.
All of this is especially concerning given the social cost of carbon is used to issue job-killing regulations and halt energy and infrastructure projects in the United States while the world's largest polluters are not being held accountable.
Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management manages the development of energy and mineral resources of the Outer Continental Shelf along our Nation's coastlines. I understand the intent of the gentleman's amendment is to eliminate the Office of Renewable Energy Programs of BOEM.
I will first note the base bill already cuts funding for the renewable energy account by nearly $15 million, or almost 35 percent, so about a third of it is gone in our base bill.
I am also concerned that completely eliminating funding runs counter to an all-of-the-above energy approach that is necessary to ensure a mix of affordable and reliable energy sources for our constituents and businesses, and to reduce our dependence on foreign countries, some adversaries, for our energy.
Additionally, I have heard from some in our Conference about their support for offshore renewable activities, which would not move forward without this BOEM office.
Mr. Chair, I must, therefore, oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, as I said, I oppose this amendment. It is contrary to what we on this side of the aisle have been preaching for a number of years, and that is the all-of-the-above energy program. It is going to take nuclear. It is going to take coal. It is going to take oil. It is going to take, yes, wind and solar. That is going to be a part of the mix. That is just the reality.
We don't mean that every mile of offshore area ought to be available for wind towers in the ocean, but there are some places that are. I would oppose cutting the BOEM renewable energy office completely, and I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment which seeks to eliminate funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. While I support the gentleman's spending, this bill already significantly reduces funding including the NEA. The bill also requires--and this is what is important to me, frankly--that the NEA allocate at least 40 percent of its grant funding to State and local communities.
Now, the gentleman mentioned the $24 billion that was given privately to the arts throughout the country. The problem is none of that $24 billion goes to support an arts organization in Jerome, Idaho; or in Shelley, Idaho; or in Sandpoint, Idaho.
What I emphasize every time I talk to the director of the National Endowment for the Arts is that I am concerned about the arts in rural communities. I have gone out to communities throughout my district and met with these arts councils about what they do. Their funding is completely reliant--maybe completely is too broad a word--but substantially reliant on the grants that they get from the National Endowment for the Arts.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which seeks to eliminate all funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities.
While I understand the gentleman's intent to reduce spending-- something that I agree with--the reality is that is exactly what we have been doing in these bills.
I have seen firsthand the impact that the NEH dollars have had in my district. In fact, I contribute annually to the Idaho Endowment for the Humanities. NEA grants allow rural communities, including veterans and students, to have access to historical, cultural, and educational resources that wouldn't otherwise be available to them.
What I have seen that works--and, again, I have been around to a lot of the different grants that are received--they are preserving our history. That is exactly what they are doing.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I would just say that I am very disappointed that the gentleman doesn't agree with us that we ought to reduce spending because that is what these bills have been doing. Anybody who suggests we are going to stop the debt clock overnight is living in a fantasy world, but we are actually reducing spending.
The Appropriations Committee is the only committee in this Congress that is actually reducing spending. They are tough choices, but we have been making those tough choices. I wish the rest of Congress would also.
Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, first, let me say that I am not totally opposed to what the gentleman is trying to do. I think these air tours are important, but I think it is wrong to say they can't place any limitations on them.
The gentleman raises the point that they have been trying to address this for a number of years, and so far, they haven't been able to do it. I think that they need to be able to do that, and the Park Service ought to be able to look at the number of air tours.
I am not opposed to air tours. I think they are a great thing. I have taken a few of them. The reality is that completely eliminating the Park Service's ability to make reasonable limitations on these, I think, is the wrong way to go. It goes too far, but I understand what the gentleman is trying to say and what he is trying to do. I just don't think we can go this far.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, but I rise mainly to explain what the special hiring authority is.
The so-called title 42 special hiring authority was provided to the Department of Health and Human Services to allow the agency to pay individuals above the GSA pay scale. The authority was created to allow the agency to compete with private-sector salaries for the Nation's best healthcare experts and scientists, given the critical importance of human health and the Federal role in public health.
Congress then provided the EPA with this authority for the first time in 2006. It was authorized by Congress in 2006, arguing that the EPA also conducts human health work, such as research and assessment of chemicals. Most recently, the authority of the EPA was renewed in the fiscal year 2022 spending year, which capped the total number of people who could be hired using this special authority to 100 people.
The current authority expires at the end of fiscal year 2025. This amendment allows current individuals to continue to be paid using the special authority but blocks any additional staff from being hired under this authority.
Remember, this expires at the end of 2025, and I would hope that the authorizing committees would take it up and decide what they want to do in the future, but not do this through an amendment.
I understand the gentleman's very longstanding concerns with this authority at EPA, and I agree that appropriate oversight needs to be provided so that this authority is not abused, but I do 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. Bucshon) having assumed the chair, Mr. Fallon, 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. 4821) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source