Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4027, a bill to authorize an acre-for-acre exchange of subsurface mineral lands within the Hill Creek Extension between the State of Utah and the United States on behalf of the Ute Tribe.

I really want to thank Chairman Hastings and his staff, and also subcommittee Chairman Young and his staff, Ranking Member Markey and his staff, and Ranking Member Boren and his staff for their support in moving this bill through the Natural Resources Committee. And I would also like to thank my colleague from Utah (Mr. Bishop) who is a cosponsor of the bill.

In the transaction authorized in this bill, the tribe would acquire certain State minerals in Grand County, Utah, and in exchange, the BLM would relinquish certain Federal lands in Uintah County, Utah, to the State.

This bipartisan bill would give the Bureau of Land Management the authority to approve this transaction that was first proposed several years ago. In order to fully protect State and Federal interests, this legislation reserves identical overriding financial interests in each other's exchanged lands should development occur. Often in the past, these land exchanges had challenges with appraisals and making sure everyone is treated fairly. This legislation tries to address that issue looking forward.

This bill is a win/win. It helps the tribe consolidate its management of land that is considered sacred and culturally significant, and at the same time, it allows for domestic energy development on land not considered environmentally sensitive that would provide more school trust fund revenue for Utah and employment for energy workers in the State as well.

This legislation has broad support from local government, including Grand, Duchesne, and Uintah Counties, the State of Utah, and the Ute Tribe as well as partner agencies. The Wilderness Society also testified in support of this legislation.

So I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bill.

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

This amendment would add $9.6 million to the Department of Energy's nondefense environmental cleanup account, thereby restoring the amount that was cut from the previous year for the small sites associated with this program. This will be offset by taking money from the National Nuclear Security Administration's weapons activities account, which in this bill right now has an increase of just over $298 million relative to last year.

The funding for the small sites in the nondefense environmental cleanup accounts supports activities across the country that address the legacy resulting from civilian nuclear energy research and uranium mining, and it is critical that the Department of Energy have the resources necessary to meet its obligation to clean contaminated sites across the country in a timely manner.

I know it's tough to come up with these appropriations bills, and I think the committee has done a nice job of trying to balance many things. I acknowledge and I support the increase in funding for the NNSA weapons modernization efforts. I believe that directing a small portion of the $298 million increase over the FY 12 levels towards cleanup of small sites around the country is worth consideration here today.

This is not an attack of the work of the NNSA, but rather an amendment to increase the efficiency of the small-site cleanup effort undertaken by the Department of Energy. The $9.6 million represents a fraction of 1 percent of the total funding of NNSA weapons activities that will be received in this bill.

I think we want to do this funding and maintain this funding because it ensures the progress of these sites can continue. Let's remember these small sites are shovel-ready projects directly employing hundreds of people at various sites across the country.

While this is for all sites, I'll talk about one location of which I'm familiar because it's in my congressional district, near Moab. It's a site that at one point had 16 million tons of radioactive material. It's on the banks of the Colorado River. During an environmental impact statement review it was determined that it was with an absolute certainty that at some point, if this pile is not moved, a flood event will flush this downstream. There are roughly 25 million users downstream of the Colorado River in Nevada, Arizona, and southern California.

What I find interesting is if we're looking to reduce funding for these small projects, we end up increasing the proportion of what's left for fixed costs, for administrative costs. In the case of the project in Utah, the contract that was just let by the Department of Energy, 25 percent of all moneys were just on administrative costs; and that means that we're spending a significant portion not moving material.

The thing about these small projects is there is an end in sight. We can get this done. We can knock this project out if we aggressively fund it, and I think on a lifecycle basis you actually are spending less taxpayer dollars if we adequately fund these small sites.

My concern about funding of small-site remediation is not unique to me. In fact, the committee in its own report of this bill on page 100 mentions this issue about small sites. It says:

The committee remains concerned about the lack of

remediation activity taking place around the country at

various Department-sponsored facilities and small sites

classified as under the responsibility of the Department.

So I know we all care about this. I know we do. I'm just trying to point out, at least in my State we have one of these sites whereby shrinking of the funding I think we extend the life of this project for more years. I think we'll end up spending more taxpayer dollars on a life-cycle basis at the project as a result, and I would submit that it merits consideration to see if we can do this small plus-up in the environmental cleanup account for small sites.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Matheson

Amendment No. 21: Page 25, line 5, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(increased by $9,600,000)''.

Page 30, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $9,600,000)''.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia for offering this motion and I thank him for yielding me this time.

We've heard a lot from different Members out here already about what the construction of this pipeline would mean in terms of increased capacity, of product coming from North American sources for U.S. oil consumption. We've heard about the jobs for the construction of the pipeline, and I'm not going to repeat all of those numbers and statistics. But I thought it would be helpful to talk about a couple of the issues that have been raised about this pipeline and try to clarify some of the facts about what's going on with this type of product and this type of pipeline.

A lot of people think this is a brand new product. They're worried about product from oil sands. In fact, according to the Congressional Research Service, there are already five other pipelines that are bringing this product from Canada to the United States. In fact, for years this product has been coming to refineries in the State of Utah, where I'm from, and refined in refineries in North Salt Lake.

The most recent of those five pipelines that brings this product from

Canada was actually approved by the Obama administration in 2009. It brings 800,000 barrels a day from Canada into the United States. And when that project was approved by the Obama administration's State Department, the State Department said that the pipeline would send:

A positive economic signal in a difficult economic period

about the future reliability and availability of a portion of

United States' energy imports, and in the immediate term,

this shovel-ready project will provide construction jobs for

workers in the United States.

Now, when it comes to the Keystone proposal, as it was going through 3 years of environmental review, when discussing this pipeline, Secretary Clinton's Coordinator for International Energy Affairs, David Goldwyn, stated:

Balancing jobs and energy security . . . I think the case

for a pipeline is overwhelming and she will approve it.

This is a project that has received a lot of scrutiny. It's not a new type of project--five other ones come to this country. I know there may be some unique aspects of this specific pipeline proposal, but in general there are five other ones that bring this product to the United States already.

This has become a symbol. We can have honest disagreements about what we think about issues, but we should make sure we understand what the facts are about this pipeline. As I said, this product has already come into this country many times.

I thank the gentleman again for offering this motion to recommit, and I urge passage.

Madam Chair, I stand in strong support of this amendment, as I do to the underlying bill.

The amendment before us will provide much-needed liability protections to medical professionals to ensure that they are able to do what they are trained to do, which is save lives.

As Mr. Stearns indicated, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, it became clear that a uniformity of Good Samaritan laws is needed in this country. In several instances, qualified and certified physicians and other medical professionals from across the country were turned away from providing much-needed and critical care to victims of this disaster even when it was plainly apparent that the medical resources in the communities that were affected by the disaster were far beyond the capacity to provide adequate emergency care.

Yet doctors from Utah who volunteered to provide emergency care in situations such as this shouldn't fear unnecessary lawsuits and, above all else, should not be turned away due to uncertainty about liability protections.

I want to thank my friend and colleague, Mr. Stearns, for his work and his partnership on this amendment. This commonsense measure to provide sensible protections to those Good Samaritans who volunteer their medical services to help those struck by disaster is an amendment we should all support. I urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bipartisan amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Murray City Library, which is celebrating its centennial this year. As in many communities throughout the state of Utah, Murray City's library began as an effort of local volunteers wishing to promote the value of reading, literacy, education, and self-improvement to its residents.

For many years prior to 1912, the Murray City Women's Club operated a library and reading room available to the entire community. On May 7, 1912, the Murray City Mayor and Commission voted to accept the Women's Club donation of its book collection and to set aside a library fund to establish, operate, and maintain a free public library. The vision of these citizens and their elected officials created an institution that has served the community with distinction since 1912.

Over the course of the century that followed, the Murray Library continued to grow and promote its core values of providing friendly, responsive, accountable, respectful, and inclusive service to its community. It is now locally governed by a dedicated volunteer Board of Trustees that encourages everyone to celebrate the Library's past, present, and future. The Murray City Women's Club and the citizens' group Friends of the Library continue to support and promote a strong and independent library where the community can gather and share common interests and concerns.

The Murray City Library, like all of Utah's public libraries, plays a critical role in providing our citizens with the information they need to live, learn, and thrive in our society. I would therefore like to celebrate the one hundred years of community service provided by the Murray Library and look forward to another one hundred years of excellence.

I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for introducing the bill, and I thank the gentleman from Virginia for the time.

You know, I'm part of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of conservative Democrats, and for 16 years the Blue Dogs have been advocating a balanced budget amendment.

It really shouldn't be about Democrats and Republicans. Since I've been in Congress, I've been here when Democrats controlled Congress and Republicans controlled Congress. I've been here when Democrats controlled the White House and Republicans controlled the White House, and neither party has the best track record on the deficit issue. And that's why I think the balanced budget amendment makes sense, because I think we need a structural requirement that brings everyone to the table and says this is what you've got to do, Democrats or Republicans.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue. This should be an issue about setting a path forward that creates stability and sends the right message to the American people and to the rest of the world that we know how to live within our means.

Now, I have to say that I wish we had more support on my side of the aisle than we do because, as I said, I don't think it's a Democratic or Republican issue. I think it's an issue that we all ought to be looking at--balancing the books, balancing your budget. Families do it every day. States do it. At least 49 States have a requirement for a balanced budget. I think that this country needs that, too, and I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment and put us on a path to fiscal responsibility.

I think it's the same threshold that requires us to make a decision to deficit spend. It's the same supermajority for that as well. So I think that what we do is we're putting a requirement in where, if you want to default or if you want to raise the debt limit or if you want to deficit spend, it requires a supermajority. But if you want to pass a budget that is within balance, it doesn't require a supermajority. It requires a simple majority, and that's the way the bill is structured.

I said no.

As I said, let's not do apples and oranges here. Let's do apples and apples. If this Congress wants to act in a way to pass a balanced budget, it doesn't require a supermajority. If this Congress wants to make a decision to deficit spend, it can do that with a supermajority, and that's the same requirement as if it wants to raise the debt limit.

By the way, if a simple majority balances the budget, there is no need to raise the debt limit. There's no need to raise the debt limit if we have a balanced budget, and that would be a simple majority to pass a balanced budget each year.

I would like to thank my colleague from Florida (Mr. Stearns) for introducing the bill before us today.

Mr. Chairman, I support this bipartisan legislation for two reasons. One, I believe that our gun laws should ensure that a responsible, law- abiding individual is able to exercise his Second Amendment right to carry firearms. Two, this bill simplifies what is now a piecemeal system of existing reciprocal agreements among the States.

There are millions of concealed-carry permit holders in this country, including thousands in my State. They comply with State law to gain a State permit so that they can legally carry weapons for self-defense. By passing this bill, we will ensure that, when they travel to other States, they will be able to exercise their right to self-defense while away from home. This bill does not create a federal licensing or registration system. It does not allow a concealed-weapon permit holder to carry a concealed weapon in

States like Illinois, which do not allow concealed carry.

I think that addresses the criticism of this legislation that it would override a State's ability to determine who can carry concealed weapons within that State's borders. Permit holders who want to take their weapons with them to another State are required to be aware of and abide by that State's rules.

As a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights, I support this legislation, and I urge its adoption.

I rise in support of H.R. 818, which would direct the Secretary of the Interior to allow for the prepayment of repayment contracts between the United States and the Uintah Water Conservancy District.

I would very much like to thank Chairmen Hastings and McClintock and Ranking Members Markey and Napolitano for their support in moving this bill through the Natural Resources Committee.

This is a commonsense bill that encourages and promotes fiscal responsibility at all levels of government. Allowing the Uintah Water Conservancy District to pay its debt obligations back early and in a timely manner is what we like to call a ``win-win'' in that it's finally beneficial to the local government and Federal Government alike.

It provides local government the ability to responsibly self-govern, giving it the flexibility to pay its loan off early and save hundreds of thousands of dollars in future interest payments. This savings will result in lower costs to the water users, which is very important as we continue to grow out of the current economic recession and look for additional ways to support much needed economic development in rural communities. Likewise, allowing for prepayment results in a significant payment to the Federal Treasury.

As Congress continues to look for ways to trim the Federal budget and encourage best practices and good government policies, allowing for prepayment is a good model to follow. In addition, I believe this legislation provides a good opportunity to help rural communities prioritize and implement best practices to utilize scarce resources in an effort to meet rural water demands in a cost-effective and fiscally responsible manner.

I would also like to point out that there is precedence for allowing the prepayment of repayment contracts. H.R. 818 is similar to legislation used by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, which allowed for the prepayment of the repayment contracts for the Bonneville Unit. This effort saved hundreds of thousands in taxpayer dollars and allowed for project managers to consider time and cost savings through a balanced approach to managing an important resource in my State.

H.R. 818 is the same bill that passed the House unanimously in the 111th Congress. It has also in this Congress been reintroduced in the Senate by my counterparts in the Utah delegation, Senators Hatch and Lee. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bill once again.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me some time.

Madam Speaker, I find that sometimes when we talk about issues around here, we hear the same thing we've heard for years and years and years, and sometimes that's a good thing.

But sometimes it's also important to acknowledge that the world is changing. Things are happening. Globalization is a mixed bag, globalization creates opportunities, but it also creates a lot of challenges. As policymakers, what we need to do is look for where we can best position this country to compete in that changing environment.

I rise in support of all three of these agreements, and I will tell you what's going on compared to years ago. The rest of the world's moving on. The rest of the world is opening markets to each other, and U.S. products and U.S. opportunities are being limited by that phenomenon.

For example, in Colombia, 2008, the United States was responsible for 46 percent of all the goods coming into Colombia. But what happened after 2008? Well, Colombia entered into bilateral trade agreements with Argentina and with Brazil, and just 2 short years later, in 2010, the U.S. only had 20 percent of the products that were being shipped into Colombia. That's a pretty big drop. About 25 percent of all the materials coming into that country, the U.S. used to have that market and then we lost it.

We should seek out the fairest deals, the best deals for this country; but we should not be in denial for what's going on in the rest of the world. We should not be in denial about markets opening up elsewhere and the U.S. sitting on its hands and doing nothing.

Now, mind you, in the case of Colombia, in particular, it's already had an opportunity for markets in the U.S. due to the Caribbean Basin Initiative. Their goods have been coming here duty free for years. We have an opportunity now to level that playing field.

So I encourage my colleagues to recognize where we are in 2011 and the circumstances we are in and what other countries in the world are doing to respond to the opportunities presented by globalization and dealing with mitigating the problems. I encourage you to vote for all three of these trade agreements.

I want to thank my colleague from Kentucky for allowing me the time.

I think, as we look at the TRAIN Act today, you're going to hear a lot during this debate from both sides of the aisle; and there are going to be a lot of strong words from both sides of the aisle, probably beyond what the TRAIN Act really is.

The TRAIN Act was an idea: that we ought to take a look before we leap. The idea that we have all these processes taking place on individual rules, but that no one is bothering to take a look at how they all might fit together and what the impacts might be just doesn't make sense. That was the genesis behind this bill: to make sure that we look at the overall impact. You see, the EPA is supposed to look at the impacts on each individual rule, but they don't look at how they connect together.

The Clean Air Act has been a wonderful success in this country. It has made a lot of progress, and I think everyone in this room appreciates the health benefits it has created. It has also made a lot of progress on a lot of different criteria pollutants. Now we're taking on and addressing issues that reflect some of the more difficult issues to address at smaller increments at the upper end. As we're going to do that, I would suggest it makes sense for us to make sure that before we take actions that could have great significance that we at least understand that significance.

So that's the idea behind the TRAIN Act--look before you leap, and make sure how all of this fits together.

Despite what this debate sounds like for people watching tonight, there is a common agenda here among everyone. I think most people in this country value clean air. They value good decision-making, too, and we want to make sure that we evaluate these issues with the best analysis possible and with the best information possible so we can make decisions in the most efficient way.

Mr. Speaker, this anniversary is first, last and always a day of remembrance. The shock and horror of that day has receded. But all of us remember where we were on that morning when passenger jets became missiles, striking the twin towers of the World Trade Center. The mountains of debris left when they collapsed are gone. The Pentagon has long since been restored. The field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania is a burial ground still, where contemplation by those who return is reverent and sorrowful. Two Utahns were aboard one of the hijacked planes that struck the first tower; another Utahn died at his job in the Pentagon when a third jet crashed into it.

The passing days brought much heartache. Not all Americans lost family members during the terrorist attacks, yet it felt as though we did. In the aftermath, many of us lit candles, mailed donations, flew our flag, and hugged our children more tightly at night as we tucked them into bed. The heroes of 9/11--members of the New York and Port Authority police departments and the New York City firefighters-- quickly replaced the frightening images of the hijackers. From across this country, ordinary people put comfortable lives on hold in order to join the rescue and recovery effort. Later on, thousands of men and women from all walks of life stepped forward, donned our country's uniform and took the fight to those who plotted against America. Terrorists tried to break America apart; instead, their actions brought Americans together.

The September 11th attacks triggered American resilience. We worked hard to return to normal--a new kind of normal. As a Nation, we have made ourselves safer and more vigilant--at airports, on trains, on subways, at ports and in cyberspace. We strengthened intelligence and information sharing, we traced the money and shut down terrorist bank accounts, and we foiled al Qaeda. The U.S. and its allies have hunted down, captured or killed over 600 U.S. targets, including the masterminds of 9/11--Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and Osama bin Laden.

Ultimately, it is America's courage and America's values that defeated the terrorists. As British Prime Minister Tony Blair said in an address to Congress, ``We are so much more powerful in all conventional ways than the terrorists. In the end, it is not our power alone that will defeat this evil. Our ultimate weapon is not our guns, but our beliefs.'' This anniversary is but one marker along the way to building on the dream that is our democratic Nation--the land of the free and the home of the brave.

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

Mr. Chairman, in the report language from the committee report for this bill, the Appropriations Committee included some language talking about concern about the lack of remediation activity taking place around the country at various Department-sponsored facilities and small sites under the responsibility of the Department, and this is in terms of environmental cleanup for non-defense sites.

I share that concern, and the committee report language talks about having the Department not later than November 15, 2011, give a detailed plan on remediating these small sites.

Here is the issue. When you have some smaller sites that need to be cleaned up, you have your management infrastructure in place. We are spending money each year to maintain the management structure, but if you don't spend the money to actually do the cleanup, you just extend the life cycle of this project out year after year after year. I think if we focus on these projects and get them done by investing the funds to clean them up quickly, it is actually from a life-cycle basis better off for taxpayers.

Now, this is a tough bill to find a pay-for because overall--and I applaud the fact that we looked at reducing spending in this bill--but my suggestion is a modest increase in the non-defense environmental cleanup account of $10 million, which will bring the funding level to what it was in the last fiscal year. That is paid for by reducing by $10 million the National Nuclear Security Administration's weapons activity account, which had been plussed up $185 million in this bill.

There are a few of these sites around the country. They are smaller. There are some sites that are larger. I am not directing where this money goes. I am just trying to put money into the non-defense environmental cleanup account, hoping that since the committee indicated in its report language that it

wants the smaller sites to move on a faster basis, that this funding could help assist in that effort. In my opinion, this is in the taxpayers' interest to do this.

Now, there are sites around the country. There happens to be one in my congressional district. It is in Moab, Utah. It is a facility where the Department of Energy has been cleaning up a radioactive tailings pile that is on the banks of the Colorado River. It is a pile where the environmental impact statement indicated that in the long term, it is a near certainty that this tailings pile would be flooded and flushed down the river. There are about 25 million users of this water downstream. There has been ongoing bipartisan agreement in the House of Representatives for years about the cleanup of this site.

And this is just one, and I think there are others that also are mandatory as well. Again, my amendment cannot direct it to one particular site, but I am suggesting that increasing funding by $10 million to bring the non-defense environmental cleanup account up to last year's level is a good thing to do. That's the purpose of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to stand up and offer this bipartisan amendment today, offered by myself and also the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

The amendment addresses an interesting problem, and that is, over history, at times, the Federal Government has given land to various airport authorities--it could be a city, a county, or a State--with a reverter clause that the land is no longer used for the purpose in which it was given or sold to that airport. Now, I'm not suggesting we ignore the reverter clause, but there are circumstances where a different airport-related use is proposed for this land but it can't be done under the original terms of the sale.

So our amendment basically says that as long as this land is continued to be used for airport purposes, the FAA has the ability to ignore the reverter clause, if you will, or adjust the reverter clause to allow this land to continue to be used for airport purposes in a different manner than it was used before.

This circumstance exists in various locations around the country. This is an issue that has been hanging out for a few years in some of our congressional districts, and I'm pleased we have found a way, I believe, to address

what I believe are noncontroversial issues of changing to a different type of airport use. So I think it's consistent with the intent of the land being given to a city, county, or State or airport authority. This remains in the public hands.

That is the substance of my amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I urge people to vote for it.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I greatly appreciate the comments of my colleague Mr. Petri. And, again, I also commit to work with you to refine this to make this in the best possible form.

I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Reclaiming my time, if no one is going to claim time in opposition, I am happy to close.

Again, I appreciate Mr. Pearce's work on this and I appreciate Mr. Petri's ongoing discussions on this. It's been a bipartisan effort. I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My amendment would eliminate funding for the community connect broadband grant program which is administered by the Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service.

Now, eliminating this program would save over $13.4 million. This is endorsed by Citizens Against Government Waste.

Look. We're all for broadband development, and we're all for rural broadband development. It turns out there are a lot of different Federal programs that try to do this. This is one in particular that does not have a good history. In fact, in 2005 and in 2009, Inspector General reports have raised questions about this specific grant program. And that is why I have raised this issue today.

As I said, I think as a supporter of rural broadband development, I want to see programs that work and are effective. This one has some serious questions about it. And that is the substance of my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My amendment addresses issues of nonessential travel by Federal employees that are not involved in the Department of Defense or Homeland Security.

Simply stated, the amendment says that appropriations made available by this act are hereby reduced by $600 million for all departments except for the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Defense.

I originally was going to do an amendment that specifically talked about reducing nonessential travel. I was concerned about a point of order. So this amendment does not specifically mention nonessential travel. However, based on advice of the fiscal commission, the travel cuts could be proposed. And both Democrats and Republicans on the fiscal commission thought that this was a productive area to look for savings.

I decided to structure this amendment in a way that would not be subject to a point of order. But its intent is to reduce nonessential travel by Federal employees in departments outside of the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.

That is a description of my amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

My amendment affects departments other than Defense and Homeland Security. It's only for nonessential employees in other Federal departments outside of those two.

It's a goal across all of the other departments, all of the other appropriations areas, except Defense and Homeland Security are excluded.

That is correct.

I don't want to prolong this debate. I just want to point out, absent concerns of a point of order I would have prescriptively said this is specific to do with nonessential travel of Federal employees.

Due to concerns about a point of order, we structured this amendment where it says this is a cut of $600 million. However, the intent and hopefully the report language when folks in these agencies look at the debate that's taking place right here on the House floor is that it's addressing nonessential travel.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would cut funding in the CR, other than the Department of Defense and the U.S. Postal Service, other than those two, by $280 million. Now, $280 million is the amount of money that would be saved if Federal civilian agencies, except DOD and the Postal Service, were to reduce their vehicle fleet budgets by 20 percent.

If adopted, it is my intention that these Federal agencies determine where to cut their portion of the $280 million in cuts specifically towards finding savings in their vehicle fleet budgets.

This is a bipartisan idea supported by the chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield to my colleague from California.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Kentucky about the challenges of across-the-board cuts. I feel like I was elected to come up with suggestions. If I could draft an amendment that would be ruled in order, I would specifically say it should be about the spending cuts, but I can't legislate on an appropriations bill.

So I would hope that as we look at this amendment, we understand that people read the record of this conversation, it was the intent of Congress when I looked at this amendment that agencies are supposed to reduce their vehicle purchases by 20 percent as the best that Mr. Royce and I can do under the rules of the House. We are trying to offer a specific opportunity to cut spending. We think we have identified it well during this discussion. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.