Mike Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. 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. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. 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. SIMPSON

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

Mr. SIMPSON

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

Mr. SIMPSON. 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.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. 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.

Mr. SIMPSON. 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.

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Officer Henry Canales--Texas Lawman

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. SIMPSON. 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.

Mr. SIMPSON. 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.

Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SIMPSON. 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.

Mr. SIMPSON. I move to strike the last word.

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON. 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?

Mr. SIMPSON. I will yield.

Mr. SIMPSON. 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.

Mr. SIMPSON. 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.

Mr. SIMPSON. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SIMPSON. 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.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. 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.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. 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.