Floor Statements

I appreciate the chairman yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to begin the long process of amending--hopefully improving, and if that is not possible, at some point in time, repealing--the Affordable Care Act.

The President, as everybody knows by now, repeatedly said that if you like your health insurance, you can keep it. Well, it has been proven that even when he said it, that was not true. Yesterday, the President admitted as much when he said for the next year he would try to honor that promise, if only in the breach.

The Upton bill actually correctly honors that promise in the correct way by legislatively saying that insurance can continue to provide these private policies--and I would assume some employer-sponsored policies--regardless of whether they meet the new minimum standards under the Affordable Care Act. The bill does not require insurance companies to do so, but it does allow them to do so. As sponsors of the bill, it is our hope that many companies will do so. It is a reasonable expectation that millions of Americans, given that choice, will actually keep the plans that they have and that they like.

At some point in time, though, Mr. Speaker--this bill is not the end of the process; it is the beginning--we need to come back and fix the rest of the law or perhaps even change it or repeal it.

I have a bill that I hope will be brought to the floor at some point in the near future that will make ObamaCare voluntary. Let the American people choose what parts of the new law they like, and if they decide they don't like some parts or all of the law, they wouldn't be compelled--mandated--to continue to use some of these new policies.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Upton and Subcommittee Chairman Pitts for bringing this bill so expeditiously to the floor. I would hope that we can have a unanimous vote in support of it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Michael R. Linn as the new CEO Emeritus of the National Independent Automobile Dealers Association (NIADA) that is headquartered in Arlington, Texas, in my district.

Prior to his new position, Mr. Linn served as the CEO of NIADA from 1999 to 2013. Under his leadership, membership rose beyond 20,000 members. In addition, NIADA added significant value to the automotive industry with its legislative and regulatory presence in the Nation's capitol. Expanded education programs, which include the Certified Master Dealer (CMD) Program and Certified F&I Professional Program, have greatly enhanced the professionalism of the industry. In 2004, the NIADA Educational Television Network (NIADA-TV) was created to better educate the nation's automotive dealers. In 2006, another educational TV network, Automotive Consumer Television, was developed to also educate consumers about the motor vehicle industry. All of these occurred during Mr. Linn's tenure. He also currently serves as a Board Member on the National Automotive Advisory Board at Northwood University in Midland, Michigan.

Prior to joining NIADA, Mr. Linn served as the Executive Director of the Carolinas Independent Automobile Dealers Association that serves the industry in both North and South Carolina. With over 26 years of extensive experience in the motor vehicle industry, he is extremely knowledgeable of industry issues and the issues facing today's professional automobile dealer.

Prior to working in the motor vehicle industry, Mr. Linn enjoyed a career in the motion picture and television industry as an Executive Producer. He is a graduate of LaSalle University with a Masters Degree in Business Administration (MBA) and is a Certified Program Planner. He has written several training manuals on the car rental industry, Federal labor laws and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations. Michael Linn is a native of North Carolina.

The National Independent Automobile Dealers Association, founded in 1946, has represented the used motor vehicle industry for over 67 years. NIADA's mission is to assist its members in becoming more successful within the automotive industry by bringing valuable information, services and benefits designed to prepare them for an ever-changing and ever-challenging marketplace.

Again, congratulations to Michael Linn as the new CEO Emeritus of

Madam Speaker, I rise to announce to my colleagues in the House that I just introduced H.R. 3348, the ObamaCare Choice Act of 2013.

This is a simple 1\1/2\-page bill. It simply lets the American people choose for the next year whether they want to participate in what we commonly call ObamaCare. If it is as good as the President says it is, people will join and get the benefits from it. If, on the other hand, they can't get the software fixed, the policy mandates are unsustainable, and the costs are too high, the American people will choose not to participate. It is a simple bill that makes participation voluntary by suspending the tax for nonparticipation.

So I would encourage all of my colleagues to join as a cosponsor of H.R. 3348, the ObamaCare Choice Act of 2013.

Mr. Speaker, we're seeing an interesting dialogue today in the 1-minutes.

Last week, House Republicans brought to the floor a bill before the shutdown to pay our military. Both sides totally supported that, the Senate accepted it, and the President signed the bill. So that's law.

Early this week, after the shutdown occurred, House Republicans brought to the floor to fund the Veterans Administration, to fund National Institutes of Health research, to fund and open our national parks. My friends on the other side of the aisle--most of them, not all--voted ``no'' against that and called it a gimmick.

Today we brought a bill to the floor, the House Republicans, once the shutdown is over, to pay furloughed workers. Again, on that one today, both sides embraced it and said it's a good thing. Now my friends on the Democratic side are getting up and arguing against themselves.

We want to open the government. We want to end this. But we want to keep as much of the government functioning while we do it.

Will the gentleman yield?

Well, I thank the gentleman from Oregon. I am not going to be demagogic. I certainly respect the comments of the gentleman from Oregon and the gentleman of California. I was actually going to pay the gentleman from California a compliment.

I just wanted the country to know these are serious issues and there are differences of opinion based on philosophy, but there are not personality conflicts. The gentleman from California was gracious enough several weeks ago to invite me into his home for a meal. He makes a delicious grilled chicken and is quite the chef, and I just wanted to thank him. And at the appropriate time after the gentleman from Oregon and the gentleman from California have made their points, if they would like to enter into a little bit of just an honest policy debate, I would be happy to do that. But I know it is the gentleman from Oregon's time, and I don't want to take away from that.

Mr. Speaker, for the last hour, the minority in the House, the Democrat Party, has had the right to speak to the American people in their leadership Special Hour. I think the gentleman from Oregon and the gentleman from California did a good job of presenting the side of the story as they viewed it.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, the late Paul Harvey had a radio program for many, many years that many of us listened to, and in that radio program he would tell us ``The Rest of the Story.''

Well, Mr. Speaker, for the next hour, those of us on the majority side, the Republican side--most of us from Texas, although we're going to have some friends from Michigan and perhaps from Florida, too--are going to tell you the other side of the story, the rest of the story. And let's start by discussing this continuing mantra from the minority side that we ought to just bring up the clean continuing resolution, or CR, from the other body, the Senate, and life would be perfect.

Well, Mr. Speaker, there's one tiny, small problem with that. And that is,

Mr. Speaker, that that continuing resolution funds the discretionary part of something that is legally called the Affordable Care Act, but most people in the United States are now calling it ObamaCare.

Mr. Speaker, ObamaCare is a huge new entitlement. It's not just another Federal program. It changes, fundamentally, the way we practice medicine in the United States of America. It changes, fundamentally, the rights of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, ObamaCare mandates--forces--every American to have health insurance, whether they want it or whether they need it. It's a huge new right taken away, a freedom. Heretofore, we've said that people had the right to choose whether they wanted health insurance or not. And now we're going to tell them, at the Federal level, they to have it. That is not a trivial right to take away from the American people.

Mr. Speaker, the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, mandates that every employer that has at least 50 employees must provide health insurance. Heretofore, health insurance had been considered a fringe benefit. Some employers provided it, some employers did not. Now, according to the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, you have to provide health insurance.

What that's done, Mr. Speaker, is caused many small businesses to reduce their workforce, to change their work hours. Many employees that were full-time, 40-hour employees, have become 20- or less than 30-hour part-time employees. Again, a huge change in the way Americans have conducted their business.

Mr. Speaker, there are many mandates in the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, that relate to how you practice medicine. Many health care practitioners have told me in my district that they're not going to practice. They're going to retire. They're not going to put up with all the mandates. They're not going to put up with all of the paperwork. Again, something that is fundamentally changing the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, in the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, there are all kinds of mandates on what has to be included in insurance, how the insurance companies have to provide it, what premiums they can charge. Because of this, Mr. Speaker, many insurance companies have raised their premiums. Many insurance companies have changed their policies. Again, a fundamental change.

So, Mr. Speaker, when our friends in the minority on the other side say, Just bring up a clean CR and we'll vote for it, they don't point out that that clean CR includes funding for ObamaCare. It is, again, a fundamental change, Mr. Speaker. Most of us on the Republican side, the majority side, don't want that. We want the freedom to choose.

I would ask my friends on the minority side, if ObamaCare is so great, why does it have to be mandatory? Let's make it voluntary.

Republicans happen to support many of the things in it. We support coverage for preexisting conditions. We support allowing young adults to stay on their parents' life insurance until they reach the age of 26. We support the concept of the public exchanges. In the Republican alternative, when ObamaCare was passed, we had something called ``co- ops.'' Not exactly like these health exchanges, but certainly similar.

So, again, if this act is so good and so great and everybody loves it, let's make it voluntary. How about making it voluntary for a year and just let the people choose? If these health exchanges are great, people are going to flock to them. If all of these mandates are really worthwhile, make them voluntary based on free choice and the market, and most of those will be accepted and implemented. So that might be an alternative at some point in time to consider. Take all the mandates away, leave the structure of the law, and let the American people choose whether they wish to participate.

Mr. Speaker, there is another side to this story. In the next 50 or 55 minutes, the Texas delegation on the Republican side, with some help from friends in other States, are going to tell you the other side of the story.

With that, I would like to yield to Congressman Weber from Friendswood, Texas.

Thank you, Congressman Weber.

Before I yield to my friend from far north Texas, Mr. Benishek, of the First District of Michigan, I want to read into the Record a comment that I received on my Facebook page. Now, most of these comments are from Texans, some of them are not. I'm not sure of the location of this gentleman, Mr. Dave Guss, Jr. This is a Facebook page comment received yesterday or this morning:

Just got a letter from my provider that my policy will end

and I need to purchase a new one. When I called and asked

why, I was told that my current policy does not meet the

required coverage for ObamaCare because it has no prenatal

coverage. I am a male. The new policy will cost me $500 a

month, the old one I had was $200 a month.

We have a number of these stories, Mr. Speaker, that I will be putting into the Record as this Special Order continues. But now I would like to yield to the gentleman from the First District of Michigan (Mr. Benishek).

I thank the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Florida, I want to read two more comments into the record from my Facebook page.

The first one is from Kevin Hussey, H-U-S-S-E-Y. Kevin says:

It's doubled my premiums. Simply put, how is that

``affordable?''

And Laren Engel Schmude comments:

My mom is facing having her hours cut, or being laid off

all together, not to mention that her company is dropping

health insurance for part-time employees all together.

Again, these are comments from folks on my Facebook page.

I would also like to point out that my wife, Terri Barton, is the marketing director for Ennis Regional Medical Center in our hometown of Ennis, Texas, and it is her job to help the hospital get ready to implement ObamaCare. I have texted her this morning and asked her how that is going, and she has replied that the counselors are all trained and they are ready to help if people call in wanting to sign up. Ennis Regional Medical Center is a certified application center, but so far very few people have called and tried to sign up.

That is on the front lines. Ennis Regional Medical Center is a hospital approximately, I think, 60 or 70 beds, in a town of approximately 18,000 people, in the suburbs of Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas. It is on the front lines of ObamaCare as we implement it, if we do implement it.

With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida, Congressman Yoho.

I thank the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I want to read a couple of more comments from my Facebook page that have come in in the last days.

This is from a gentleman named Richard Lay:

Since ObamaCare my insurance rates have gone through the

roof. Every teacher I know has seen their monthly insurance

rates increase by more than $200 to $300 per month. One

teacher's went up by $400.

Mr. Anthony Rhodes from Arlington, Texas writes:

My rates have increased over 15 percent a year for the last

3 years. Last year and 3 years ago, my deductibles also went

up 20 and 50 percent respectively. There has been nothing

affordable about my health care for the last 3 years. I have

less coverage and it costs me more, and even if I wanted to

cancel it, I am better off paying the high prices because I

get hit with a penalty tax if I cancel. I get fighting mad

just thinking about the mess of legislation that was passed

so that we could ``find out what's in it.''

With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from the 11th District of Texas, Mr. Mike Conaway, from Midland, Texas.

I thank the gentleman.

Before I yield to the Congressman from the Fourth District of Texas (Mr. Hall), let me read a few more comments into the Record from my Facebook page.

This is from Kevin Jones:

It hasn't hurt me yet, but it will. I don't have medical

insurance; don't want medical insurance; don't need medical

insurance. I pay my own way. Because I am self-pay, I am able

to negotiate some nice discounts on my medical bills.

ObamaCare will just be another tax on me.

This is from a lady named Theresa Stone:

I had a job that I did well in, but because I was expensive

and getting old--I'm turning 54 in January--to save money, I

was let go in February for absolutely bogus reasons. I am

collecting unemployment, but that ends in January. I lost my

insurance when I lost my job. I can't afford my bills--house,

food and insurance--so I am uncovered. I will never sign up

for ObamaCare--ever.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from Rockwall, Texas, the Fourth District of Texas, Mr. Ralph Hall, a decorated World War II veteran and, in my opinion, the absolutely nicest man in this Congress.

I thank the gentleman from the Fourth District.

I would point out to the Speaker that, yesterday, Congressman Hall was one of the Texas Congressmen who went to the World War II Memorial to make sure that our veterans on their honor flight were allowed in to see it.

I want to read one more email into the Record before I yield to the gentleman from Flower Mound, Texas, Dr. Burgess. This has come in as we've been doing this Special Order, Mr. Speaker.

Katie Hoffman of Minneapolis, Minnesota, says:

Hi, Joe. Keep up the good battle today. I am tuned in to C-

SPAN with a close eye. I received notice last week under the

Affordable Health Care Act that my insurance will be doubling

almost from $113 a month to $207 a month. I am a 35,

nonsmoking, healthy female. Who am I paying for? I've had

enough. I'm working hard to cover the non-working society--

frustrated. Keep up the fight.

Then one more from a gentleman named Tim Ruschi:

Dear Representative Barton, I just want to express my

support for your efforts. I am watching you right now on C-

SPAN. My wife and I received a certified letter recently from

our insurance provider, Cigna, informing us that our health

insurance plan is being dissolved, effective January 1, 2014.

I believe the President knew he was lying when he boldly

proclaimed many times that, if people liked their insurance

coverage, they could keep it--period. He knew or should have

known full well that the Affordable Care Act would cause many

insurance plans to shut down, and now this has become the sad

reality. I cannot trust anything the President or this

administration says anymore.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from Flower Mound, Texas, in Denton County, Texas, Dr. Michael Burgess.

If I may let the Speaker know, this was an email sent to me from an American citizen. I was just reading something an American citizen wrote. These are not my remarks.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining in this Special Order?

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to Mr. Stockman, I want to apologize to the House for reading into the Record comments from citizens of the United States exercising their First Amendment rights. One of those citizens made a disparaging remark about the President of the United States, and we understand that Members, ourselves, cannot personalize these issues. Some of our citizens that are commenting don't understand the rules, but I do, and I want to apologize to the House because I do understand the rules.

I now yield to Congressman Stockman.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, to my friends in the body, this is a serious issue. ObamaCare, or the Affordable Care Act, as I said at the start, is a huge new entitlement. At a minimum, we would have a real debate about it. As has been pointed out, it barely passed the House on a partisan vote. No Republicans voted for it, and some Democrats, I think, voted against it. I think it passed by one or two votes. It passed the Senate only because they were able to get around the 60-vote requirement to end debate. It is the law of the land, but it was passed with all Democratic votes and no Republican votes.

Before it is fully implemented, I think it is worthy of a debate and it is worthy of the type of situation that's going on now. As I said at the top of this Special Order, if the Affordable Care Act is such a great thing, let's make it voluntary for the next year and let the American people choose whether they want to implement it as it is currently structured. If they don't, let's work together, hopefully on a bipartisan basis, Mr. Speaker, to change it.

No one wants the Federal Government to shut down. That's obvious. The Republicans in the House are bringing bills to the floor on a daily basis to try

to open up as much of the Federal Government as is possible. Our friends on the Democrat side some days are with us on that and some days are not. They were with us today on paying furloughed Federal workers when they come back to work. Hopefully, next week, they will be with us on paying the veterans, opening the VA, the national parks, funding cancer research, and some of the things that earlier this week they were against.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time does the gentleman from New York control at this point in time?

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. I am the chairman emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee and back in 2006 passed the reauthorization of the NIH, which authorized increased funding, set up some new programs, reformed the agency, and was viewed at that time as a landmark for the NIH.

The bill before us today would fund the functions of the NIH for the next fiscal year. We all agree with the programs that NIH is engaged in, trying to find cures for cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease, lung disease, autism, you name it.

Unfortunately, yesterday, apparently the majority leader in the Senate doesn't agree with that. He was asked by a CNN reporter named Dana Bash about supporting this particular bill. The Senator gave a somewhat negative answer, so the reporter came back: ``But if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn't you do it?'' The answer from the majority leader was: ``Why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force Base that are sitting at home. They have a few problems of their own. This is--to have someone of your intelligence to suggest such a thing maybe means you're irresponsible and reckless.'' The reporter responded: ``I'm just asking a question.''

Mr. Speaker, we should pass this resolution, notwithstanding what the majority leader in the other body says. It is very straightforward. I think in any normal situation there would be bipartisan support for this. Ms. DeLauro and Mr. Kingston have worked very hard on a bipartisan basis. I am not aware that there are any real concerns about the funding that haven't been worked out in the committee. This is an example of bipartisanship that is working. There is absolutely no reason why we can't put our differences aside and pass this resolution. I ask that we support it at the appropriate time.

I thank the gentleman from Houston.

Mr. Speaker, last night we voted to go to conference with the other body. Our friends on the minority side opposed that. And the leadership in the other body refused to appoint conferees.

This afternoon we brought three bills to the floor on the suspension calendar to open our national parks, to give the District of Columbia the local funds that it rightly deserves, and to fund our veterans. These bills are under suspension, which means they need to come to the floor and get a two-thirds vote. We can't pass these bills if my friends on the minority side don't vote for them.

And I would point out, on the District of Columbia, the last time the voters of the District of Columbia voted for a Republican for President, his name was Abraham Lincoln in 1864. We need to pass these bills. We're just trying to help.

I would point out that being in the minority party does not mean you have to be automatically the opposition party. Let's do what makes sense, what's the right thing to do. Vote for the veterans bill, and vote for the other two bills on suspension. We cannot pass them if our friends on the minority side, some of them don't vote for these bills.

I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee as I rise in support of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, it is past midnight. Officially, the government is shut down. That is not a good thing, whether you're a Republican or a Democrat. We have been arguing politically the last several weeks various proposals to fund the government short term in a continuing resolution. We've been having some debates on the debt ceiling. If you're like me, most of your constituents, regardless of whether they're Republicans or Democrats, they're saying, Why can't you guys just get together in Washington and work things out. I think the Republican leadership in the House has been trying to do that. I know there's some disagreement on the other side about that.

In any event, we've come up with the novel idea of going to conference. I know a lot of the junior Members on both sides of the aisle don't know what a conference is. It's where the Speaker of the House and the House minority leader each appoint a certain number of Members, normally senior Members of the committee of jurisdiction, and the Senate Majority Leader and the Senate minority leader appoint Members of their respective parties. If they actually do it, according to regular order, lo and behold, the Members meet and they discuss things.

House Republicans would put a proposal on the table, House Democrats would; Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans. They would argue over it and debate it, maybe amend it. Then you take a vote. The House Members vote. If they agree, that's the House position, if the majority agrees. The Senate votes, and if they agree, that's the Senate position. If they don't agree, they have a stalemate. At least we'd be talking, and it would be Members, not leadership, rank-and-file Members. And it's just possible, if they open the conference, C-SPAN could cover it and the American people could see what's going on. There's no preordained outcome, Mr. Speaker, but it would be good for democracy.

I can see no reason why my friends on the minority side don't want to go to conference with the Senate. I would assume that the distinguished ranking member, Nita Lowey, would head the Democrat conferees and that Hal Rogers, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, would head us. That's up to the Speaker and the minority leader to appoint that, but I assume that. I trust them. We can disagree on what the solution is, but for Heaven's sake, I can't see why we can't agree that actually doing what the rules say we should do is somehow partisan and somehow is a negative thing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule, and I rise in strong support of the resolution that we should go to conference with the other body and hopefully make it an expeditious conference and work this out.

I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Murphy amendment, and I also want to say we should vote for that in conjunction with the gentleman from Georgia's amendment that was just heard previously.

If you walk into a greenhouse anywhere in America, do you know what the average carbon concentration will be? It won't be 350 parts per million. It won't be 400 parts per million. It will be over 1,000 parts per million. We have records that indicate the CO2 concentration in the upper atmosphere has been as high as 5,000 to 6,000 parts per million in the past.

The gentleman from California and those adherents of his philosophy would have you believe that having a carbon concentration between 350 and 400 parts per million is somehow cataclysmic. Nothing could be further from the truth.

And this new cost of carbon calculation that the EPA and the DOE have begun to include needs to be, at a minimum, made transparent. I think it's fine until we have the facts that it shouldn't be allowed at all.

So vote for the Murphy amendment.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Chair, this is not about how sincere the NSA people are in implementing this technique. It is not about how careful they are. It is whether they have the right to collect the data in the first place on every phone call on every American every day.

The PATRIOT Act did not specifically authorize it. Section 215 talks about tangible things that are relevant to an authorized security investigation. In the NSA's interpretation of that, ``relevant'' is all data all the time. That is simply wrong. We should support the Amash amendment and vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for the energy and water appropriation bill.

This, historically, has been one of the first appropriation bills brought to the floor. I'd like to inform the Members that, as is the practice of the Republicans in the majority, it's an open rule, and there are a number of amendments that will be made. It's my understanding that any individual who wishes to offer an amendment can come to the floor and do so.

The bill is coming in at $30.4 billion, which is $2.9 billion below fiscal 2013 enacted and $4 billion below the President's request, so the Appropriations Committee is operating in compliance with the House budget that we passed several months ago.

This is a good rule. It's a good bill. I would hope that we can support the rule and obviously support the bill.

I would like to also add an editorial comment on the student loan rate issue.

Obviously, we want those interest rates to be as low as possible. But I would point out to my friends on the other side of the aisle that the House passed a bill; it's waiting to be brought up in the other body. They can bring it up tomorrow and vote it, send it to the President for his signature.

Apparently, the great sin in the House-passed bill appears to be that it moves towards an adjustable rate interest rate as opposed to a fixed rate that is below market rates. We would all like to have zero percent interest, obviously.

I'm told you have all kinds of time, so I will not yield, but I appreciate you wanting to ask me to.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of Chairman Frelinghuysen's opposition to the Heck amendment.

We have heard quite a bit of rhetoric on the floor the last 10 minutes about Yucca Mountain, and I understand my colleagues from Nevada's opposition to a project in their State or their district that was somewhat unilaterally sited there. I will accept that the process by which Yucca Mountain was initially chosen was a political process and was not done the way the original Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 said it should be done.

Having said that, we have collected about $30 billion over the last 30-some-odd years from ratepayers whose electricity is generated by safe, efficient, clean nuclear power--$30 billion. We have spent upwards of $20 billion drilling a tunnel in Yucca Mountain, studying the geology, the hydrology, the environment. My understanding is that the tunnel is completed.

In 2010, unilaterally, the Obama administration decided to shut the project down. It is debatable whether they did that legally or not.

Having said that, the bill that's coming out of the Appropriations Subcommittee, all it does is allocate money that has already been collected to go ahead and finish the site review at Yucca Mountain to determine whether it is, in fact, a safe place to store high-level nuclear waste.

Now, keep in mind that we have over 100 operating nuclear reactors around the country today, and the waste that they generated is stored onsite--stored onsite. There's good security. Most of it is stored in what are called ``wet pools.'' Almost everybody agrees that that's not a long-term solution.

I think the Congress on a bipartisan basis can agree that we ought to go ahead and finish the review of the Yucca Mountain site--$25 million does it. It has also allocated some funding in the bill to help the local government entities out there. Let's finally put this thing to rest.

The gentleman's amendment is well intentioned, but we need a centralized high-level repository. As of now, the most likely place is at Yucca Mountain. We have spent billions--billions of dollars--on that site. Let's spend another $25 million and finish the job.

I join Chairman Frelinghuysen in opposing the Heck amendment and hope the House also does that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Angie McDonald who retired on

Friday, June 7, 2013 after 23 years as a public school teacher. Angie, a constituent and resident of Mansfield, TX, was a teacher in the Mansfield Independent School District for 15 years and finished her career as a Reading Specialist serving all of the Mansfield-area high schools. Through her dedicated work teaching students how to overcome reading and writing deficiencies, she gave countless students a greater opportunity to excel academically and succeed professionally. The efforts of teachers like Angie are essential in promoting a more prosperous future for the next generation of Americans and our nation as a whole. I am extremely proud to have her as a constituent and cannot thank her enough for her 23 years of devotion to our children's prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the 6th Congressional District of Texas, I ask all my distinguished colleagues to join me in honoring Angie McDonald and her 23 years of selfless work as an educator. We must always recognize those who dedicate their careers to enriching the lives of our children.