Floor Statements

I tell you, I would love for people to be able to come to Oklahoma City anytime they have the opportunity to do that.

But to be able to talk to the great folks in my district, I can tell you the one thing that comes up again and again is they are really frustrated and they are looking for things to really be able to change here in Washington. They see how broken our system is. They see the way that we interact. They are really legitimately frustrated, and I can tell you they have lost trust in what we're doing and how we're doing it.

We, quite frankly, as the Federal Government, are trying to do too many things, and we can't afford all of the things that we're doing.

So in some very simple way, this whole process has united the Nation to be able to look simply at $14.3 trillion in debt and to say, as a Nation, we have a problem. That is a good first step.

Now, the conversation that's been happening around Congress over the past several months now is now dealing with how do we resolve the problem and what is the core of the problem. Is the problem the debt ceiling vote? Is the problem tomorrow? Or is the problem $14 trillion in debt?

And I feel like sometimes we have been trying to either figure out how to get past tomorrow or how to get past solving this issue of $14.3 trillion in debt. That has created 7 months of debate and 7 months of conversation that I fear has made an unrealistic expectation of how much we can really do in one piece of legislation.

Quite frankly, no piece of legislation can solve $14.3 trillion in debt all in one moment. No piece of legislation can be a perfect solution. There is no perfect ideal piece of legislation that's going to solve it all. Are there major issues that I think that are in every piece of legislation? I'm sure there are in every one of them. But in this one, I would look at it and say it is not perfect, but it takes us down that first step to start getting out of this.

If there is a perception that we can solve it all in one piece, I think everyone has underestimated the size and the scope of what it really means to deal with this large of a debt and this large of a deficit. It is a single step on a very long journey.

Does it solve all of the problems? No. Does it cure cancer? No. Does it get us out of all of the wars? No. Does it locate Amelia Earhart's body? No. Does it find us the Ark of the Covenant? No.

It doesn't solve everything we would like to do with it, but it does begin to put a framework around the Federal Government for the next 10 years to set spending caps in place to say we're going to stop the growth of government. We've grown very quickly very fast. We've got to first stop that growth of government and put some boundaries around it. That's a good first step on that.

It puts a square focus on the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which 80 percent of the American people say they want some version of the balanced budget amendment. Quite frankly, this creates a moment for Republicans and Democrats to be able to have an honest conversation about what should that text be for a balanced budget amendment? How can we work together? The Constitution is not owned by one party but is owned by the people of the United States of America, so that is both parties coming together to have a very frank conversation about if we're going to have a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, how do we get that done? What is the text of that? And how do we do what is best for our Nation?

But the key thing of this piece of legislation today is focused on not just getting us past tomorrow but starting us down a process, that single first step of starting us down a process that in the days ahead our children will not live in the shadow of this kind of debt, of this kind of deficit, and we as a Nation can get back to doing the things we love to do rather than worrying about what creditor we're going to pay and which one we're not.

Thank you. I'm honored to get a chance to join in this conversation, which is really a conversation about a topic that's a very big deal to a lot of people.

I was 18 years old, and I remember sitting down with my mom, working through how to be able to fill out the register on a checkbook and how to be able to balance it because I'm getting ready to leave for college, and it becomes an essential characteristic of people to be able to handle their finances when they walk away to school. I can remember well sitting there and walking through money in/money out, all of that process.

It's such a simple process for us, so simple that, when I talk to people back home in my district in Oklahoma--Republicans or Democrats-- and I say, ``What is your opinion on a balanced budget amendment?'' it's that this is not at partisan issue. Just flat out, when we get away from programs, when we get away from all the ideas and say, ``Should we balance our budget every year? Should we live in balance?'' I run into people who say, ``Yes, we need to balance our budget.'' When we get into conversations about the language, about exclusions, about all those things, those are legitimate conversations that I think we should have with the American people; but in reality, they come back to the same thing, that we should balance our budget.

Now, I've seen statistics. As high as 80 percent of the American people are interested in having a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, and I think there are multiple reasons for that. Some of them are fiscal. If I went to the American people and I said, ``I could provide to the American people in our budget for social programs, for tasks, for agencies, for all of our entitlement programs $220 billion more a year immediately into our Federal budget,'' everyone would say, ``Great. How do we do that?''

I would say, we catch up on our budget and stop paying interest. Currently, we're paying $220 billion a year just in interest payments. Can you imagine what we could do with $220 billion more in our budget if we didn't have such a large debt that we're having to maintain with so much interest?

The other side of that is, this debt is not forever. I interact with people all the time, and they will say words like sustainable, the debt is not sustainable, the debt is not sustainable. When I ask people, what does that mean to you to say the debt is not sustainable, very often they will just hesitate, and they will say, I think it just means we can't do this forever. And I would smile and say, I completely agree, we can't just keep borrowing this forever.

But let me tell you what it means to me in this. At any given time in the world, there is only so much money at that exact moment--now, we know that wealth shrinks and grows over time as investment happens, but at any one instant in the world there is only so much money. And of that money that's there, there is only so much that is actually invested, whether that be in business or in bonds or in whatever it may be. You take that investment pie worldwide, and you've got a portion of it that's going to growing businesses, starting new businesses, investing in markets, and then you've got another group of sovereign debt that is actually paying for countries and their debt. There is only so much money that can be invested in a moment. And at some point we start, as a country, taking on more and more money, which we're pulling out of the markets, and we're actually slowing down our economy by requiring more and more money to come to us to pay for our debt. So at some point we've got to stand up as a Nation and say, if we continue taking on this debt, we are purposefully killing the worldwide economy because

we're taking money out of circulation, investment and pulling it into us. Forty-nine States have some sort of structure for a balanced budget. We should do that as a Federal Government. It is a commonsense thing.

Now, again, we can come back and talk about what the language is. I'm a firm believer that no party owns the United States Constitution; that is by the American people. So it should be Republicans and Democrats together, sitting down in a commonsense way, both the House and the Senate, and saying we agree, we need to get around this, this is out of hand. So let's start working on the language on it together.

So that becomes a key issue, but it sets up a couple of things that I think are really important. Number one is, it actually sets up deadlines. I have noticed as a freshman in this town that there are very few deadlines that ever occur here. Even when there is a budget requirement that the House and the Senate both have to do a budget each year, we just reject that and don't do it, and we'll do continuing resolutions and things. We don't like doing deadlines because it requires difficult decisions. A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution creates a moment that we have to actually focus in on the fiscal house and force us into those tough decisions.

It also creates a parameter that protects future generations. I am a firm believer that the reason we still have the freedom of religion in the United States is because it is in the United States Constitution. The reason we still have freedom of speech is because it is in the United States Constitution. And we all know that so many people in politics do not like what's written about them in the press, and many times in politics they push back on the press and try to limit the press. But we still have a free press because that is guaranteed in the United States Constitution. If we added in a balanced budget requirement for the Federal Government, it would give to our posterity, for centuries to come, the gift of a parent in the legislative room to say we are going to have a balanced budget, we are going to honor this. And that $220 billion a year that we've been throwing around and wasting on our interest would actually come back to reinvest into our economy. It's the right thing for us to do. It will require difficult decisions, I'm very aware, but it is absolutely the right thing to do.

I am so grateful for the gentleman from Arizona for leading a conversation on the House floor on this very important topic, because in the months to come we're encouraging all of America, around kitchen tables, around the workplace, playing around and watching football-- which I'm very grateful is coming in the next couple of weeks to finally start football season again--around these gatherings of people to start having the conversation, do you think our Nation should have a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution? Let's initiate a conversation--I think I know where the American people already are, but let's give it a shot and find out for sure where their legislators are and so we can get that back out to the States and say, where are you, and where are we as a Nation?

And so I appreciate so much the gentleman from Arizona.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to speak in support of this bill.

I came on as a freshman, and in January of this year we were already talking about this moment. For months, the conversation has been: How do we reach a point of agreement? There have been lots of different ideas floated around. Very few of those have been put down in writing. But the ideas that have been floated around seem to circle around a central theme: How can we find a middle ground to be able to resolve this issue? I propose this bill is that middle ground.

The debt reduction that's in it was a framework that was formed in the Biden talks. The Select Committee that's in it is something very important to the Senate, that Harry Reid raised that idea. The proposal to have a balanced budget amendment is very important to Republicans to say, Let's have a moment to be able to discuss that. And the statutory caps that are coming are very important to Republicans.

This is a bill that has been discussed in its essence and in its core in a bipartisan fashion. And while we search for a compromise, I would suggest we have found it. And we are about to vote on it. This is a moment to be able to look at it and say it is not the draconian monster that it has been described as. It allows a simple way to be able to handle one of the most difficult issues that we have dealt with in a very long time.

Ultimately, we bump up against an issue that is significant because of this one key truth: Why has this not been a problem before? Why haven't we passed it? Why haven't we just added to the debt ceiling year after year after year? We've done that. But now we have reached $14.3 trillion. We've now reached 100 percent of GDP. We have to start dealing seriously with how do we start paying down our debt. And not just paying our interest payments, but how do we start paying down our debt. At this moment in time it becomes a key moment to say, Let's resolve the problem, let's start dealing with difficult issues and work on these together, both parties both Houses, to be able to settle the issues. But let's do it in a way that forms long-term solutions.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2548) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6310 North University Street in Peoria, Illinois, as the ``Charles `Chip' Lawrence Chan Post Office Building''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2548, introduced by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock), would designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6310 North University Street in Peoria, Illinois, as the ``Charles `Chip' Lawrence Chan Post Office Building.''

This bill was reported from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on June 22.

With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock).

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a wonderful way to be able to honor someone, and this is something that we can do together as a Congress, to be able to honor this individual. I urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 2548.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2244) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 67 Castle Street in Geneva, New York, as the ``Corporal Steven Blaine Riccione Post Office''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2244, introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna), would designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 67 Castle Street in Geneva, New York, as the Corporal Steven Blaine Riccione Post Office.

The bill is cosponsored by the entire New York State delegation and was reported from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on June 22.

With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna).

Mr. Speaker, this is a privilege to be given this chance to honor a great individual who gave his life for our Nation, and I join with the entire delegation of New York to encourage this House to pass this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2213) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 801 West Eastport Street in Iuka, Mississippi, as the ``Sergeant Jason W. Vaughn Post Office''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 2213, as introduced by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee), would designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 801 West Eastport Street in Iuka, Mississippi, as the Sergeant Jason W. Vaughn Post Office.

This bill is cosponsored by the entire Mississippi State delegation and was reported from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on June 22.

I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 2213, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 789) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 20 Main Street in Little Ferry, New Jersey, as the ``Sergeant Matthew J. Fenton Post Office''.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days with which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 789, introduced by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), would designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 20 Main Street in Little Ferry, New Jersey, as the Sergeant Matthew J. Fenton Post Office. The bill was cosponsored by the entire New Jersey State delegation and was reported from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on June 22.

Sergeant Fenton served his country as a United States marine, training fellow marines as a reserves inspector and instructor. Tragically, Mr. Speaker, on May 5, 2006, Sergeant Fenton passed away at the Naval Medical Center in Bethesda after suffering wounds he received as a result of a suicide attack in Anbar Province, Iraq.

Prior to serving his country, Matthew was no different than many of us. He enjoyed watching baseball, playing poker, and loved his hometown of Little Ferry, New Jersey. He enjoyed rooting for his favorite teams, the Yankees and Giants, but his true goal was always to serve those that were around him. Matthew had a dream of becoming a police officer and serving his local community. His mother, Diane, said that he talked about wanting to become a police officer. She even sent him a civil service book to prepare for that test while he was in Iraq.

He finally has achieved his goal. The Little Ferry Police Department made him an honorary officer posthumously. Sergeant Fenton is a true American hero, making the ultimate sacrifice for those he was proud to serve.

I urge all Members to join me in strong support of this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 789.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1975) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 281 East Colorado Boulevard in Pasadena, California, as the ``First Lieutenant Oliver Goodall Post Office Building''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1975, introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), would designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 281 East Colorado Boulevard in Pasadena, California, as the ``First Lieutenant Oliver Goodall Post Office Building.'' The bill was introduced on May 24 and was reported out of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on June 22.

Oliver Goodall was born May 28, 1922. After the United States entered World War II, he joined the United States Army Air Corps at Tuskegee, Alabama, in February 1943. By 1944, he had earned the right to fly as a multiengine pilot and was assigned to the 477th Bomber Group based at Godman Field, Kentucky.

In 1945, First Lieutenant Goodall was among a group of African American officers that were arrested for trying to peacefully integrate an all-white officers' club. This event later came to be known as the Freeman Field Mutiny. This act of courage was an essential step in the movement towards the full integration of the U.S. Armed Forces, which took place in June 1949.

Mr. Goodall moved to Los Angeles after World War II, where he began his career as a postal service employee. After decades of service to both his country and his community, Mr. Goodall was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal in 2007. Sadly, in November of last year, Mr. Goodall passed away at 88 years old.

Mr. Speaker, First Lieutenant Goodall is a very worthy designee of this postal facility naming, and I urge all Members to join me in support of this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a worthy man to be able to honor-- a life that served many people and a life that stood up and made a real difference, so I urge the Members to support the passage of H.R. 1975.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1843) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 489 Army Drive in Barrigada, Guam, as the ``John Pangelinan Gerber Post Office Building''.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1843, introduced by the gentlelady from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), would designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 489 Army Drive in Barrigada, Guam, as the ``John Pangelinan Gerber Post Office Building.'' The bill was introduced on May 11, and was reported from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on June 22--and I look forward to hearing the gentlelady say the name correctly.

Sergeant John Gerber was born on May 31, 1951, in Ordot, Guam. He was not only known for serving in the Marine Corps during the Vietnam war, but also for his hospitality and assistance towards his fellow marines in later years. During Operation Desert Storm, Sergeant Gerber assisted our troops by offering to host any individual or group associated with the 3rd Marine Division who was en route to the Middle East. His offer was accepted by many marines, and over time, nearly 20,000 marines had visited him.

Later in life, Sergeant Gerber led a campaign to rename Route 1 in Guam from ``Marine Drive'' to ``Marine Corps Drive'' to recognize the 1,548 marines who had lost their lives and the 6,000 marines who were wounded during the Liberation of Guam. In 2008, he established the Pacific War Museum on Guam to display World War II memorabilia and educate the public on the War in the Pacific.

As a result of his dedication in educating citizens on Marine Corps history, Sergeant Gerber was the 2011 recipient of the Colonel John H. Magruder Award. Sadly, he received the award following his death in 2010 at just 58 years old. He is survived by his wife, Mel, and his four children.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to join me in support of this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I join the others that have already stood before you to support the passage of H.R. 1843, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2062) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 45 Meetinghouse Lane in Sagamore Beach, Massachusetts, as the ``Matthew A. Pucino Post Office''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2062 was introduced by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating). It would designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 45 Meetinghouse Lane in Sagamore Beach, Massachusetts, as the Matthew A. Pucino Post Office. The bill was reported from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on June 22.

Matthew Pucino, a United States Army Special Forces soldier, born in Hudson, Massachusetts, was killed in Afghanistan on November 23, 2009, when his vehicle struck an improvised explosive device.

Matthew enlisted in the United States Army in 2002 as a Special Forces candidate and went on to earn the Green Beret as an engineer sergeant. Matthew was conducting a combat patrol in eastern Afghanistan near the Pakistani border when his all-terrain vehicle was struck.

He was an intelligence sergeant with the 20th Special Forces Group, and he had been on his second deployment. He had also served in Iraq with the 5th Special Forces Group. As a result of his bravery in his first deployment in Iraq, Matthew was awarded the Purple Heart, Bronze Star, Army Commendation, and Global War on Terrorism Service Medals.

According to his cousin, Anthony, Matthew joined the military after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks because he wanted to help protect America and Americans.

Mr. Pucino was 34 years old. He left his wife, Crystal; his parents, Albert and Kathryn Pucino of Orlando, Florida; and his sister, Lisa.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to join me in support of this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I join with the gentleman to urge all Members to pass H.R. 2062, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2149) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4354 Pahoa Avenue in Honolulu, Hawaii, as the ``Cecil L. Heftel Post Office Building''.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2149, introduced by the gentlelady by Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa), would designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4354 Pahoa Avenue in Honolulu, Hawaii, as the Cecil L. Heftel Post Office Building.

This bill was introduced on June 13 and was reported from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on June 22.

Cecil L. Heftel was born September 30, 1924. He was an accomplished businessman and a politician who served his community for many years. Mr. Heftel was a well-known figure in Honolulu, Hawaii, and served five terms as a Member of the House of Representatives.

In the 1960s, Mr. Heftel began his career in Hawaii when he started Heftel Broadcasting and took over the KGMB television station. In 1976, Mr. Heftel ran for Congress, won five consecutive terms and then resigned from Congress in 1986 to run for Governor, but was defeated in the primary.

Mr. Heftel returned to the broadcasting business until 2004. He then returned to his community to serve as a member of the board of education. Cecil Heftel died February 4, 2010, at the age of 85. His service to the Honolulu community will never be forgotten. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of the bill.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 2149, and I also yield back the balance of my time.

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

As you may know, the Environmental Protection Agency currently administers Clean Water State Revolving Funds and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds to provide low-interest financing through the States. These low-interest loans are a way for States and communities to be able to use their own discretion in making much- needed improvements to their water supplies and infrastructure. This program was a grant program

years ago, but was transitioned into a loan program to save money some 25 years ago.

When the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed in 2009, an increase in funding for these accounts was coupled with a provision in those two funds, requiring no less than 30 percent of the financed funds issued to be used as principal forgiveness. It was a type of grant program to them. This principal forgiveness changes the low- interest loan program to a direct funding program. It's a hybrid between a loan program now and a grant program.

Since the stimulus expired and funding for these provisions returned to normal levels, unfortunately, the principal forgiveness provision has remained. This bill rolls back to pre-stimulus funding levels, but it doesn't roll back to pre-stimulus Federal strings.

So my amendment removes the Federal mandate of principal forgiveness and allows the States to use their discretion on the amounts they'd like to offer. States will be allowed to provide principal forgiveness up to 30 percent. Communities rely on these funds to ensure their infrastructure security and safe drinking water. By supporting my amendment, you can empower your State to leverage their already limited funds and ensure that communities all across our Nation receive the much needed infrastructure assistance.

Not to put words in both parties' mouths on this one as well, but there is a very bipartisan focus on this. This is one of the priorities from President Obama. In his budget proposal, he requested the same thing. Also, for conservatives and others, it gives back to the States their rights to be able to make those decisions.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about eliminating the wasteful duplication in our Federal Government, specifically dealing with the Council on Environmental Quality. This amendment would eliminate the funding for the Council on Environmental Quality and transfer the savings to the spending reduction account. This amendment will result in about a $2.7 million taxpayer savings.

Specifically, the Council on Environmental Quality, if people aren't familiar with it, is a council of one person with a budget typically around $3 million. Throughout the council's 40-year history, it really has done little to demonstrate additional responsibilities other than what already is being accomplished by the Environmental Protection Agency and NOAA itself. Former Presidents, including President Carter and President Reagan, have proposed reducing the budget for this

council. This council blatantly duplicates the efforts of other Federal agencies, as I already mentioned, the Environmental Protection Agency and NOAA, who are doing an excellent job in these same areas.

This an opportunity to be able to reduce unnecessary waste, duplication, and streamline the bureaucracy and improve agency services to Americans who fund these agencies.

At this critical point in our Nation's history, I recommend that we need to eliminate agencies like this and be able to combine them with existing agencies.

I yield back the balance of my time.

This was a wonderful description that I'm hearing of the responsibility of the Council on Environmental Quality. The problem with it is it's the same responsibilities that EPA has, that the Department of Energy has, that NOAA has. These are executive agencies as well, and to say that you have to create a new executive agency to watch over this executive agency is one of those prime examples of why it's so difficult to be able to combine agencies for efficiency.

We have multiple bureaucracies that are standing out there combining and doing similar functions, and it would save us money. Yes, this is a very small agency, but it's another one of those prime examples why the executive branch has all these multiple agencies doing the same thing, and we have to be able to find ways to be able to combine these.

I understand that we're creating jobs per megawatt in the middle of this, but the reality of this is we've got to be able to find ways to be able to save money.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Lankford

Amendment No. 61: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Lankford

Amendment No. 62: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

limitation of funds related to buffer zones

Offered By: Mr. Lankford

Amendment No. 63: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

limitation of funds related to public land