Bill Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank the gentleman. At this time, we'll go to my colleague from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin).

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank my friend. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about how much time we have remaining.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I would like to now yield to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Olson).

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I yield now to my colleague from California (Mr. Valadao).

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we saw yet another sickening act of terror yesterday in Boston. It was a grim reminder that there is evil in the world. There are those with dark hearts and twisted ideologies bent on killing Americans because of who we are and the values we hold dear. Early reports indicate the bombs were packed with metal ball bearings to inflict maximum carnage on the innocent. One of the innocent was an 8-year-old boy found dead among the smoke, confusion, and blood. Eight years old. As we track down the killer or killers, let us pray for the victims and their families, and let us resolve to never take the freedoms we enjoy as Americans for granted, never take the service of those who protect our freedoms for granted, never forget those who've made the ultimate sacrifice, and never underestimate the lengths to which America's enemies will go to do us harm. But, Mr. Speaker, our enemies should never, ever underestimate America's resolve to hold accountable those responsible for this deadly attack.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we all want to prevent gun violence, but anything we do must start by respecting the Second Amendment. Sadly, a Member of this House ignored that constitutional right last week. She claimed that banning certain kinds of gun magazines would somehow stop killers from killing. She actually said that if Congress would ban gun magazines, they will simply disappear as they're used up. Of course, that's not true. You see, gun magazines are reloadable, much like a stapler. Mr. Speaker, I hope I can be an asset to my colleagues who may not know how guns work. As a gun owner and an Air Force veteran myself, I've actually exercised my Second Amendment rights. Perhaps those of us who understand the subject matter should lead the effort to stop gun violence. My colleague's poor understanding of guns will lead to poor policy. Here's some reading material to help bring her up to speed. It's called the Second Amendment. It says, ``The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.''

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, this week marks an anniversary that doesn't warrant celebration. Three years ago, President Obama's takeover of health care was signed into law. This mountain of stacked paper represents the 20,000 pages of new regulations in President Obama's new health care law. Each regulation represents another shackle on America's small businesses--our job creators. But don't take my word for it. Just ask the folks at two of Ohio's home health care employers, Interim Health Care in Bridgeport, who employs 300 hardworking Ohioans, or Comfort Keepers in East Liverpool, who employs another 230. Both companies tell me that President Obama's takeover of health care is causing them to seriously reconsider the ability to expand and hire more employees. In fact, they may not survive. These are just two companies in eastern Ohio. What about the thousands of small businesses across America? President Obama's health care law is a government red tape tower that's raising health care costs, limiting access to health care, and it's hurting job creation at a time when we need real economic growth.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, it was just over a week ago that we learned that the White House is being closed to public tours. Now the President attempts to justify this decision saying it's a Secret Service decision. I find this disturbingly ironic, coming from a President whose own Web site says that it is his mission to ``open up the House to as many people as possible,'' that he is accepting without objection the decision to prevent the American people from accessing the White House, their house, the people's house. Even during some of the darkest days of America's history, our 16th President, Abraham Lincoln, championed the policy of true open doors to the White House and governmental transparency. Contrast that with President Obama who is acquiescing to the exact opposite, closing the White House doors to the public. If the President is unable to help the Secret Service manage an 8.2 percent budget cut and still keep the people's house open, then the American people are entitled to some answers from their Chief Executive.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, President Obama needs to be truthful with the American people about his sequester. First and foremost, President Obama proposed the sequester. There's no denying that President Obama's sequester will have devastating effects on Ohio, America's military, and our national security. That's why House Republicans acted twice in 2012 to avoid this situation. But, unfortunately, President Obama chose politics over results. He chose to make campaign speeches rather than work with the Republican-controlled House and Democrat-controlled Senate to find commonsense solutions that would end Washington's spending addiction and bring America's debt under control. This is yet another prime example of President Obama's failure to lead, and it needs to change. Right now, President Obama's sequester is less than 60 hours away, and he's looking to blame somebody else to distract from his failure to lead. House Republicans stand ready to work with the President on commonsense solutions that work for the American people. President Obama simply needs to come to the table.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, just over 100 days ago, four Americans were murdered in cold blood during coordinated terrorist attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. These attacks were premeditated acts of war on America and the American way of life, committed by terrorists with ties to al Qaeda. This week, the Obama administration released a report as to exactly what happened surrounding these terrorist attacks. This report confirmed what we already knew: there was no protest outside the consulate on September 11. It also cites systemic failures in Embassy security, putting in danger the lives of every person at the compound in Benghazi. This report is an important step towards stopping another attack on America and American initiates overseas. But one thing remains clear: serious mistakes were made by senior officials here in Washington. Those mistakes cost American lives. There must be accountability.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank you for yielding. As a fledgling new Member of Congress in January of 2011, I realized right away that I had an awful lot to learn. And so many of our Ohio delegation reached out to me and gave me an arm around the shoulder, a nudge on the arm saying, Hey, we can work these things out; just hang in there. I've gotten to know each of our five departing Members from the Ohio delegation in their own unique way. I remember very early on leading up to the 2010 election coming to Washington to meet with some folks, and it was the first time that I met with Jean Schmidt. Jean graciously invited me into her office. We sat down. We talked about issues that are important to the people of her district. Her district borders my district, and we have a lot of common interests about that. We sat for an hour or more, and she gave me great insight into the kind of work that I would be doing, and I'm so appreciative of that. After coming to Washington and beginning to sit on the Foreign Affairs Committee, I sat right next to Jean. I saw her passion for fiscal issues, spending, issues around the sanctity of human life, around human rights. I saw how she went about the business of not only representing the people of her district, but representing the values that Americans stand for. To Congresswoman Schmidt, I just want to say: Jean, it has been a pleasure working with you. I agree that we haven't seen the last of you. I've enjoyed spending our days at the Bible study on Thursday mornings, and I wish you the very best in your future endeavors. I look forward to seeing you often. To Steve Austria, Steve is another one that reached out. As a 26\1/ 2\-year veteran of the Air Force, Wright-Paterson Air Force Base--it is important to the State of Ohio, that is true--but it's important to the Air Force and it's important to our Nation. And I've appreciated the work that Steve has done there. Steve might not realize this, but he trained many of the staff that I have today. I'm very pleased with the staff that I have here in Washington. Many of those that serve with me today serving the Sixth District of Ohio came through Steve Austria's office where they learned and where they saw the value of hard work in Steve Austria. I appreciate so much what Steve has done for our delegation. To Dennis Kucinich, I had seen Dennis many times on television prior to being elected myself. I have seen the interviews. Dennis was a known leader and political figure in the State of Ohio. People told me early on that you don't have to agree with everything that Dennis says, but one thing you will find out about Dennis is that he loves the people that he represents and he represents them well. You can learn a lot from Dennis Kucinich about constituent services. In the days since I've been here, one thing I've learned about Dennis as well is that he is always a gentleman. No matter what the issue, no matter what the crisis of the moment might be, Dennis would remain calm and would remain poised in the conversations that we've had, even though not necessarily agreeing on the issues, but certainly raising very valid points and doing so in a manner that befits the office. I want to thank Dennis for that. To Congresswoman Betty Sutton, I did not get a chance to work with Betty that often. We traveled back and forth on the same flights every now and then to Ohio. We served on the Natural Resources Committee together, but not on the same subcommittee. So I did not get a chance to spend an awful lot of time with Betty. But like so many of the other comments that you've heard, she represented her district well. She did it in a very professional manner. I want to thank her for her many years of service. Steve LaTourette, what can you really say about Steve LaTourette? I never once went to Steve and asked him a question and he said, Hey, can you come back and see me later? I don't have time. He was always willing to stop what he was doing and say, What can I do to help? What do you need to talk about? No matter what the issue, you could always count on Steve LaTourette being a voice of reason. I had, from time to time throughout my Air Force career, those rare leaders who could see beneath the fog and the friction of the battle to see clearly what the issues were. Steve LaTourette possesses that ability. He took me under his wing. He shared with me his wealth of knowledge about the legislative process, helped guide me through some really difficult issues here on the floor. He's so very well respected. One thing I admire most about Steve is it's so obvious that he is so respected by both sides of the aisle. That's a lesson that I think many of us could learn and take home. I can assure you that Steve LaTourette is going to be missed. I wish all of our departing Members from Ohio Godspeed, many blessings, and I've enjoyed serving with each and every one of you.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 604 I was unavoidably detained and therefore was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, this motion is nothing more than a distraction from the underlying legislation that we're considering today, and the journey that we began in January of 2011 to cut government spending, to create jobs and, today, to stop the administration's war on the coal industry. We, all of us in this Chamber, sat here a little over a year ago, and we heard an address by the Prime Minister of Australia. She started her speech off by saying, you know, I remember being a young girl, sitting on the floor of my living room watching as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the Moon. She went on to talk about that era of innovation in America, what that meant and how that inspired the rest of the world. Do we need to be reminded that it was the coal industry that fueled America's innovative engine and powered America's innovative wheels during that period of innovation? I don't think so. Today's underlying legislation, it's about the thousands of jobs that have already been cut from the coal industry, the thousands more that are in jeopardy to be cut from the coal industry. It's about the millions of Americans and America's businesses that are paying skyrocketing prices, 23 million Americans underemployed, and yet we've got an administration that wants to attack the very reliable energy source that would fuel a resurgence in manufacturing and put America back to work. Ladies and gentlemen, I implore to you, defeat this motion to recommit. Vote on the final passage of this legislation today. Let's get America back to work and stop the administration's war on coal. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. My colleague just commented on the Bush administration's rewrite of the Stream Buffer Zone rule that took 5 years. He qualified that as a ``midnight rewrite.'' My goodness, that was a really long night. It took 5 years to do it. Today, I rise in strong support of legislation that I've sponsored to stop the administration's job-destroying war on coal. This legislation is in direct response to the President's ongoing rewrite of the Stream Buffer Zone rule, a rule that, according to the administration's own estimates, would cost at least 7,000 direct jobs and potentially tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs. Mere days after assuming office, President Obama set out to rewrite this rule that will cost tens of thousands of jobs, cut coal production by up to 50 percent in America, and cause electricity rates to skyrocket even higher than the President has already pushed them. As we all know, the average utility bill for the middle class has risen over $300 a year because of this President's radical environmental policies. The last thing the middle class needs is their utility bills to go even higher. However, if the story ended there, it would be bad enough, but it doesn't end there. It actually gets much worse. The President's administration has deliberately tried to hide the truth about the cost of this rule to the American public. In fact, a Presidential appointee asked the contractors working on the rule to lie about the job loss numbers so the administration could convince the American public that this rule was good public policy. Thankfully, the contractors were men and women of character and would not lie for the administration. The President's administration then fired those contractors. The Natural Resources Committee has subpoenaed the administration for documents and audio recordings relating to the rule. Not surprisingly, as we have seen many times before, the President has failed to live up to his campaign promise of leading the most open and transparent government ever, because he has not allowed the administration to turn over the documents that we've asked for because he knows they will hurt his reelection prospects. This legislation is not about a sloppy and unethical rules process. This legislation is about saving tens of thousands of jobs for hardworking Americans, and it's about providing reliable and affordable energy resources for hardworking taxpayers and businesses all across America. Throughout the country, hardworking coal miners and utility plant workers are losing their jobs because of this President's radical environmental policies. Just this week, hundreds of coal miners were told they would lose their jobs because of the President's anticoal stance. Just today, a utility company announced that they would close a coal-fired power plant and hundreds more workers would lose their jobs. These job losses are in addition to the thousands of Ohioans in eastern and southeastern Ohio that have lost their jobs because of the President's radical policies.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. This legislation will bring a stop to the administration's war on coal by not only stopping the job-destroying rewrite of the Stream Buffer Zone rule, but it also contains four bipartisan bills that have already been passed through the House. I urge all of my colleagues to support this job-saving legislation.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. You know, it absolutely amazes me that our colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle can honestly, and with a straight face, stand up and say that this Republican-led House has not put forth jobs bills. There have been 40 jobs bills sent to the Senate from this House already. This is another jobs bill that is prepared to be sent to the Senate. I want to also remind my colleague that the Stream Buffer Zone rule that we're talking about here today, it took 5 years to put that rule in place. The administration went after that rule with a vengeance, without even seeing what the rule would do in terms of providing the protections that they're so adamantly arguing about right now. Instead, they used an environmental lawsuit to go after the coal industry and to undermine job creators all across America, and it's driving up America's energy prices. It's irresponsible. It's wrong. This amendment is only meant to distract the public from the job- killing policies of this administration. The gentleman from Massachusetts knows all too well that SMCRA was not written nor intended to deal with health issues. The gentleman's amendment would change the stated goal and reason for SMCRA completely and would duplicate laws and mandates that are already in the Federal code. The other side of the aisle also seems to think that they are the only Members of this body that are concerned about public health and the environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. I grew up on a two-wheel wagon rut mule farm, and I know the importance of having a clean and vibrant environment. I also have kids and grandkids, and I want to ensure that our generation leaves them with an environment healthier than the one our generation inherited; however, this legislation today is about balancing job creation and economic prosperity with sensible environmental regulations. This amendment does neither of those things, and I urge all of my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding me the balance of the time. It is mindboggling to sit here and listen to this. I've got to remind us again that we are talking about an administration that before they even came into office said they were going to bankrupt the coal industry. That's one promise that they have kept. It's an administration whose Vice President said in 2007 that coal is more dangerous than high fructose corn syrup and terrorists. That's the kind of reasoning that we are getting out of this administration. My colleague was quick to try and hold a math class here. Let's talk about a different set of numbers. Let's talk about the 7,000 direct jobs that are going to be cut--that are going to be lost--if this rule goes forward. Let's talk about the thousands of indirect jobs that are going to be lost as a result of this rule going forward. Let's talk about the 50 percent reduction in coal production across America when America is still dependent upon coal for the very energy that it needs to fuel the manufacturing that America does. Let's talk about those numbers if we want to talk about what it's going to do to America if this rule goes forward. Let's talk about the thousands of people who are going to be hurt when their families don't have jobs to go to. Let's talk about the checkbooks at the end of the month that don't balance because of increased, skyrocketing utility rates, and now Mom and Dad can't pay the bills, and they can't go buy a new pair of tennis shoes because they've got an electricity bill that's going off the charts. When we talk about something that's going to hurt the middle class, this rule is what will hurt the middle class. It's irresponsible. This amendment does nothing to move America forward. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to sponsor the Veterans Fiduciary Reform and Noble Service Act. This important legislation will transform the VA's fiduciary program to better serve the needs of our most vulnerable veterans and their hardworking fiduciaries; but most importantly, it will protect veterans in the program from falling victim to deceitful and criminal fiduciaries. Since our February hearing, hardly a week has gone by where the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee has not been contacted about a fiduciary issue. Many of these issues have involved honest and hardworking fiduciaries who are caught in the rigid bureaucratic trap that is the VA's fiduciary program. This bill will go a long way toward making that unyielding bureaucracy more responsive to the needs of the veterans that it is supposed to serve. We have heard many complaints about the requirement for fiduciaries to obtain a bond. While proper in some settings, it is inappropriate when it causes unnecessary hardship, such as a mother caring for her veteran son. This bill will require the VA to consider whether a bond is necessary and if it will adversely affect the fiduciary and the veterans he or she serves. The Veterans Fiduciary Program and Noble Service Act will also direct VA's Under Secretaries for Health and Benefits to coordinate their efforts to ensure that fiduciaries caring for their loved ones are not overly burdened by redundant requirements. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill aims to simplify annual reporting requirements. Currently, the VA does not have to review a fiduciary's annual accounting, and when it does, it places an onerous burden on those fiduciaries who are serving out of love, not for monetary gain. This bill will implement a straightforward annual accounting requirement and gives the VA the opportunity to audit fiduciaries whose accounting is suspect. I'd like to thank my colleagues on the committee on both sides of the aisle for their work in this bipartisan effort.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, take a look at this. Take a look at the regulatory red tape that's strangling America's small businesses, our job creators. Every time I travel up and down the Ohio River, businesses, both large and small, tell me that new regulations and the threat of more are keeping them from hiring and expanding. Unemployment has been above 8 percent for the past 41 months, and America's job creators are speaking loud and clear that they want certainty. They want to grow and expand. And as a small business owner myself, I know firsthand the destructive burden of excessive regulation. Today this House will take an important step toward freeing America's job creators from these excessive regulations. The Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act puts a stop to President Obama's unchecked power to issue costly and job-killing regulations on a whim. I encourage my colleagues to stand with me in supporting this legislation that will empower job creators to put America back to work.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, we've long known that President Obama's takeover of our health care is bad medicine. And now that the Supreme Court has determined that it's one of the largest tax increases in American history, we've confirmed that it's bad policy. As I travel up and down the Ohio River, I hear repeatedly that this disastrous law must be repealed and replaced with commonsense, patient- centered solutions that will grow our economy. Today, the House will vote, once again, to repeal this law because it's full of broken promises covered up in empty political rhetoric. President Obama promised us that this law would lower health care costs, but now we know it will cost more than double what was expected, almost $2 trillion. We were promised that the law would create jobs, but 40 percent of American businesses tell a different story. And finally, we were promised that we'd be able to keep our doctors, but a recent survey says that 83 percent of doctors have considered quitting over the law. Free market and patient-centered solutions are not only good policies, but they are also the correct medicines for health care reform, not President Obama's Big Government takeover.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 4480, the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act. This important legislation begins to put in place a true all-of-the-above energy plan, a type of plan that has been missing since this President came into office in 2009. This legislation will expand oil, gas, and renewable energy development on Federal lands to help increase the supply of energy and lower energy prices for consumers. It will also give relief to drivers who are paying high prices at the pump every month due to very costly EPA regulations that are scheduled to go into place. This legislation also contains a bill that I introduced, the BLM Live Internet Auctions Act. This section of the bill is supported by my friends on the opposite side of the aisle here and even the administration. The BLM Live Internet Auctions Act will bring the BLM Lease Auction program into the 21st century by allowing BLM to conduct online leases just like the private sector has been doing for over 10 years. We hear a lot about an all-of-the-above energy policy. The President even talked about an all-of-the-above energy policy in the State of the Union. I'm convinced that what the President means by an all-of-the- above energy policy is anything all and above the ground, because it seems like he doesn't want us going after our own natural resources. If we had an energy policy that said, Look, we're going to draw a line in the sand, and over the next 10 years we're going to become energy independent and secure in America, we're going to go after the trillions of barrels of oil that we already own, we're going to harvest the vast volumes of natural gas and oil that we own, we're going to continue to mine and harvest coal and use it environmentally soundly, we're even going to expand our nuclear footprint because it's the safest and most reliable form of energy on the planet, and, yeah, we'll even look at wind and solar and find out where those renewable energy sources fit into an overall scheme, but we're not going to sit on the sidelines any longer and be beholden to foreign countries for our energy, if we had that kind of vision backed with regulatory reform that said to the regulatory agencies like the EPA and the Department of the Interior, Starting today, you become partners in progress with America's industries and businesses--if you've a got a national security or public health or public safety reason for saying ``no,'' then say ``no.'' But don't let ``no'' be the final answer. I think the American people have an expectation that their elected officials and the bureaucracies that are sent here to manage the American system are partners in progress, not barriers to progress. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4480, the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act. I certainly do, and I urge them to, as well.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the Amodei amendment that would ensure that the Secretary of the Interior does not combine the two agencies with competing missions into the same agency. Late last year, the Secretary of the Interior tried to merge the Office of Surface Mining into the Bureau of Land Management. After spending months of time and valuable taxpayer dollars to look at the issue and holding multiple public meetings, the Secretary of the Interior realized two things: First, he realized that he didn't have the power to merge the two agencies; and secondly, he realized it was simply a bad idea. Now there are reports that the Secretary is looking at taking portions of Bureau of Land Management and moving them under the purview of the Office of Surface Mining. The two facts that I just mentioned still hold true today. The Secretary doesn't have the power without it first being authorized by Congress, and the two agencies have competing missions. It simply doesn't make sense to combine the two agencies. During a markup at Natural Resources earlier this year, I offered an amendment similar to this that stopped the Secretary of the Interior from combining the two agencies, and it passed on a voice vote. I would hope that this amendment passes in a similar fashion. I am all for streamlining overlapping government functions and cutting wasteful government spending. However, in this case there are no overlapping functions or wasteful spending. For that reason, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Burgess-Markey amendment. Put simply, if this amendment passes, our national security is at risk. The appropriation that this amendment seeks to strike is vital to ensure that America has a domestic source of uranium enrichment. According to U.S. law and nonproliferation treaties that the United States is signatory to, we must have a domestic source of uranium. International agreements prevent us from purchasing enriched uranium from foreign-owned companies for military purposes. If the Burgess-Markey amendment passes, the U.S. would no longer have a domestic source of enrichment and would instead be reliant on a foreign-owned company that has many red flags in its past for uranium enrichment. This amendment is a rerun of a similar attempt by Mr. Markey and our colleague from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) during the debate of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act a few weeks ago to strip the authorizing language for this uranium research, development, and demonstration program. That amendment failed by an overwhelming vote of 121 300. Nothing--I repeat, nothing--has changed in the last few weeks since that vote and today. Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues are claiming that the RD&D program is some type of congressional earmark, but this is simply not true. The President of the United States requested the authorization and funding for the RD&D program in his budget request because the President has determined it is necessary for our national security. Now, I may still be a freshman, but I know enough that, in order to be a congressional earmark, a Member of Congress would need to make the request for the program. That didn't happen. Furthermore, in the NDAA legislation, Chairman McKeon added a provision to ensure that taxpayers are protected by requiring any company that participates in the RD&D program to put up their intellectual property rights as collateral. The IP rights are worth billions of dollars and far outweigh any amount of money that the Federal Government might put towards this program. So to call this an earmark or a bailout is just simply not true. The sponsors of this amendment have also tried to confuse Members by saying that we can satisfy our national security needs by down-blending existing uranium. While we may be able to do this in the near term, this argument is shortsighted at best. What happens when the government runs out of inventory to down-blend and we no longer have a domestic capability to enrich uranium? The other side doesn't seem to have a good response for that question because they know the answer, and the answer is that we need to go forward with the RD&D program to ensure we have a domestic source in the future. It seems some would rather ignore the long-term national security implications of having a domestic source of uranium enrichment. The fact is, if this amendment passes, our nuclear national security could be at risk. Mr. Chairman, I will once again remind my colleagues that this amendment attempts to achieve the same goal that the failed Pearce- Markey amendment did a few weeks ago, and we already know that amendment failed by a very wide margin. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment to ensure that our national nuclear security is not outsourced to a foreign-owned company. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.