Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a great American from my home state of Wyoming, Thyra Thomson.

The quintessential Wyoming Secretary of State, Thyra Thomson served for 24 years as Wyoming's second highest elected official and advocate- in-chief for all things Wyoming.

Thyra tirelessly engaged and mentored Wyoming people to be caring thought leaders for Wyoming's unique communities and culture.

Thyra was impeccably put together, inquisitive, well-traveled and well-read, and quick to initiate fascinating conversation.

Her encouragement and support of me and countless others around the state helped to build the unique Wyoming culture and its tapestry of compelling individuals.

Thyra survives through her family, her role in Wyoming history and her inspiration to her many friends of all ages.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is cosponsored by Mr. Daines of Montana and Mr. Cramer of North Dakota. It would require DOT to maintain all current 450 intercontinental ballistic missile silos in warm status.

This amendment would maintain our nuclear triad, where ICBMs, along with submarines and bombers, work together to complicate and deter any attempts at a successful first strike on our country and our allies.

China's nuclear arsenal is expanding. Russia and other nuclear states like Pakistan are modernizing. With inexperienced leaders like Kim Jung Un in North Korea, now is the time not to reduce our most reliable and transparent deterrence.

President Obama continues to suggest further reductions in U.S. nuclear forces beyond the New START Treaty levels and is now bypassing Congress to negotiate directly with President Putin on additional unilateral reductions.

It's important for Congress to legislatively require that any final force structure decisions occur in FY15, as currently planned, and not be prematurely executed.

The ICBM force is in the final stages of more than a decade-long effort to replace and modernize critical-mission components. This makes it extremely cost effective to maintain the Minuteman III fleet over the next two decades.

This amendment is budget-neutral. It simply keeps silos in warm status, so as not to take steps backward that would be costly to reverse at a later date, especially if we encountered unforeseen geopolitical changes.

Congress needs to weigh in on the importance of maintaining our land- based forces so the decision is not made without us.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).

I thank the gentleman for yielding and hosting this Special Order.

Wyoming is the largest coal-producing State in the Nation. It has been since 1986. The 10 largest coal mines in the United States are in the State of Wyoming. And we're having trouble exporting our coal. Even if Americans don't want to use it and would disadvantage themselves in comparison to other countries, we'd like to send it overseas to people who want it.

Who wants it? I'll show you.

China, India, and even Turkey wants our coal. Yet here's the United States, this little dot. This is all the United States wants. It's silly, given this tremendous resource the United States has that produces jobs and revenue and electricity that keeps our manufacturing competitive, to have to send it to those other countries. They want it because they want what we have. They want inexpensive, affordable, abundant energy so their people can manufacture.

We need to protect these jobs in manufacturing. We need to protect the affordability and the reliability by keeping these resources working at home for Americans with American energy.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start out by thanking Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson for their support in bringing this bipartisan legislation to the floor.

I have found, since being on the Science Committee, that it is an acronym-rich environment. Mr. Speaker, I'm an acronym-challenged individual, so I'll be talking about the Network and Information Technology Research and Development program. In the future, I'm just going to call it ``the program.'' It's the Federal Government's main research and development effort in unclassified network, computing, software, cybersecurity, and related information technologies.

Research conducted under this program has led to scientific growth and innovation in several areas, including visualization technologies in science, engineering, and medicine; computer-based education and training; and near-real-time weather forecasts, which is really important in my State of Wyoming.

Currently, 15 Federal agencies are contributing members to the program, and even more participate.

H.R. 967, the bill in front of us, does two things: it updates the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991, and it reauthorizes the program to advance our Nation's networking and information technology research and development.

It's the digital age, Mr. Speaker. Advances in networking and information technology continue to transform our quality of life, our economy, U.S. competitiveness, and our national security. This bill provides the coordination necessary for the United States to respond to rapid changes in these areas, it encourages innovation, and it protects our economy.

My home State of Wyoming is best known for its stunning mountains and open spaces. But not long ago, Wyoming also became home to a supercomputing center. It houses one of the world's most powerful supercomputers. Mr. Speaker, it makes a mind-boggling number of computations every second. It's sponsored by the University Coalition on Atmospheric Research, which sponsors the National Center on Atmospheric Research, and so it's partially funded by the National Science Foundation, which is the taxpayers. So they help fund it. These computations enable world-leading research projects in areas including atmospheric and geosciences. So this bill facilities work in these fields, ranging from research being conducted at the supercomputing center to big data--and I mean big data--and cybersecurity as well.

H.R. 967 implements several recommendations from the 2007 and 2010 President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology assessments to improve government coordination and planning with input from policy and technical experts. It adjusts research and development portfolios so we're focusing less on short-term goals and more on really long-term goals.

Now, specific to cybersecurity, the program includes research and development to detect, prevent, and recover from actions that compromise or threaten computer and network-based systems. Now, you heard from Congressman McCaul just moments ago some of the specific examples of the real threats that are directed at computer networks. So reauthorizing this program is an important step.

I thank the chairman, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I rise in support of H.R. 678, of which I'm an original cosponsor, and I want to thank Representative Tipton, Chairman McClintock, and Chairman Hastings for their hard work on this bill, which unlocks significant hydropower development potential in my home State of Wyoming.

Congress and the Bureau of Reclamation have over the years created hundreds of canals and pipelines to serve water uses in the West. Most of these conduits were never envisioned as power sources because the technology wasn't there or it wasn't yet cost-effective. But technology has changed, and now it's feasible to harness and channel the energy byproduct of these water flows. The Bureau of Reclamation has identified 373 conduits in the West with hydropower potential. Wyoming leads the States with 121 of these sites and is second only to Colorado in terms of the potential energy output. In Wyoming alone, the estimated potential is 82 million kilowatt hours annually from a clean, renewable energy source. Unleashing this potential, while still protecting the environment and end water users, is what this bill is all about.

First, H.R. 678 eliminates bureaucratic confusion by expressly authorizing the Bureau to oversee hydropower development in its conduits.

Second, it directs the Bureau of Reclamation to exempt small hydropower projects from duplicative environmental paperwork requirements. We're talking about placing small power generators in canals and ditches where the ground has already been disturbed. Fences have gone up. Environmental analysis has been conducted, sometimes multiple times because of the Bureau's contract renewals with some water users. Requiring duplicative environmental analysis on preexisting conduits makes no sense, provides no environmental benefit, and imposes more costs and bureaucratic uncertainty on potential developers.

Third, the bill protects water supply and delivery as the primary and fundamental priority for these conduits, whose vital mission will not be disrupted.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, jobs-creating bill.

Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the House majority party for putting together a budget that takes a balanced approach. It balances the interest of two very future vulnerable groups.

One is my age, because in 11 years I'm going to be on Medicare and Medicare is going to be broke, completely insolvent, absolutely broke.

At the same time, earlier today, I met with some kids who were here with the Close Up program. They were high school students full of hope. In 11 years, they're going to be starting families, buying cars and gasoline and

houses and insurance and raising kids; and they'll be at a financially vulnerable age.

Now, the House Republican budget protects both of us. It makes Medicare solvent for me when I am there and I need the money. And it doesn't do it on the backs of those young high school students today that will be 28-years-old when they need to be raising families and saving for their children's college and their own retirements. It doesn't with the premium support system, not a voucher system, a premium support system, which is what I have as a Member of Congress, where I get to choose from among government pre-approved insurance programs that don't deny me for a preexisting condition. I pay part of the premium and the government pays part of the premium. The healthy and wealthy get less premium support, the unhealthy and unwealthy get more.

It solves both parties. It's the balanced approach. I ask you to reject the minority party's budget and support the House Republican budget.

Madam Chairman, without question, the victims of Sandy deserve relief. They deserve it, and we should give it to them in a way that we can afford. If we can't do a 1.6 percent reduction in spending, how are we going to deal with a $16 trillion debt?

My own State of Wyoming is cutting spending 6\1/2\ percent across the board right now to balance the budget because revenues didn't materialize that have materialized in the past. And it's very doable. We in this House cut our own budgets 11.4 percent in the period of 2 years. This House has not missed a beat. Not a single Member was hurt by that. A 1.6 percent reduction in Federal spending to pay for these victims' benefits that deserve this money is the right thing to do.

I rise in support of the Mulvaney amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentlelady from Tennessee for organizing this group to talk about this essential issue that is coming before the people of this country as described to be a fiscal cliff. Quite frankly, we need to look back at Alice in Wonderland to see from whence we have come.

In the case of Alice in Wonderland, there's a line that says if you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there. Certainly in the case of Congress, the Republicans have laid out a road. It's a road map for America's future. It was designed by our House Budget Committee chaired by Congressman Paul Ryan from Wisconsin, and it lays out a plan for spending. It lays out a plan to sustain the viability and vitality of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid into the future, to make sure that seniors now can enjoy the benefits that they've earned through Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. And the young people who are paying for it now will have those benefits available to them when they retire or when they need them.

That is our road map to America's future. That is our budget. It passed this House unanimously through Members of Congress who are of the Republican persuasion.

By contrast, the Democrats have not tendered or put forward a budget for over 1,300 days. Now, Tim Tebow was a quarterback at the University of Florida 1,300 days ago before his career at the Denver Broncos, before his career now in New York. So many things have happened in those 1,300 days in America. How could one important political party in this country not put forward a budget, a road map, to where we want to go with our spending and to retire our debt?

Something that our budget, the Paul Ryan/Republican budget, put forward is a pathway to eliminate our debt and our deficit without raising taxes and while preserving America's social safety net. And yet the other side of the aisle put forth nothing in response. And the answer is because, I believe, they don't know where we're going so any road will get them there.

The President's budget was presented by Timothy Geithner to the House Budget Committee. We asked him: When does it balance? At what point out in the future does it eliminate our debt and our deficit? And the answer was, Never. Never.

Our country needs direction right now; and the people who are here tonight want to make sure that the people of America know where we're going and yet our President put forward a budget that never balances. And his answer now on this road to however and wherever we're going is, I want to tax people who can provide enough income for our Nation to fund it for 8 days. That's not a budget. That's not an answer. That's not an American value. That is not where we should be going.

Our own Government Accountability Office has put together three volumes of reports that contain in them ways that we can consolidate spending, create efficiencies in government, save money, and make our government smaller, more robust, serve the people, and yet save $900 billion a year. Now, that is three-fourths of the way to solving our entire deficit, and yet why aren't we grabbing that and running with it? Why are we talking about raising taxes on the American people, on our small businesses?

I come from a State where there are no big cities, Madam Chairman. I come from a State where the largest town has less than 60,000 people. I come from a State where there are no Big Four, too-big-to-fail banks. A place where you go to your local Main Street banker if you want to borrow money and present a plan to pay it back, a secured loan that comes to you and that you do pay back, from people who know you, that know your reputation and your ability to repay. And yet laws like Dodd- Frank and this mysterious creation called Basel III will put global banks and my little banks on Main Streets in Wyoming on the same capital plan. That was never intended. That's so irrational.

Let's work together, Republicans and Democrats, to help our country rationalize and put things back on the right track and focus on our spending problems.

Use the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports to eliminate even half of the items that we're overspending. It would be a stunning victory for the American people, and we know how to get there.

Mr. Speaker and Madam Chairman, you are leaders in this caucus, this conference, this country. We, in this House, know how to solve these problems. What we lack is gumption. What we lack is the relationship with the President of the United States to sit down and talk to him about these issues.

One more thing, Madam Chairman. I realize we have very important remarks to be made from others here tonight, but I want to tell you a story. There is a group here in the House that gets together once a week. And one day we had Bob Schieffer come in and speak to us, Bob Schieffer of CBS News, a long time, highly respected journalist.

And I had the chance to ask him, When you look at the crises in negotiations that are occurring now, between Members of Congress and the President, why are we having so much trouble communicating? Who have you witnessed in your lengthy, illustrious career that did it better? Who would you hold up as an example?

Well, Bob Schieffer first started covering Lyndon Baines Johnson in Texas many years ago, and he told a story about how LBJ would have handled this. He mentioned that LBJ would religiously watch the Sunday morning talk shows. He would watch ``Meet the Press,'' and he would watch the shows that were on the networks because that's all we had back then was networks.

He would watch the Speaker of the House on those programs. And if the Speaker would give an avenue for compromise, he had him on the telephone before the Speaker of the House left the studio. And he'd say, Mr. Speaker, why don't you come over to the White House tonight?

Lady Bird and I'll put on some fried chicken and we'll just sit around in the kitchen and talk this over. I see an avenue for us to agree on 10 percent or 20 percent of where we need to go to solve this Nation's problems.

He would connect, on a personal level, and on a level that found that crack in the armor of failure to communicate. And that's how he solved the problems.

What we find now is that if the Speaker goes on television and leaves a crack in the armor, say an offer to come up with $700 billion or $800 billion in new revenue, something that this President campaigned on, instead of having the President call the Speaker and say, Mr. Speaker, I think we're getting somewhere. Why don't you come over. We'll get together around the kitchen table and just talk about this. I think we're getting somewhere. Instead, the Speaker is blasted by the press shop at the White House within hours of his making a presentation on the Sunday morning talk shows. And people wonder why we can't solve these problems?

There is a way to solve these problems. We know what to do to solve these problems.

I compliment the gentlelady from Tennessee for her hard work to solve these problems, to illustrate for the American people that there's room for compromise in Washington. And I salute your efforts to reach out to everyone, to the American people, and across the aisle to make that happen.

Madam Chairman, I yield back with my compliments.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, I have two amendments made in order under this rule. I will offer this amendment. However, thanks to those I've been working with across the aisle, I intend not to offer my second amendment.

Thank you, Mrs. Maloney.

The Equal Access to Justice Act, or EAJA, was originally passed in 1980 by a Congress concerned that everyday citizens could not afford to challenge the Federal Government in court when they had been wronged by government regulations. As originally designed, EAJA would reimburse small businesses, seniors and veterans for successfully challenging the Federal Government in court when no other law provided for that reimbursement.

It was a good idea then, and it remains a good idea today. For 15 years, the law has worked mostly as intended; but over time, cracks in the system have formed. In updating EAJA, it has become necessary to repair those cracks and to ensure EAJA's viability into the future. Three issues need to be resolved:

First, we need to ensure that our Nation's veterans, seniors, and small businesses have access to qualified attorneys. Right now, EAJA puts up unnecessary roadblocks to these legitimate users;

Second, we need to close loopholes that have allowed EAJA to be exploited by those dissatisfied with the reimbursements provided for them in the Nation's environmental laws;

Finally, we must reinstate tracking and reporting requirements so that Congress and every American has an accurate accounting of how much taxpayer money we spend to reimburse attorneys.

All three of those issues are addressed in H.R. 1996, the Government Litigation Savings Act; but this amendment, the one we are debating right now, only addresses the third issue--the transparency gap in

I thank the gentlelady from New York.

Madam Chairman, I wish to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

Mr. Speaker, before the financial crisis, the Fed's lending to the financial system was minimal, and monetary policy was limited; but since 2008, they've tripled their balance sheet and transacted nearly $16 trillion in loans.

Clearly, Congress has delegated monetary policy to the Fed; and I, for one, am not advocating that we abolish the Fed. But Congress retains oversight responsibility, and Congress should insist on an accurate accounting of the Fed so Members of Congress can better understand monetary policy.

Our colleague, Ron Paul, was instrumental in getting an audit of the Fed's emergency activities during the financial crisis, but restrictions remain in place on examining monetary policy actions such as quantitative easing and assisting failing banks in Europe.

When the Fed's cumulative lending hits the size and scope to be greater than the entire GDP of the United States, it's past time for Congress to insist on transparency.

I thank the gentleman for inviting me to participate, although a non-physician, the only non-physician here.

I thank Dr. Harris, and I want to thank Dr. Cassidy. I have seen Dr. Cassidy in the cloakroom talking on the phone, pro bono, to patients that he used to serve in Louisiana, and I have seen other members of our Doctors Caucus do the same thing.

These are people who care about their patients. And even though they're here, working for the people of the United States and their district, and not compensated financially, they are still here caring about their patients, working without compensation, pro bono, to help people that they used to serve, to make sure their lives are better and their health care is better.

So I want to compliment the physicians in this conference who have made such a difference to my life and to other people's health care lives, and I want to thank them for serving in Congress. They make a huge difference in the dialogue, the debate, the nurturing, the care, the tenderness, and in what we all experience because of their training and because of their love of the people of this country and the manner in which they serve their patients.

Mr. Speaker, I was the State treasurer of my State. I have seen Medicaid and other programs soak up the compensation that taxpayers in every State provide through taxes to their States, preventing States from being able to allocate more money to education and other State- based functions, and Medicaid is definitely one of them. In addition, States care for their working poor. States want to see their low- income, Medicaid-eligible people have access to high-quality health care and support the Medicaid program but to not support it in a way that requires these rigid handcuffs on States in a one-size-fits-all program that prevents States from innovating and from providing quality care to their people.

Case in point: My State of Wyoming has the smallest population in the Nation. As a consequence, we have the opportunity to study things that other States cannot study because their populations are so large. My State of Wyoming, through its own health care commission, studied every single Medicaid-eligible child under the age of 18. It determined that it would be over 2\1/2\ times cheaper to buy each one of those children a standard Blue Cross-Blue Shield policy than it would be to provide health care through Medicaid.

These are the kinds of things that States are studying, that they are learning, that they are innovating. Furthermore, there are places in the country that are dealing with different health care problems than other places in the country.

Case in point: The Rocky Mountain West has a much higher incidence of multiple sclerosis than has other parts

of the United States. No one knows why, but it's a fact. So Wyoming and other Rocky Mountain States should be able to concentrate on MS. Other States, perhaps Southern States, may have more problems with diabetes.

I recently was in Saudi Arabia. There is a tremendous diabetes problem there. They are spending tremendous amounts of money at their brand new higher education university, at which they partner with businesses, in order to study diabetes in a way that will help the great number and growing number of people who are affected by diabetes.

These should be things that regions of our country are allowed to work together on and to create programs for in order to innovate and to be the great incubators of innovation that States are. So that's why I do want to compliment the U.S. Supreme Court in the portion of the decision on ObamaCare that provided that States do not have to be held hostage under the ObamaCare law, that they do not have to expand beyond the original intent of the Medicaid-eligible population to accommodate its expansion under the ObamaCare law. They can still concentrate, if they choose, on the Medicaid-eligible population as it exists today and can continue to provide quality Medicaid to low-income, eligible constituents within their States.

That doesn't mean they should be under the same constraints they are under now to provide Medicaid to their populations--because of the variance and the kinds of diseases that are cropping up in different parts of the country and because of the different innovations that States are able to use if they are not constrained by the shackles of the Federal one size fits all.

I want to thank the physicians in our conference for continuing to raise these issues, to discuss these issues. You discuss them to the benefit of those of us who are not physicians who serve with you in Congress. You discuss these issues to the benefit of the people to whom you provide health care in this Nation, and you do it as a service to the people of this country. I thank all of the physicians who are here tonight to discuss this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I'm pleased to work with Representative Berg on this amendment, which will protect our nuclear triad from the reductions scheduled under this treaty for the term of this 2013 budget year. Each leg of our nuclear triad--bombers, submarines, and land-based missiles--complement each other and they strengthen each other.

As a lifelong resident of southeast Wyoming, I have come to understand and appreciate the role of our intercontinental ballistic missiles. The 90th Missile Wing in Cheyenne keeps 150 of our ICBMs at nearly 100 percent alert. The bombers and subs have their own unique strengths, but no other leg of the triad comes close to this alert level. The constant alert, wide geographic dispersion and immediate, global response capability of our ICBMs make them an indispensable part of our triad.

ICBMs are the most cost-effective leg of the triad as well. At less than $3 million per ICBM, they are less than a third of the cost of a sub-launched missile or a nuclear bomber. It's because of ICBMs that we can say with confidence that we are fielding a nearly unbeatable nuclear force.

Those that want to slash our nuclear force forget that it was American strength that ended the Cold War. It was American strength, including the Peacekeeper and Minuteman III missiles, that allowed us to negotiate landmark reductions in American and Russian nuclear arsenals. Remember, we were able to retire the Peacekeeper missile silos in Wyoming. It was a victory for global stability; but we did it through American strength, not through unilateral disarmament.

That's what makes the New START Treaty so troubling. It is bilateral in name only. The United States bound itself to unilateral reductions in strategic nukes, but Russia can still expand its strategic arsenal. Russia can stack their bombers to the hilt with warheads and call it a single-delivery vehicle. Russia can deploy an unlimited number of the tactical nuclear weapons under which they hold an advantage. Russia can develop new, long-range nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. With New START, we negotiated away American strength and received little in return.

It is dangerous to assume that our nuclear competitors have the same motives and ideals that we do. If we roll over and capitulate to the demands of our competitors, we cannot assume that Russia, China, and Iran will follow. But if we maintain our strengths and our unbeatable nuclear posture, we will be far more effective at securing the peace that we all want.

Again, I want to thank Representative Berg and Mr. Rehberg. I encourage you to vote against unilateral disarmament. Vote for our amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let's review the top 10 reasons why ObamaCare is wrong for women:

Higher insurance costs--that's already happening; 20 new taxes-- that's coming; the likely loss of your current insurance--we know that's coming; losing dependent coverage--that's already happening; employers losing rights of conscience over morally offensive procedures--already in litigation; the overwhelming of the Medicaid programs that are in States that participate in the extension; loss of control over family health care decisions; doctor shortages--a real concern in my State of Wyoming; employers cutting back work hours for their employees to 25 hours a week to avoid the costly mandate; loss of child-only health insurance policies; and, now, $210 billion added to the deficit over 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, Congress passed a bad law. The President signed a bad law. The Supreme Court upheld a bad law. Let's repeal it.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the Bishop amendment strikes environmental mitigation funding that has no place in this bill. This is a Homeland Security bill. We spend this money to protect the homeland and secure our borders. These are some of the most important responsibilities we have as a Congress under our Constitution.

But this money won't go to border security. This money will go to pay off Federal agencies just so the Border Patrol can access public lands.

Our Border Patrol is locked out of huge swaths of public lands along our border unless they fork over tax dollars for environmental mitigation. So we, the Congress, under the auspices of border security, are spending the people's hard-earned money on a slush fund for land managers.

Just to name a few examples, agencies have demanded this money to monitor bats, to monitor pronghorn antelope--my State of Wyoming has three times more antelope than people--and in one case, to protect the endangered ocelot, which hasn't even been seen in the area for 20 years.

This is madness. If you want to protect the species and ecosystems along the border, then secure the border. Rampant border crossings across wilderness do more damage than our Border Patrol ever could.

We need to eliminate restrictions on the Border Patrol's access to Federal land, not enable them. If you want to stop this extortion of border security dollars, vote for the Bishop amendment. This puts money toward air and marine interdiction.

And if you want environmental mitigation, put it in the Interior bill where it belongs, and where Congress can keep track of where the money goes, and where land managers have to justify it.

Let our Border Patrol do its job. Vote for the Bishop amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I first want to thank my colleague, Representative Hinojosa from Texas, for joining me in this amendment.

Now here is an undisputed fact: Today, the United States imports more than 90 percent of our uranium from foreign countries. Some of them don't like us very much. We have an ample supply of uranium in the West and across this country. A lack of supply is not the problem.

We import that much uranium for two reasons: First, accidents that happened decades ago cooled interest in nuclear energy in our country, so companies slowed down their production. But here is the second reason: Just as our domestic energy began to recover from these disasters, our own government started dumping into the market excess uranium it has stockpiled.

DOE uses the stockpile to raise funds for itself for various purposes--a fact that this Appropriations subcommittee has been concerned about for quite some time. Every time the Federal Government dumps its excess stockpile into the market, it depresses the price of uranium. Depressed uranium prices halt private investment in domestic mining and conversion and hurt American jobs in the West and in the Midwest.

Being reasonable folks, the uranium miners have agreed to accept that the Department of Energy can dump into the market up to 10 percent of domestic demand for uranium. That has been the consensus approach since 2008. However, last month, the DOE departed from the consensus and announced that it would dump into the market a volume of uranium that is overwhelming in its scope--9,000 tons--an amount that is orders of magnitude greater than 10 percent of domestic demand.

That is what my amendment today seeks to end--the price-distorting dumping of uranium in the open market above what has been the consensus in the uranium industry for years and above a level that can be weathered by U.S. companies offering U.S. jobs in uranium mining.

Now here is where my amendment gets politically sticky. High-profile Members of Congress from the Midwest are trying to protect 1,200 jobs for 1 year at the United States Enrichment Corporation facility in Kentucky. Let me be clear. I don't want jobs lost in Paducah, Kentucky, but I also don't want jobs lost in Wyoming and in the West.

I want my colleagues to understand this. While the actions of the Department of Energy may help save 1,200 jobs for 1 year in Kentucky, it will also end 1,200 jobs in the West and Midwest for much longer than that. So the Department of Energy's dump onto the

open market of $815 million worth of uranium to further bail out a failing private company, USEC, will result in no net savings of jobs. Over $800 million to save no net jobs is a stunningly bad investment.

The good news is that we can protect jobs in Kentucky and in the West at the same time. We do not have to choose. Here is how. Vote for this bipartisan amendment. If my amendment passes, the DOE will still transfer 62 percent of the 9,000 tons of depleted uranium before my amendment even takes effect.

After that, DOE can still continue its transfers, just under a reasonable cap that doesn't destroy domestic uranium mining and conversion in the process.

Here are the facts: My amendment does not halt work at any of USEC's failing sites; it does not prevent transfers for national security purposes; it does not halt the cleanup of sites in Ohio. In fact, my amendment provides a way for all of these projects to move forward efficiently and fairly.

The bottom line is this: We do not need to sacrifice jobs in Wyoming or Illinois to support jobs in Kentucky. That is a false choice. We can do both, and that is exactly what my amendment does.

I implore my colleagues to give DOE's actions careful thought here. DOE's plan is a market distorting government intrusion into the private market. We cannot stop it in full, but we can rein it in next year in a way that is fair to every single stakeholder in this debate.

I ask my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.