Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

In its current form.

Mr. Speaker, we offer this motion to recommit because I think everyone in this body realizes that we have gone far astray from regular order, and we know the damage that does to this Institution. We have done it in the name of expediency, as if we have to be done by some specific date on some arbitrary schedule that has been scratched out on some piece of paper.

We all know that we have work to do. We weren't here Monday. We could have worked. We could have done appropriation bills. But instead, what we have done is cut Members out not being able to offer amendments on the floor, not only minority Members but majority Members too.

We all know that we have gotten far away from regular order and that we need to return to regular order where Members have the right and the ability to represent their constituents that elected them here. That means offering amendments to appropriation bills. Our history has been that appropriation bills come to the floor under an open rule so that Members have the right to offer amendments.

Is it frustrating? Yes. Does it take a lot of time? Yes. Are there some amendments that we wish wouldn't be offered? Sure. But that is our job. Our job is to come here and debate issues, not expediency, trying to get them done at a specific time. By doing that, what we do is cut off Members' ability to offer amendments and represent their constituencies.

I believe that Mr. Obey was absolutely correct on October 6, 2000, when he said, We have gotten so far from regular order that I fear that if this continues, the House will not have the capacity to return to the precedents and procedures of the House that have given true meaning to the term ``representative democracy.'' The reason we have stuck to regular order as long as we have in this Institution is to protect the rights of every Member to participate, minority Members and majority Members. And when we lose those rights, we lose the right to call this the greatest deliberative body left in the world.

He is absolutely right, and we need to adopt this as a sense of Congress that we need to return to regular order so that Members can represent their constituents and they can offer amendments. It will take long, yes, but people will have the opportunity to represent their constituents. And everyone here on both sides of the aisle knows in their heart this is what we need to do if we are going to be called a ``representative democracy'' instead of trying to get it done because we have an August recess coming up.

I am willing to stay and work. I am willing to stay on the weekends and work if that is necessary to get our work done. And you should be, too. That is what we are getting paid for, not to cut Members off.

So I would urge you to adopt this motion to recommit so that we can return to regular order and so that Members have the right and the ability to represent their constituents on this floor.

I fear, as I said the other day, I truly fear that you know not the damage that you do to this Institution with the rules that are closing off debate on the appropriations process. We need to return to regular order and open debate and let Members offer their amendments and represent their constituents in the manner for which they were elected.

Point of Order

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Madam Speaker, in accordance with the policies and standards put forth by the House Appropriations Committee and the GOP Leadership, I would like to list the congressionally-directed projects I requested in my home state of Idaho that are contained in the report of H.R. 2996, the FY2010 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill.

Project Name: City of Buhl Wastewater System Improvements

Amount: $500,000

Account: EPA/STAG

Recipient: City of Buhl

Recipient's Address: 203 North Broadway, Buhl, ID 83316

Description: The city is periodically exceeding the NPDES limitations under the Clean Water Act and was recently fined by EPA for non- compliance of their pH, Total Suspended Solids (TSS), and Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) limitations. IDEQ and EPA have mandated that the city build a new wastewater treatment center. Buhl, a town of less than 5,000 residents, recently passed a bond election for $15 million to help pay for the required improvements to their water system. The loan funds will be a burden to the residents--many of whom are elderly (19% of the community) and the majority of whom are low to moderate income-- and will increase monthly water bills by over $100, but even this will be unsustainable without additional assistance. Funding for this project will enable the city build a new wastewater treatment center that would meet the Federal and State mandates imposed on the community.

Project Name: Historic Old Pen Site Stabilization Project

Amount: $150,000

Account: National Park Service/Save America's Treasures

Recipient: Idaho State Historical Society

Recipient's Address: 2205 Old Penitentiary Road, Boise, ID 83712

Description: This project will provide stabilization to the Old Idaho State Penitentiary historic site, which is operated by the Idaho State Historical Society. The Old Pen is one of the West's most significant prison sites and one of the most visited cultural facilities in Idaho. It thus plays a key role in the economic vitality of Boise and the Treasure Valley. Funding would be used for work needed immediately to stabilize the site. In addition, funding would be used for a historic structures report to help better anticipate future maintenance and repair needs before they become emergency situations.

Project Name: Idaho Sage-Grouse Management Plan

Amount: $500,000

Account: Fish and Wildlife Service/ESA Resource Management

Recipient: Idaho Governor's Office of Species Conservation

Recipient's Address: 300 N. 6th Street, Boise, ID 83702

Description: Sage-grouse are on the verge of being listed under the Endangered Species Act, with a decision on listing expected this spring. Idaho is taking proactive steps to recover this species before a listing is required. The management plan, which is a partnership with private landowners, is an attempt to be wise stewards of the nation's wildlife without being compelled to do so by law.

Project Name: Piva Parcel Land Acquisition

Amount: $400,000

Account: USFS/Land Acquisition

Recipient: U.S. Forest Service, Sawtooth National Recreation Area

Recipient's Address: 5 North Fork Canyon Road, Ketchum, ID 83340

Description: Funds will be used to enable the Forest Service to acquire the 160-acre Piva parcel from a willing seller so that it can be used for public recreation and access to the Redfish Lake recreation area from the town of Stanley. The Forest Service currently has a conservation easement on the property, but acquiring the land is necessary to carry out planned improvements.

Project Name: SNRA Trail Maintenance and Improvements

Amount: $1,200,000

Account: Capital Improvements and Maintenance (Trail Construction)

Recipient: U.S. Forest Service, Sawtooth National Recreation Area

Recipient's Address: 5 North Fork Canyon Road, Ketchum, ID 83340

Description: Funds will be used for trail construction, maintenance, and improvement in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area. Of the funds appropriated for trail maintenance and improvement in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area, $500,000 is for trail improvements; $500,000 is for maintenance of existing motorized trails and areas; and $200,000 is for the improvement of two existing trails to provide primitive wheelchair access at Murdock Creek and Phyllis Lake.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide a list of congressionally- directed projects in my district that have received funding in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2010 and provide an explanation of my support for them.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 1.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Franks-Cantor- Sessions-Broun-Roskam Amendment and in support of the fundamental obligation this body has to fully fund our Nation's Environmental Management Program.

I support my colleagues' efforts to increase funding to the Missile Defense Agency. The decision to cut funding for this program is dangerous and short-sighted, especially at a time when countries like Iran and North Korea are seeking nuclear weapons programs that put our country and its citizens at risk. However, while I support the efforts to restore funding, I cannot support the offset and the repercussions that cutting funding for our Nation's Environmental Management Program would have.

There is nothing conservative about cuts that the Franks-Cantor Amendment would make or the impact they would have. These cuts ultimately will slow the pace of cleanup at our Nation's nuclear contaminated sites, thus costing taxpayers more money in the long-run.

In sites across the country, including in my home State of Idaho as well as in Washington State, South Carolina, Tennessee, and a number of other states, rest the nuclear remnants of the Cold War. These sites are contaminated with, and home to, some of the most dangerous materials in the world. The people who work at these sites, and the states that host them, have been through a great deal over the past fifty years to accommodate the defense of our Nation.

In return, they expect the Federal Government to make good on its promise, and legal obligation, to clean up these sites and protect the environment of future generations. Many of these states have legally- binding agreements with the Federal Government that dictate when and how these materials will be remediated and then disposed.

The Franks-Cantor Amendment will slow the pace of work at these sites and put the Federal Government at significant risk of missing legally- binding deadlines. Those missed deadlines mean penalties which will be paid for by the taxpayers. In addition, the cost of doing this work goes up substantially each year it is delayed, again putting taxpayers at risk.

I recognize the argument that the EM program was recently awarded a huge sum of money in the stimulus program and can easily withstand a $1.2 billion reduction this year. I don't agree with the argument, but I understand where my colleagues are coming from when they make it.

Mr. Chair, their argument is one that gives me great heartburn. When the Senate added $6 billion for the EM program to the stimulus bill, I knew I would hear this argument used time and again to undermine the base budget of the EM program that Members like Doc Hastings, Zach Wamp, Gresham Barrett, myself, and others have worked so hard to increase and stabilize over the past 10 years.

I was worried when we passed the stimulus bill that my colleagues would see the EM program as a slush fund, flush with stimulus cash, from which they could seek offsets for increases to priorities elsewhere. Sure enough, here we are, putting the base EM program at risk because of the desire to infuse the program with one-time money that may have short-term benefits, but will cause significant long-term damage down the road.

I have spent my career defending the EM program and seeking stable funding so that our Nation can make good on its promise to our States. I remain as committed as ever to protecting the base program and keeping cleanup of these sites on track.

Mr. Chair, as I said earlier, I strongly support my colleagues' efforts to restore funding for the Missile Defense Agency. However, I strongly oppose the funding reductions included in this amendment. In the strongest possible terms, I urge my colleagues to reject the Franks-Cantor amendment and keep the EM program on track in Idaho, Washington, South Carolina, Tennessee, New Mexico, Ohio and the other States in which its work is so crucial.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I come to this side of the well because I fear the distance between us has grown so great that we can no longer hear each other from the chasm that divides us. It's time to stop talking at each other and start listening to one another.

When I first read this rule, I wasn't so much angry as I was deeply saddened. I was saddened by what we have allowed this institution to devolve into--little more than a Third World dictatorship. And we are all to blame because we have all allowed this to happen.

We can point fingers at one another ad nauseam, claiming, We did this to you; you did that to us; et cetera, et cetera. Unfortunately, pointing fingers has never solved a problem.

I was also saddened because the Rules Committee had it within their grasp, within their power to pull us back from this precipice that we find ourselves on. But they chose not to. They took a pass.

As I said at the Rules Committee hearing last night, History is replete with people who found an excuse to do the wrong thing. It takes a little courage to do the right thing.

It's time for us to stand up and show the courage to do the right thing--not as Democrats, not as Republicans, but as Members of Congress. It's time to restore this House to the time-honored traditions of open debate, which we inherited from those who came before us, when Members had the right and the ability to represent their constituents.

I find it ironic that around the world people hope for, pray for, even die for the simple right to have their voices heard. They look to us not because they want to be Americans, but because they want for themselves what we have, or at least what we had--the right to be heard. Yet here, in this penthouse of democracy, we are going exactly the opposite direction by trying to silence all opposition.

We all know this rule is wrong. We all know it damages this institution. I know in my heart that Mr. Hoyer, the majority leader, knows this rule is wrong. I know in my heart Mr. Obey, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, knows this rule is wrong. I know that Ms. Slaughter, the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, knows this rule is wrong.

Yet here we are, all in the name of expediency, silencing the voices of the Americans who elected us to Congress to speak on their behalf. We are sacrificing what is right to just get the job done.

There will come a time when Republicans will once again become the majority party. We don't know when that will be. It might be 2 years, it might be 10 years, it might be 20 years. But it will happen--and we all know that. I will tell you that members of my party will want to use the actions today, your rules, as a precedent--a precedent to shut you out of the process, a precedent to silence your voices, a precedent to deny your ability to represent your constituents, a precedent to take the easy road instead of doing the hard work of democracy.

I want you to know here today that I won't be a part of using this precedent against you. I will stand up for your rights as a minority when you find yourselves in the minority. It's the very heart of democracy. And I'll do it because I care more about the integrity of this institution than I do about sticking to an arbitrary schedule scratched out on some piece of paper.

I fear, I truly fear that you know not the damage that you do to this institution with these rules.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairwoman, let me begin my remarks by expressing thanks to Chairman Dicks for the reasonable and evenhanded manner in which he's conducted the business of the Interior Subcommittee this year. While we may disagree about the needed 17 percent increase in our subcommittee allocation, our work together has been a bipartisan, collaborative effort. We are certainly not going to agree on every issue, but even when we disagree, Chairman Dicks and I continue to work well together, and I thank him for that.

I'd also like to commend the chairman for the extraordinary oversight activity of our subcommittee this year. As he mentioned, oversight is one of the committee's most important functions, and we have upheld that responsibility by holding 20 subcommittee hearings since the beginning of the year involving over 100 witnesses. I don't know many other subcommittees that can match that record.

I also want to applaud the chairman's decision to provide full pay and fixed costs for each of the agencies under this subcommittee's jurisdiction.

We're both concerned by the fact the President's budget submission for the U.S. Forest Service covered only 60 percent of the pay and fixed costs, while the budget request for the Department of Interior included 100 percent of pay and fixed costs. To date, the committee has received no explanation or justification from the administration for this discrepancy.

I'm also pleased by the needed attention this legislation provides 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 bill does a great deal to address these issues.

Chairman Dicks and I agree on many things, including our obligation to be good stewards of our environment and public lands for future generations. However, we part when it comes to the need for an allocation as generous as the one Chairman Obey has provided in this bill.

The 302(b) allocation for this bill is $32.3 billion, a $4.7 billion, or 17 percent, increase over last year's enacted level. This increase comes on the heels of historic increases in this subcommittee's spending in recent years.

Interior and the Environment spending between 2007 and 2009-- including base bills, emergency supplementals, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act--has increased by 41 percent--and that's before this year's 17 percent increase.

Chairman Obey is fond of saying, Show me a smaller problem and I'll show you a smaller solution. While I may not be able to show him a smaller problem, I can show him a historically bigger problem where the ``solution'' of more and more deficit spending has not worked-- including the Great Depression of the 1930s and Japan in the 1990s.

But it isn't just the spending that concerns me. This legislation is funding large increases in programs without having clearly defined goals or sufficient processes in place to measure 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.

Our country has some serious environmental challenges that need to be addressed. And this bill has an overly generous allocation to meet many of those needs. But, with all due respect to Chairman Obey, too often we believe that our commitment to an issue is measured by the amount of money we spend rather than how we're spending that money. History has shown us that bigger budgets do not necessarily produce better results.

The climate change issue is an illustration of this point. ``Climate change'' is today what the term ``homeland security'' was in the days and months following the terrorist attacks of September 11th. Anyone who came into our offices, any of our offices, to discuss an issue, spoke of it in the context of ``homeland security.'' The argument was, We have to do X, Y, or Z, for our homeland security depends upon it.

Well, today many of our priorities are related to climate change. I agree with Chairman Dicks this is an issue we need to study carefully and know more about. It's affecting the intensity of our fires and even the duration of our fire season.

But what have we learned from the money this subcommittee and other committees have already provided? Are we spending $420 million on climate change next year to learn something new or relearn what we already know?

I'm also concerned that many climate change functions within this bill won't be coordinated with similar efforts undertaken by other Federal agencies, resulting in a duplicating of effort. We ought to require coordination across the entire Federal Government on an issue as important as this, and one on which we are spending as much money government-wide as we are.

It's for this reason that the minority offered an amendment--adopted during the full committee consideration--requiring the President to report to Congress 120 days after submission of the 2011 budget request on all obligations and expenditures across government on climate change programs and activities for FY 2008, 2009, and 2010. It's not because we're opposed to climate change programs, but because they need to be coordinated government-wide.

Given the uncertain economic times our country is facing, I'm also troubled by the unsustainable pattern of spending in this legislation. This subcommittee and Congress ought to be as concerned about the impact of too much spending as we are about the potential impact of climate change and other issues.

Chairman Dicks has spoken on many occasions about what he describes as ``the dark days'' and ``the misguided policies and priorities of the previous administration.'' Still, for any perceived or real inadequacies of past policies or budgets, it would be a mistake for any of us to believe we can spend our way to a solution to every challenge we face.

The Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, recently told Congress that it's time for the Obama administration to develop a strategy to address record deficits or risk long-term damage to our economy. He said, ``Unless we demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal sustainability in the longer term, we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth.''

A good bill is a balanced bill. But providing a disproportionate level of funding to one agency creates an imbalance that undermines the legitimate needs of other deserving agencies. That is why I question a $10.6 billion budget for the EPA--a 38 percent increase from last year. This is on top of the $7.2 billion the agency received in the stimulus package and the $7.6 billion it received in the enacted 2009 Interior bill.

Taken together, the EPA will receive over $25 billion this calendar year alone. That's about the size of this subcommittee's entire budget just 2 years ago.

While the EPA will receive an extraordinary, historic funding increase, it's worth noting the U.S. Forest Service was recently rated as one of the worst places to work in the Federal Government by a study conducted by the Office of Personnel Management. It isn't clear why Forest Service employees feel as they do, but it may be linked to the incredible funding challenges the Service has faced in recent years due to the growing cost of fire suppressions.

From our hearings, we know that almost 50 percent of the Forest Service

budget is now consumed by the cost 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. Without any question, this creates uncertainty among Forest Service employees.

President Obama is to be commended for tackling the issue of budgeting for fire suppression by proposing a fully funded fire suppression budget as well as a contingency reserve fund. And I commend Chairman Dicks for providing the Forest Service with resources to address many fire-related needs.

Still, based upon recent fire patterns and the monumental increase in demand for fire suppression dollars, I feel strongly that the wildfire contingency reserve fund should be funded at the President's request level of $357 million. This reserve fund is similar to the emergency fund source contained in the FLAME Act, which passed the House in March on an overwhelming 412-3 vote.

That is why the minority offered an amendment--adopted during full committee consideration--which increased the fire contingency reserve fund from $250 million in the chairman's mark to the President's requested level of $357 million. If virtually every other item in this legislation is funded at or above the President's request level, there should be no justifiable reason to exclude fire suppression. And I want to thank the chairman for accepting that amendment in the full committee.

We paid for this increase by rescinding $107 million from the EPA's prior year balances. According to the May, 2009 report issued by the EPA's Inspector General's office, the EPA presently has $163 million on the books that have been sitting there unspent since 1999. The EPA does some good work, but if those dollars haven't been spent in 10 years, we ought to put them to good use fighting fires.

While Chairman Dicks has done a good job addressing many critical issues in this bill, I don't believe that a $4.7 billion, or 17 percent, increase over the FY 2009 enacted level is justified or warranted. This unprecedented increase follows a $3.2 billion, or 13 percent, increase between FY 2008 and FY 2009 spending bills, as well as an $11 billion infusion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Frankly, we just can't afford this.

In closing, I would again like to thank Chairman Dicks for the evenhandedness that he has shown in working with us. We work well together, and I think this bill shows that.

In closing, I'd like to thank both majority and minority staff for their long hours and fine work in producing this legislation. On the majority side, this includes Delia Scott, Chris Topik, Julie Falkner, Greg Knadle, Beth Houser, Melissa Squire, Ryan Shauers, and Pete Modaff.

On the minority side, let me thank my staff--Missy Small, Megan Milam, Kaylyn Bessey, and Lindsay Slater, as well as the committee staffers, Darren Benjamin and David LesStrang. If the Members of this House worked as well together as the majority and minority staffers do, we'd get a lot more done in this place.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I would yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Madam Chairwoman, I now yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Indiana, the former chairman and now ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Mr. Buyer.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would like to echo the words of Chairman Dicks and thank the gentleman from Indiana for bringing this to our attention, the importance of improving the standards of these cemeteries. Mr. Buyer's amendment--though not made in order, and it should have been made in order--has made us aware of this situation that must be addressed. I will continue to work with Chairman Dicks and Mr. Buyer to ensure that these veterans' cemeteries are brought up to the standard consistent with other veterans' cemeteries.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I thank the gentleman for bringing this to our attention, and I can guarantee that the National Park Service is now aware of it also.

Madam Chairwoman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

Madam Chairwoman, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I may consume for the purposes of entering into a colloquy with Chairman Dicks on behalf of Mr. Calvert of California.

Mr. Dicks, I rise today in support of the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act grants programs, which provide needed funding to State and local pollution control agencies to retrofit and replace older, higher emission diesel with newer, lower emission, and more efficient technologies.

EPA studies indicate that black carbon, like that emitted from diesel engines, is the second most significant contributor to global warming. Retrofits and replacements of old diesel engines, like those supported by DERA, reduce these emissions by up to 90 percent.

Recently, a broad and diverse coalition of over 250 environmental, science, public health, industry, and State and local governments wrote members of the Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee encouraging the committee to fully fund the DERA program at its $200 million authorized level for fiscal year 2010. Over 40 bipartisan Members of the House sent a similar letter of support to the subcommittee. Funds invested by the Federal Government in this program leverage two State and local dollars for every one Federal dollar appropriated and provide $13 of economic benefit for every dollar spent on the program.

The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act was authorized at 200 million per year from FY07 to FY11. However, even given this program's success in combating global warming, DERA has received less than $146 million in regular fiscal year appropriations so far, 25 percent of its authorized level. In this year's bill, the DERA program is slated to receive $60 million.

To date, this successful program has received over 650 applications for DERA grants totaling over $2 billion. Given this fact and the broad support this program has received, our colleague, Mr. Calvert, introduced an amendment in the Appropriations Committee to increase funding for DERA by $15 million. Though this amendment was not adopted, Mr. Chairman, I ask you today, are you willing to work with Congressman Calvert in the future to increase funding for DERA closer to its authorized level?

I will yield.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I am eager to work with you over the coming year to improve the DERA granting process to ensure that applications are processed and grants are awarded in a timely and efficient manner and work with you in the coming fiscal years to secure more robust funding for this program. It truly is a win-win-win situation, stimulating the American economy, improving air quality nationwide, and reducing emissions that are among the greatest contributors to global warming.

I want to thank Mr. Calvert for his interest and bringing this to our attention.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would inform the chairman that we have no further speakers.

Let me just say in closing, Madam Chairwoman, that I have truly appreciated working with you, Chairman Dicks. You and the staff have been an honor to work with, and I think we have created a very good bipartisan bill. To tell you the truth, I can't complain about anything where you have spent the funds, although there might have been some differences that I would have made if I were king for a day and that type of thing, but I think we have come out with a good bill.

As I have said, since we started the markup, you know that my major concern is the overall spending level in this bill. But in terms of what we have spent it on, I have no problems with the way that you are approaching this, and I thank you for your bipartisanship and working with us.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I thank you, and as I said in my opening statement, I truly do want to thank you for the oversight hearings that you have. It's been the best committee that I have served on in my time in Congress in terms of the oversight hearings that we have done, and I think that's one of the most vital functions that we have performed here and you have done a masterful job on them.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I would claim time in opposition.

Madam Chairwoman, it saddens me that we are here with this manager's amendment. Traditionally, manager's amendments have been noncontroversial--when they have ever been offered on an appropriation bill, have been noncontroversial and have been offered by both sides. That's not the case on this amendment.

Surprisingly, my opposition to the amendment isn't because of the substance of the amendment and the provisions of the amendment, it's how it got here. There were a number of amendments that were proposed last night in the Rules Committee; almost all of them were turned down. There were amendments that had substantive purposes offered by Members on my side of the aisle that were turned down.

The ranking member of the full committee offered an important amendment that was not made in order. The

ranking member of the subcommittee, myself, offered an amendment that was important and was not made in order. And yet we have taken three proposed amendments that were offered in the subcommittee and rolled them together in one manager's amendment and brought it to the floor, three Democratic proposed amendments and rolled it into a manager's amendment. This is not in the tradition of what a manager's amendment should be.

And so while I can't complain about the amendments, the amendments that were offered, per se, if they were offered individually and had been allowed by the Rules Committee to be allowed independently along with some of the other amendments that should have been allowed, I would have voted for all of these amendments, most likely. But it's the process that brought us to this state.

And, unfortunately, what's been happening with the rules that have been adopted for consideration of appropriation bills, it leads us to these types of incidents that should not happen, that are unnecessary, that we try to get around our own rules and our own traditions of having manager's amendments approved by both sides that are generally noncontroversial.

So, again, while I don't oppose the individual provisions of this, how this amendment got here and what it contains is not fair to the rest of the Members who put in thoughtful efforts to go to the Rules Committee and propose amendments.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Yielding myself the remainder of my time, and I take the gentleman from Washington at his word, I know that he is a gentleman of honor and he wants to work these out in a bipartisan fashion. In fact, I am not sure that the gentleman agrees fully with what has been going on with some of the rules and would like to get back, like many of us would, to regular order, and we would like to do that.

But if we had time to confer, and I understand what the gentleman is saying, a very noncontroversial amendment that could have been adopted was Mr. Buyer's amendment that we talked about on the veterans' cemeteries within the National Park Service would have been simple to put in a manager's amendment.

But I take the gentleman at his word and I look forward to working with him in the future on this.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This is an important program. I thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment. We support it. I hope that it passes and that we can preserve the Highlands region.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First of all, this doesn't cut off funding for the fire center. What it does is cut off funding for the fire center in that location. It doesn't matter whether the environmental review is done or not if that location is not acceptable to the local residents.

One of the things in dealing with Federal agencies that own a majority of the land surrounding you is that sometimes they are good neighbors, and sometimes they aren't. But local people ought to have some say in these Federal agencies' decisions of where they are going to locate facilities and so forth.

So just saying this area, this location that you are looking at is inappropriate, as the Board of County Commissioners apparently has said, seems to me to be entirely appropriate, and Congress ought to look at their wishes.

And I guarantee you in Nevada there are a lot of places that they could build this fire center that apparently wouldn't cause the controversy that is being caused in this local community. And when the Representative from that area comes to me and says this is a problem, then I have to believe the people who sent him here. I support the amendment.

I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Officer Henry Canales--Texas Lawman

Madam Speaker, in accordance with the policies and standards put forth by the House Armed Services Committee and the GOP Leadership, I list the congressionally-directed projects I have requested in my home state of Idaho that are contained in the report of HR 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.

Project Name: Civil Engineer Maintenance Complex at Mountain Home Air Force Base

Amount Requested: $690,000

Account: Air Force Military Construction Account

Recipient: 366th Wing, Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho

Recipient's Street Address: 366 Gunfighter Avenue, Ste 107, Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho 83648

Description: The civil engineer functions are currently dispersed among 10 WWII-era wood-frame and Korean war-era facilities. Wood frame facilities have a RAC 2 due to failing roof structures and cracked and spreading concrete foundations that have contributed to failing floors and trusses, presenting risk to squadron members who work in the facilities. Currently, employees must evacuate during heavy snowfall or high winds. The fire safety deficiencies are endemic to all buildings, the patchwork electric wiring is maxed out, which increases fire risk, and the HVAC systems can't keep buildings heated and cooled. The dispersed locations and failing conditions of existing facilities adversely affect all daily Civil Engineering operations and negatively impacts the Wing's mission.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide an explanation of the project that was included in the report accompanying the FY2010 Defense Authorization bill on behalf of Idaho and provide an explanation of my support for it.

Madam Speaker, in accordance with the policies and standard put forth by the House Appropriations Committee and the GOP Leadership, I would like to place in the Record a listing of the congressionally-directed project I requested in my home state of Idaho that is contained in the report of HR 2892, the FY2010 Homeland Security Appropriations bill.

Project Name: Power and Cyber Systems Protection, Analysis, and Testing Program

Amount $3,000,000

Account: NPPD Infrastructure Protection and Information Security

Recipient: Idaho National Laboratory

Recipient's Street Address: 2525 North Freemont Street, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415

Description: This funding will be used to conduct vulnerability analysis, testing, and protection of power and cyber connected systems for the Department of Homeland Security, utilizing the unique resources available at the Idaho National Laboratory, such as the electric grid, SCADA and control systems, cyber and communication test beds, and the explosives test range. The project entails collaboration with leading universities and other National Laboratories to leverage ongoing research at these institutions and advance the state-of-the-art in building resilience into infrastructure systems. The funding will be used to obtain full-scale systems in sectors of interest to DHS for testing of vulnerabilities, identification of protection strategies, and evaluation of resilient designs; partner with universities and National Laboratories to develop resilient control systems; and establish a program that develops new protection schemes. The INL is uniquely placed to carry out this program, which leverages its ongoing work in this area sponsored by DOD, DHS, and Intelligence Agencies and its established relationships with industry, universities, and National Laboratories.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide a list of the Idaho project that has received funding in the FY2010 Homeland Security Appropriations bill and provide an explanation of my support for it.

Madam Speaker, in accordance with the policies and standards put forth by the House Appropriations Committee and the GOP Leadership, I submit a list of the congressionally-directed projects I have requested in my home state of Idaho that are contained in the report of HR 2847, Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.

Project Name: Boise Center Aerospace Laboratory (BCAL) Watershed Modeling Utilizing LiDAR at Idaho State University

Amount Requested: $500,000

Account: Department of Commerce NOAA

Recipient: Idaho State University

Recipient's Street Address: 921 South 8th Avenue Stop 8007, Pocatello, Idaho 83209

Description: ISU's Department of Geosciences has developed free spatial analysis tools available to the public for remote sensing and geographic information sciences (GIS). The remote sensing tools include a downloadable toolbox for analyzing light detection and ranging (LiDAR) data LiDAR is an imaging method using a laser mounted on an aircraft to determine precise vertical information (topography) of the earth's surface (15 cm precision). Commonly, this information is translated into high-resolution digital elevation models (DEMs) LiDAR can provide both a bare earth surface and the vegetated (or built) surface. LiDAR can also provide topographic data below water. Specifically to the concern of NOAA and the State of Idaho, LiDAR can provide up to date and precise flood plain maps for rivers with built environments (such as the Boise River) to guide decisions on flood insurance coverage and land use restrictions. These predictive maps can also aid in evacuation of people and livestock during an impending flood. This project will leverage existing infrastructure and expertise at ISU to develop state-of-the-art watershed modeling tools for NOAA and other federal agencies. These tools will enable better management of watersheds through improved topographic analyses for prediction of runoff, floods, and water storage capacity. Hyperspectral analysis (soils and vegetation) will be coupled with the LiDAR data for a full characterization, spectrally and spatially of the landscape. These analyses will allow for studies of vegetation structure, dependence of vegetation, soils, and earth processes (e.g. fire, erosion) on topology (slope and aspect, drainages, surface roughness). The goal of this research and its resulting algorithms and tools is to significantly benefit NOAA in its ability to convert LiDAR data into usable derivative datasets for environmental and safety applications in Idaho and elsewhere.

Project Name: Idaho Meth Project

Amount Requested: $1,000,000

Account: Department of Justice COPS Meth

Recipient: Idaho Meth Project

Recipient's Street Address: 304 N. 8th Street, Room 446, Boise, Idaho 83702

Description: Methamphetamine trafficking and abuse in Idaho has been on the rise over the past few years and, as a result, meth is having a devastating impact in many communities throughout Idaho. Meth is the number one illegal drug of choice in Idaho and the State's leading drug problem. The financial and social consequences of meth abuse in Idaho are devastating. It is a contributing cause for much of the crime in Idaho, costs millions of dollars in productivity, contributes to the ever increasing prison populations and adversely impacts families. The Idaho Meth Project is a large-scale, statewide prevention and public awareness program designed to reduce the prevalence of first-time methamphetamine abuse in Idaho by influencing attitudes through high- impact advertising. The Idaho Meth Project is focused solely upon prevention and, to achieve this goal, is active in three areas: public service messaging, community action and public policy. This includes a pervasive media campaign reaching the target population through TV, radio, billboards, print, and the Internet.

Project Name: Idaho State Police to participate in the Criminal Information Sharing Alliance Network (CISAnet)

Amount Requested: $500,000

Account: Department of Justice COPS Law Enforcement Technology

Recipient: Idaho State Police

Recipient's Street Address: 700 South Stratford, Meridian, Idaho 83642

Description: In 2006, the Idaho State Police (ISP) developed and deployed, on a limited basis, a web-based Case Investigative System (CIS). This tool allows investigators to collect, use and share critical law enforcement information across the state. CISAnet provides a bi-directional information-sharing network within and between state and local law enforcement agencies. CISAnet provides ISP and law enforcement across Idaho with real time access to criminal intelligence information shared by law enforcement partner agencies within the states of Alabama, Arizona, California, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. This ten state area is regarded as one of the most vulnerable to our nation's security--a 'soft spot' through which illegal Mexican immigrants filter, illegal drug trafficking passes and terrorists move freely. It is believed that securing this porous border with Mexico is an effective way to protect American citizens. The CISAnet system provides an effective means for law enforcement agencies to share information across state lines on known or suspected criminal activity. Together, access to CISAnet, Idaho's Fusion Center and remote access to CIS will ensure that Idaho state and local law enforcement officers have the best information available in a timely manner. In today's environment, these systems are an effective way to monitor illegal drug and terrorist activity and identify, target and locate potential terrorists. These systems are important components of an overall prevention strategy and are crucial to protecting the citizens of Idaho and the United States' homeland security. The Criminal Information Sharing Alliance network (CISAnet) FY2010 federal funding will be used to continue the integration of CIS into the CISAnet infrastructure, to expand its capabilities by adding a Geo coding module and by integrating CIS, RMS and CISAnet into Idaho's Criminal Intelligence Center.

Project Name: NCOMS Medical and Mental Health Sharing Software Development

Amount Requested: $500,000

Account: Department of Justice Byrne Discretionary Grants

Recipient: Idaho Department of Corrections

Recipient's Street Address: 1299 North Orchard, Suite 110, Boise, Idaho 83706.

Description: States are legally mandated to provide appropriate medical care to incarcerated individuals. These funds will be used to create, modularize and implement the medical/mental health module for the National Consortium of Offender Management Systems (NCOMS). This technology will allow public safety organizations that house offenders to track and record the medical information to ensure that offenders receive proper medical treatment.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide a list of Congressionally- directed projects in the FY2010 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations bill on behalf of Idaho and provide an explanation of my support for them.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 192 recognizing National Nurses Week from May 6 through May 12, 2009. Not only is today the last day of National Nurses Week, but it is also the birthday of Florence Nightingale, the founder of modern nursing. I hope that my colleagues here at the House of Representatives have had an opportunity to reflect over the last week on all of the contributions that nurses have made to ensure safe and high-quality health care to those under their care.

In each of our communities, nurses work collaboratively with patients and other health professionals to improve the safety of patients and advance care in a myriad of settings. Nurses represent the largest single component of the health care profession with nearly 2.9 million registered nurses in the United States who are dedicated to improving the health outcomes of million of patients under their care.

I applaud the work that nurses have contributed and because of the ailing economy, we are seeing more nurses filling the shortage that exists. Many are going back to work, or putting off planned retirement to help maintain their family income during tough economic times. Many of those jobs are also being filled by better recruiting tactics by hospitals that have increased wages, offered potential hires signing bonuses, and efforts have been made to retain older nurses by making their jobs less strenuous. But as past economic indicators have shown, nurses shortages occur in times of healthy economic expansion and as baby boomers get older, we hope that hospitals will continue to provide incentives for nurses to fill vacant health care positions.

I would like to thank Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, the sponsor of this resolution, and the American Nurses Association for raising public awareness about the contributions that nurses give to our communities. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise today to offer this resolution congratulating the American Dental Association on its 150th year of advancing the art and science of dentistry and advocating on behalf of the oral health of the American people. I know many of you join me in offering those congratulations, as the resolution before the House today has 104 cosponsors.

The ADA is the professional association of dentists committed to the public's oral health, ethics, science, and the advancement of the dental profession.

The ADA traces its origins to the mid-19th century, when representatives of eight regional dental societies and two dental colleges came together in Niagara Falls, New York, to establish a representative body of stability and character. They called their fledgling organization the American Dental Association. Today, seven out of 10 U.S. dentists belong to the ADA, with membership of more than 157,000 dentists. The ADA has 53 State and territorial and 545 local dental societies. It is the largest and oldest national dental association in the world.

The association has long been a leader, advocating for improved health care and access for underprivileged Americans. Even today, as Congress wrestles with the issue of health care reform, the ADA is continually reminding us that oral health is an integral part of overall health. The ADA's health care reform principles focus on three things; prevention and wellness, fixing Medicaid, and improving the public oral health infrastructure.

The Association is active in cutting-edge dental research. At the Paffenbarger Research Center, housed on the National Institute of Standards and Technology campus just outside of Washington, D.C., ADA scientists are working on improving dental materials, tissue engineering, and cavity-repairing therapies. Some of Paffenbarger's research accomplishments include the development of modern high-speed dental drills, panoramic x-ray machines, protective tooth sealants, tooth-colored composite filling material, calcium phosphate, bone cements, and more.

The ADA's Give Kids A Smile is an annual centerpiece to the National Children's Dental Health Month. It is observed every year on the first Friday in February. At more than 1,600 sites nationwide this year, some 45,000 dental professionals provided free services to more than 450,000 children. I can tell you, the spirit behind that one-day event carries over throughout the year. The ADA encourages its members to donate time and services to the underserved. In fact, dentists provide more than $2 billion in charitable and uncompensated care to specific underserved populations each year. That's $2 billion worth of free dental work.

I congratulate them on this 150th year of their founding of the American Dental Association. I hope that Members will join me in congratulating the ADA by voting in favor of this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend from Indiana, who has been a supporter of the dental profession for many years, Representative Buyer.

I appreciate the gentleman's comment. I should note that I also come from a family of dentists; I just couldn't escape. I ended up going into the dental profession where he went into the law profession. We will argue for some time who made the better choice. But I appreciate everyone's support and would encourage their positive vote on this resolution.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the work of Terry Tyborowski, Professional Staff for the House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee. Unfortunately, Terry will soon be leaving the House of Representatives for a new job at the Department of Energy, but the positive impact of her work will be felt in this House, and across this nation, for many years to come.

As a member of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee for over 6 years, I

have had the opportunity to work with Terry on a number of vitally important energy issues. I have seen firsthand the professionalism she brings to the job and the respect she has earned from Members, staff, and stakeholders alike. That respect derives not from her position or title, but from the hard work, honesty, reliability, and deep knowledge that are so prominent in Terry's character.

Perhaps the most impressive thing about Terry is her commitment to doing that which is right for the nation and its energy future. The Energy and Water Development Subcommittee is one of the most bipartisan, or non-partisan, in Congress and the staff that work there demonstrate it daily--particularly Terry. Her opinions didn't change when David Hobson yielded the Subcommittee's gavel to Peter Visclosky and neither did her approach toward Members, staff, or issues. She remains committed to good policy and providing wise counsel while always being loyal to the Chairman for whom she worked. What more could any of us ask of the professionals who work in this body?

I have been in Congress for over 10 years and was a member of the Idaho State legislature for 14 years. I have worked with hundreds of staff members and met with thousands of policy experts over the years. Much like the rest of my colleagues, I have seen the good and bad, the loud and quiet, the effective and ineffective, and those that are honest or not. I can say with certainty that Terry is one of the finest professionals with whom I have worked and a person from whom I have learned a great deal.

Her presence here on the Hill, and in the Subcommittee, will be deeply missed by me and by all of my colleagues who work with Terry. At the same time, her expertise, fairness, and good judgment will be put to good use at the Department of Energy and those of us who represent DOE sites are looking forward to continuing our work with Terry in her new capacity.

In closing, I would simply like to thank Terry for her hard work, her tenacity, her good counsel, and most of all, her friendship.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Kevin Cook, former Clerk of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, who recently retired after ten years of honorable service for the U.S. Congress and over thirty years of service with the federal government. During my time serving as a Member of this Subcommittee. I had the distinct pleasure of working with Mr. Cook and benefiting from his knowledge and counsel on budgetary, policy and oversight matters.

Mr. Cook devoted his career to serving in the federal government and spent almost three decades working for various federal agencies and for Congress. Mr. Cook started his career as a geologist for the U.S. Forest Service before spending over 20 years as a hydrologist, water resources planner, project manager and physical scientist for the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Cook came to the House of Representatives in 1998, where he served as Science Advisor and Counsel for the House Energy and Commerce Committee and then as a Professional Staff Member, the Majority and then the Minority Clerk for the House Energy and Water Development Subcommittee on Appropriations, where I had the honor of working closely with him.

As clerk for the Subcommittee, Mr. Cook oversaw appropriations for the Department of Energy, the Civil Works programs of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, as well as a number of related agencies. In this role, he oversaw appropriations and conducted oversight of these programs and worked diligently to uphold the interest of the taxpayer to ensure that our taxpayer dollars were spent efficiently and effectively. I was a frequent beneficiary of his guidance and expertise, as I know were the Chairman, Ranking Member and the other members of the Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I believe that we owe much of our effectiveness as Members to the hard work and dedication of the staff. Kevin Cook exemplifies the highest ideals of public service and served the Committee and the federal government with honor, integrity and enthusiasm. We will miss his expertise and counsel greatly--his knowledge and understanding of the issues at hand will be difficult to match. Thank you, Kevin, for your many years of service to the federal government, the United States Congress and our nation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the numerous organizers and volunteers of the 2009 Special Olympics World Winter Games in Idaho. It was because of the hard work and dedication of the volunteers from Idaho and elsewhere and their commitment to Special Olympics that this great event was possible. I would like to recognize one volunteer in particular, Mr. Jim Schmit. Mr. Schmit served as the Chairman of the Games Fundraising Committee, and he did an exemplary job.

The Special Olympics World Winter Games attracted more than 2,000 athletes from nearly 100 countries. It was the largest multi-sport event ever held in the State of Idaho. While my home state was proud to host this prestigious event, we faced many unique challenges along the way. Host sites are typically named four years in advance of the Games, but Special Olympics International awarded the Games to Idaho just 24 months in advance. This left the Fundraising Games Committee with an extremely condensed timeframe in which to raise money and prepare for the event. The Committee faced an even greater challenge created by the difficult economic times that our businesses, corporations, and citizens confronted, which caused donations to charities and non- profits to drop significantly.

Working on an unpaid volunteer basis, Mr. Schmit worked tirelessly with businesses and corporations in Idaho and throughout the country to secure both monetary donations and in-kind donations of food and beverages for the athletes as well as supplies needed to run the events. He coordinated with the state and local governments to obtain assistance from them. In addition, Mr. Schmit worked closely with Senator Craig and me to help us in our efforts to secure federal funding in support of the Games. Faced with such a difficult economic environment, Mr. Schmit and his team were able to raise sufficient funds to put on the hugely successful Games and still have funds left over to donate back to the community.

Madam Speaker, I have had the honor of knowing and working with Mr. Schmit in his position as President of Qwest Idaho for many years. Today, I am honored to commend him for his tremendous work as the Chairman of the Games Fundraising Committee. His commitment and dedication were critical to making the Games such a huge success, and I would like to take this opportunity to recognize him for all of his hard work.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Senator Crapo for his efforts in creating Idaho's newest wilderness areas in the Owyhee region of Southwestern Idaho. The designation of wilderness in Idaho is long overdue, as it has been nearly thirty years since the late Senator Frank Church created the River of No Return Wilderness.

I applaud the Senator for having the patience and perseverance to develop the compromises he has made with numerous ranchers, county officials, sportsman groups and conservation groups. The years of effort he put into creating this legislation are a testament to just how special these lands are. It is assured that Idahoans will be enjoying these unspoiled vistas and areas for generations to come.

There are numerous individuals in Idaho to congratulate for their hard work. I won't name them all, but Fred Grant, Chad Gibson, Brenda Richards and Craig Gherke put a lot of effort into this process. In addition, John Hoehne and Layne Bangerter of Senator Crapo's staff did tremendous staff work on the ground in Idaho. If they and so many others didn't commit themselves to the Owyhee initiative, there would have been nothing to work with here in D.C.

Finally, I saw first hand here in Washington how this legislation could not have been completed without the efforts of Peter Fischer on Senator Crapo's staff, David Brooks on Senator Bingaman's staff, and Marcia Argust with the Campaign for America's Wilderness. Their commitment and belief in the product developed in Idaho made it possible for this legislation to move forward.

Idaho can be proud of the work that Senator Crapo, his staff and its stakeholders have done in creating the Owyhee legislation.