Cynthia Lummis

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for sponsoring this Special Order, which allows the women of the Republican Conference to talk about an issue that is affecting all Americans, men and women. Benjamin Netanyahu is calling this deal a historic mistake. Historic. Think about Israel and history. And when you have its prime minister calling this a historic mistake, we should be paying attention. Madam Speaker, there is a very real and present danger of nuclear proliferation because of this deal; so it is critical that America not let her military preparedness for deterrence deteriorate. It will have exactly the opposite effect of that which the administration intends. Consequently, we need all three legs of the nuclear triad--land, air, and water--for a strong defense and deterrence against attack. With a triad of bombers, submarines, and ICBMs, missiles are the most affordable, and they are on alert, protecting America and deterring her enemies 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. We should be talking with Poland, with the Czech Republic, and we should make sure that they have an adequate missile defense. We are going to have to start talking to Saudi Arabia. If Israel and Saudi Arabia are already today talking about the consequences of a deal with Iran, what does that tell you? It tells you just what the gentlewoman from Alabama was telling us a few minutes ago when they visited there, which is that security in Saudi Arabia-- homeland security--is an enormous issue. It is because there are always terrorists coming into Saudi Arabia, trying to get at Mecca and Medina, trying to do something that will cause a conflagration around the world, that will incite religious battles. When they have one of their most feared adversaries now being in a position after 8 years and having now the money because of the lifting of the sanctions to go ahead with a nuclear program, what do you think they are going to do? What are the Saudis going to do? It is critical that we maintain for world peace and the deterrence of nuclear war our own ability to respond and to deter. Madam Chairman, I thank you for this Special Order, and I thank you for your diligent work in this regard.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2722.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, today, the great State of Wyoming, the Equality State, is celebrating her 125th anniversary of statehood. Wyoming is a wondrous place, boasting our Nation's first national park, first national forest, and first national monument. Wyoming's scenic treasures are second to none in the world. Our vast stores of resources--coal, uranium, timber, oil, gas, soda ash, and rare earth elements--all provide critical resources for our Nation. Wyoming's freedom-loving, hard-working people have a deep sense of place and seamlessly weave the fabric of stewardship into it, inspiring the entire country and, really, the whole world. I am proud to call Wyoming America's 44th star, my love, my life, and my home. I wish her a blessed 125th year of statehood.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, my State of Wyoming is the largest onshore producer of oil and gas from Federal land. The reason our Wyoming court stayed the Federal BLM's rules is because Wyoming has been regulating fracking through its oil and gas commission from the beginning. There has never been one documented case of drinking water being contaminated. Furthermore, the way that BLM land lays with private land and State land is they are all interspersed; yet, underground, because of horizontal drilling, the drilling transcends from State land to private land to Federal land, and back and forth. Those wells are unitized so the production can be allocated among the various owners of private, State, and Federal land. You can't have two layers of surfaces State ownership regulation when the drilling is occurring going back and forth among State, private, and Federal lands. Wyoming has handled its fracking regulations responsibly. It was the first in the Nation to do so. I strongly urge you leave it in the hands of States who do it best.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, I rise in support of the Lummis-Zinke-Cramer-Smith amendment: to prohibit the unilateral decrease of the alert status of our Nation's ICBM force. Nuclear deterrence is based on the fundamental belief that a nuclear attack on the United States would cause us to retaliate. Reducing the alert status would change the time needed to retaliate from as few as 30 minutes to 3 days. This makes it much easier for an enemy to strike first, wiping out the U.S. nuclear force before it can retaliate. For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment. I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke), my colleague and a member of the Armed Services Committee.

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

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, in recognition of the fact that the concern here is the unilateral decrease of the alert status, I now yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the chair of the Armed Services Committee's Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer). He lives in the State that houses Minot Air Force Base.

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

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 50th anniversary of the National Outdoor Leadership School. NOLS was founded in Wyoming by Paul Petzoldt. NOLS has taught thousands of Americans and people worldwide about the responsible use of the outdoors and an appreciation for outdoor activities, recreation, hiking, that is unsurpassed. NOLS is headquartered in Wyoming, in Lander, and we are proud that NOLS's mother ship is in our dear State. NOLS is a wonderful organization that provides stewardship of our natural resources in a way that teaches people how to enjoy and appreciate the outdoors. Congratulations, NOLS, the National Outdoor Leadership School, on 50 years.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, I am having kind of a deja vu moment and a holy cow moment both at the same time. It is deja vu because we already passed a Homeland Security funding bill. So that bill has shifted to the Senate. Somebody apparently didn't get that memo. I am having this holy cow moment because I can't believe I am standing up here in support of the Senate-passed Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act. Mr. Speaker, the broad support for building the Keystone XL pipeline is truly remarkable. This bill is bipartisan. It is bicameral. In fact, it commanded a supermajority in the Senate. A majority of the American people want to see the pipeline constructed. The pipeline has been studied and studied and studied again, in fact, way up to the State Department, which approved the pipeline more than a year ago. This kind of support for a piece of legislation is a rarity in Washington. It doesn't get any better than this. And that is because the pipeline has unquestionable merit. It directly creates jobs. It is a shot in the arm for our energy economy. It will make America more energy secure, an aspiration of Presidents and Congresses for decades. And it is now within our grasp if we choose to seize it. Why our President would choose to veto this bill is beyond rational explanation. Its economic benefits could not be more evident. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope the President reconsiders his threat to veto this so American workers can finally start to construct and reap the benefits for the American people.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee for working with us on this working draft. I also support the Endangered Species Act, and I rise in enthusiastic support of the Endangered Species Act and enthusiastic support of this bill because this bill embodies much of the ethos that the American people have embodied during the years the Endangered Species Act has been in effect. This act was passed in 1974 with goals that were admirable and goals that the people of this country have embedded in their DNA to achieve. To conserve species, to have habitat for species so we can have rich, diverse populations of flora and fauna. This bill will help those goals because we will know what science is being used to base these decisions upon. Right now, science that is undisclosed is being used. Right now, we have tribal governments, county governments, and State governments, through these incredibly impressive wildlife agencies, who have had this ethos embedded in them since they were little kids, trying to administer these laws, trying to save these species. We want their knowledge shared with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We want to know what science is being used to make these decisions so it can be vetted by third parties, so people who have specialized scientific knowledge about a habitat area or a subspecies can share that knowledge with agencies so that we are not making decisions with litigants behind closed doors with no public input by the people whose dream is to have an Endangered Species Act that works, that works for the people on the land, the people who love these species, who love the habitat, who care for it every day, the people who want the Endangered Species Act administered in a way that is transparent and fair and will recover species. I am of the opinion that an act that has less than a 2 percent recovery rate or a delisting rate is not a success. I think we can have better models to succeed to delist species or, better yet, not list species in the first place. These small steps that are embedded in this bill--transparency of science, involving tribal, State, and local governments and their base of knowledge about what they see on the ground, is critical to having an Endangered Species Act that works, that takes advantage of the American people who care about conserving habitat and saving species. Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense, rational approach to recovery that has the kind of transparency that we were promised by this administration. Let's help them achieve it.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina for gathering us to talk about American energy. I want to talk about it from a couple of perspectives. My State of Wyoming had the first national park in the Nation, Yellowstone National Park; the first national forest, the Shoshone National Forest; the first national monument, the Devils Tower. We have an abundance of beautiful scenery and natural resources. We have the smallest population in the Nation. Our State is pristine. What you may not have known is that Texas' production of energy is here. Wyoming's is here, and the next State catching up on us is far behind those two States. We know how to produce energy responsibly. Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight because I want to talk about the people that are affected by the price of energy. I want to talk about a woman I met at a gas pump. She pulled up in a very old car. She had a little baby in her back seat that she was taking to the sitter's before she went to her job, earning minimum wage, at a convenience store. Her husband, a young man, was also working at a very lower middle-income job. They were trying to make ends meet. She only put $5 worth of gas in her car. I asked her why. She said: well, I can only afford enough gas to get me to work after I drop my child off, and while I am at work, I will get enough money to put a little more gas and pick my child up. That is how a lot of Americans are living. That is how a lot of our seniors are living. They are living on an amount of money that squeezes them every time the price of gasoline goes up, the price of electricity goes up, the price of heat goes up, the price of air conditioning goes up. That is the price of energy to the American consumer. Those are the people we need to be looking out for. Those are the people who need abundant, affordable, reliable electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil, and other resources like natural gas, so they can be warm and protected from the cold, so they can be cool and protected from the heat, so they can get to work and the grocery store and to their doctors. This is the American story, and it is American jobs that pay American taxes that can help those people make ends meet, that can help fund our social safety net. We need Americans to work. We need American energy to put Americans to work. If it wasn't for the energy economy, there would be no economic recovery at all in this country. I know that it is a rather anemic recovery. It would be zero recovery without the energy industry. The importance cannot be overstated of energy in our economy. The importance of energy in our daily lives cannot be overstated. I want to thank the gentleman who recognizes that we can have a clean environment and we can have affordable, abundant energy, so our quality of life in America is proudly second to none.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Conservation Easement Incentive Act as well. Conservation easements are a cost-effective way of protecting valuable open space and farm and ranch land in the West, including in my home State of Wyoming. Mr. Speaker, easement conservation is an alternative to government landownership and allows our local land stewards to continue the best management practices on private land. The expiration of enhanced tax incentives for landowners discourages modest-income and working ranchers and farmers from participating in a program to permanently protect their land resources and their way of life. While these enhanced tax deductions have been extended multiple times, their on-again, off-again eligibility makes business and tax planning difficult for donors, especially since they are often delayed by the Federal Government's timeline. Mr. Speaker, conservation easements leverage ranchers' and farmers' love of their land and allows them to maintain operations that are beneficial not only for agriculture, but for habitat, recreation, and our landscapes. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this bill. I thank the gentleman from Michigan, the Ways and Means Committee chairman, for this time.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to call up amendment No. 16.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reinforce the Department of Energy's already existing legal obligations when it sells or transfers excess uranium from the Federal inventory. One of these legal obligations is called the ``Secretarial Determination'' that the uranium transfers will not have an adverse material impact on the domestic uranium industry. The other obligation is to comply with the public notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The Department's actions regarding uranium have come under justified scrutiny, so I will take both of them in turn. First, my amendment reinforces the required Secretarial Determination that uranium transfers do not adversely impact the domestic uranium industries. Congress decided to require a Secretarial Determination because, if the government dumps too much uranium onto the market, it can artificially distort the market and hurt domestic uranium industries. These include uranium mining, uranium conversion, and uranium enrichment industries, all crucial to developing a more robust domestic uranium supply chain to feed our nuclear power plants. Right now, 90 percent of the uranium used to provide electricity in this country is imported, but it doesn't have to be that way. Here in the United States, including my home State of Wyoming, we have abundant uranium resources. With uranium from American soil and through American jobs, we can correct this imbalance; but the task is made difficult, if not impossible, with the Department of Energy's cavalier uranium transfers. The Secretarial Determination process has, unfortunately, become a sham. Instead of protecting domestic uranium industries, it has become a tool to destroy them. Prior to the May 15, 2014, Secretarial Determination, the Department commissioned a market analysis that concluded the uranium transfers would reduce employment in the domestic uranium industries by 4 percent and reduce the spot price for mined uranium by 8 percent. That is what their own market analysis provided. Yet the Department is ignoring the results of its own study and is proceeding anyway, based on other information and analysis it decided not to share with the public. My amendment uses the power of the purse to reinforce existing statutory law, lest the Department flaunt the law, rendering it meaningless. Second, my amendment reinforces the Department's obligation to comply with the public notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The Department of Energy has used its excess uranium as a slush fund, selling or bartering uranium to subsidize failed companies like the U.S. Enrichment Corporation or to fund other programs without having to come to Congress for the money. This program has operated in the shadows, making a mockery of our budget process. I want to quote a recent GAO report on the Department's uranium transfers. It says: We believe transparency is a fundamental tenet of good government and that our recommendations support actions needed to enhance DOE's transparency. The GAO identified uranium transfers at below market value to prop up USEC, shortchanging the taxpayer and further distorting uranium markets. The report documented shortcomings in the Department's market analysis of how the transfers would impact uranium markets and the failure of the Department to adequately consult with the domestic industries. Unfortunately, on GAO's Web site, all of their recommendations to the Department to increase the transparency of its uranium transfers remained unfulfilled. My amendment simply reinforces the existing obligation of the Department to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act. Like any other agency, they have a legal obligation to engage in reasoned decisionmaking, not shadowed and arbitrary uranium transactions. My amendment barely touches the legislative reforms needed to fix this broken program, but I want to thank Chairman Simpson for helping me at least identify a way to address this issue that might be suitable to the appropriations process. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 365, I inadvertently cast a no vote on Mr. Bishop of Utah's Amendment #8. I intended to vote yes on the amendment, which prohibits the Administration from retroactively canceling energy development leases based on information never considered during the public comment process. Stated against:

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Speaker, today, I am honored to rise to recognize a pillar of the higher education community in Wyoming. Dr. Jo Anne McFarland is retiring as the president of Central Wyoming College after 40 years of service, and 25 years after she was named Wyoming's first woman college president. Active nationally with the American Association of Community Colleges and with the Higher Learning Commission, Dr. McFarland has made great contributions to the development of community colleges nationwide. Dr. McFarland started as an adjunct faculty member in 1970, shortly after the college was founded in Riverton. Under her leadership, Central Wyoming College has expanded its academic offerings and instituted distance learning programs. It has opened facilities in Jackson, Lander, Thermopolis, and on the Wind River Indian Reservation. Notably, Dr. McFarland has created an atmosphere of courtesy, manners, and respect at Central Wyoming College unlike any I have seen on any college campus. The leader sets the tone for such a positive, respectful atmosphere. Jo Anne McFarland is in every way imaginable leadership personified. Madam Speaker, the mascot of Central Wyoming College is the cattle rustler. As a cattle rancher, I have a bit of a dislike for rustlers, but this is one rustler I will be very sorry to see hang up her spurs. She earned those spurs, Madam Speaker.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the women who have participated in this debate today. These are dynamic American leaders. I want to thank each and every one of them, including the gentlelady from Minnesota, who expressed the views of those who have concerned about this bill. They were well articulated. She is someone with whom I am proud to serve in Congress and was very proud to see in the dais, participating in lively, strident debates when she ran for President, seeking the Republican nomination in the last Presidential election. These are all very formidable, important women--gentlewomen, one and all. I rise in support of the study and in support of the passage of this bill. I come from the Equality State, the State of Wyoming, the first government in the world to continuously grant women the right to vote, so I come by my point of view honestly. I am very excited about the opportunity to study and to report back to this Congress the notion of having a museum of the history of American women. The contributions to our society of American women are so extraordinary and are sometimes underrepresented. I particularly look forward to touting the opportunity to show the history of American women of the West, people like Cattle Kate. She was a criminal, a scoundrel, a cattle thief. She was the first woman hanged in Wyoming. She is a historical figure. Sacagawea, who led the Lewis and Clark expedition across this great, vast country; Annie Oakley, who was portrayed as a model of the American West and freedom in Buffalo Bill Cody's Wild West show; and particularly, I would like to see Dale Evans recognized in this museum. Let me tell you something about Dale Evans you may not know. Dale Evans was an actress, a songwriter, a mother, and she was the wife of Roy Rogers. They were the king of the cowboys and the queen of the cowgirls. Dale Evans and Roy Rogers had a special-needs child among their many children. Back in Hollywood in the late 1940s and 1950s, there was a cultural condition in this country that was particularly prevalent in Hollywood, and that was people didn't want to see special-needs children in public. People didn't want to face the fact that not everyone in this country is born exactly the same. Roy and Dale took their special-needs child with them everywhere they went, and they were ostracized, and they ceased to be invited to people's homes because they didn't want to see that child. It was a gutsy thing to do. Roy Rogers and Dale Evans changed the way Americans viewed special- needs children. Now, when we see special-needs people in our society, it puts a smile on our faces. They are so integrated into our every day, and they are important members of our society. When that child died, Dale Evans wrote the song ``Happy Trails'' to that child. She wrote, ``Happy trails to you, until we meet again,'' and in my heart, I believe they will meet again, Madam Speaker. I think those are the kinds of women that we want to see portrayed in American history, and I am highly supportive of this study. I look forward to robust participation by Republican and Democrats and look forward to receiving the study, not knowing how it is going to turn out, but with great hope and expectation for something terrific, at least on paper, so we can determine at that point whether to move forward. Mr. Speaker, I commend to this body's attention H.R. 863. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 7 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 863 establishes a commission to study the potential creation of a National Women's History Museum. The commission will prepare a report with key findings that include an evaluation of potential locations for the museum in Washington, D.C.; guidance on whether it should be part of the Smithsonian Institution; and cost estimates for constructing, operating, and maintaining the facility. In terms of fiscal responsibility, H.R. 863 requires an independent review of the report to analyze the ability of the museum to operate without taxpayer funding. With the information generated by the report, Congress will be able to evaluate the proposed museum. This legislation does not authorize the museum to be built or authorize spending of taxpayer dollars of any kind. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.