Jim Inhofe

This program has such a good track record for conservation precisely because it is a voluntary effort; it incentivizes non-Federal funds for wetland wildlife habitat conservation.

I continue to call for the Fish and Wildlife Service to allow these voluntary efforts to achieve results before going through with the listing decision.

Today's hearing is a great opportunity to put the spotlight on voluntary efforts, as time and time again they prove to be the best methods of achieving land and species conservation goals without destroying jobs and hurting our economy.

I remember Senator Lautenberg and I were very interested in that.

It incentivizes non-Government funds for wetland and wildlife habitat conservation.

The listing would significantly harm agriculture, construction of highway infrastructure, and energy development.

OK. I appreciate that very much.

We are seeing the conversion of wetland and grassland habitat in the prairies at rates that are unprecedented.

I am very proud of what I saw and what our 100 advisors, plus or minus, are doing there

I want to remind people, as I always do, that the amendments that we put on the 2012 national defense authorization language was one that precludes Americans from engaging in combat.

I was working in Uganda when I found out that up north in the area called Gulu, this guy named Joseph Kony had been, for about 20 years, mutilating kids.

I appreciate the President extending the stay of those advisors in Uganda.

I happen to be on the pretty extreme side in wanting to do more quicker, and I think she has that tendency too.

I believe, having visited with the STRATCOM people, that their requirement is for NNSA to generate up to 80 nuclear pits per year.

I am very much concerned. It harms those of us who are trying to expand this program trying to meet the commitments that are out there.

The commitment on behalf of the administration to modernize the nuclear weapons complex was a key element in the ratification of the New START treaty.

I do not quite understand. I have heard a lot of views on this that those funds and resources could be used elsewhere more effectively.

I understand you had a letter that went to you, Mr. Tangherlini, that went to the Neely, Shepard, and I guess Peck was the other one, requesting return of funds that should not have been spent.

And were they stimulated because of this problem coming up, or where they already under investigation?

It was my understanding, maybe you can clarify this, Mr. Miller, it was after that interim, that May 2011, that Mr. Neely actually went on several trips, after that report came out.

I think this goes beyond this. I remember when we were the majority, the Republicans were the majority.

I think it is totally unfair for people to somehow draw a line there.

I think this serious waste and abuse of the taxpayers' money, as well as possible fraud...

This Committee will support you and encourage you to clean house at the GSA.

We are not going to be accusing anybody; we are just wanting to find out where we can go from here.