James Lankford

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, I recently read about a couple who found out there was a problem in their pregnancy, that their child had not developed all four sections of its heart. So, at 23 weeks, they did a surgery where they reached in with a needle into the womb. They used a balloon technique to be able to open up the fourth chamber of the heart of that child. At 23 weeks, the family could gather around and see the video and celebrate this incredible scientific act of medical bravery, and then the family celebrated something wonderful that had happened. They had protected the life of a child. They reached into a beating heart, still in the womb at 23 weeks, and saved that child. The frightening part is, across town, a different mother at 23 weeks of pregnancy, which is before viability in many States, could go to a different doctor, who could reach into that womb and pull that child apart limb by limb. The family wouldn't stand and celebrate nor would we look at the video and say that's beautiful, like we did with the other surgery. Yet, in the cognitive dissidence of our Nation, we celebrate one mother, and we protect the other one simultaneously. It is unmistakable to look in that womb and see a life for both of them. Understand, this is a child in both instances, and they must stand to be protected. It is a difficult thing for the President to say today that we must reduce the need for abortion. There is only one need to reduce the need for abortion: that is if the President understands the same thing that we do, that it's a life. He would not stand and say we need to reduce the need for some skin tissue or some mole on your arm. If it were only tissue, there is no need to try to reduce the need, but he understands we do need to reduce the need. As the President stated today, this is not protecting the dreams of our daughters; this is protecting the daughters that will never be and the nightmare guilt that is on so many women who have gone through an abortion. We must stand for life. I look forward to the day. I look forward to the day that generations ahead of us will look back at this time and say, I am so glad that the Nation finally chose life.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. I will tell you, living in Oklahoma City, and if you come through Oklahoma at all, you'll drive around and you'll see our beautiful land, and you'll drink our beautiful water and breath our beautiful air; but you'll also realize that there are thousands of miles of pipeline underneath your feet, because, you see, Oklahoma is the center of pipeline movement through a lot of the United States. In fact, just north and east of my house in Oklahoma City is a small town called Cushing, Oklahoma. And if you know anything about pipeline and about oil, you know about Cushing, Oklahoma, because there's a large storage facility there for a lot of petroleum products, and it is the hub for everything that moves as far as oil and all pipelines running through the Midwest. Cushing, Oklahoma, is part of that connection for the Keystone pipeline. When you talk to people in Oklahoma about pipelines, we're very familiar with what they are, how they move energy, and how important they are to our economy. Let me just touch base on a couple of things, though. While we're talking about Keystone, it's interesting to me in several ways. One is I'm 43 years old, and for my entire life, I've heard people say in politics we need to have a national energy policy. We need to be dependent on energy from our soil or from our nearest neighbors, Canada and Mexico. We need to have a North American focus of energy, and I would have to say I completely agree. But we've never had a time in our life when we are closer to that than right now. The rising alternative of fuel options, whether it be solar and wind, and I hope all of them come to be, we're still decades away from them being able to be fully established and out there. We're very dependent on oil, gas, and coal. But we're finding new reserves in North America of oil, gas, and coal that are solving a lot of the energy issues that we currently have right now. Many people don't know that in the last quarter of 2011, 58 percent of the oil consumed in the United States was found domestically in the United States--58 percent. You go back just 20 years ago, 60 percent of all oil was coming from overseas; now almost 60 percent of all oil is in the United States, coming from the United States. We are making progress. Hydraulic fracking, horizontal drilling, finding new well sites, great new technology in geology, all the ways that we're finding these new sources of energy, doing it cleaner and doing it less expensive than we've ever done it before. That's a good thing for us. We are now close to providing our own energy sources. The second-largest reserve of oil in the world is now from this area where the Keystone Pipeline originates in Canada, the second-largest oil reserve in the world. This is a key time for us now, getting better technology in the United States to be able to use our own energy to now partner up with Canada and continue drawing even more energy from Canada from this huge reserve that is there. We need to continue to draw from them in that sense. Now you would think this would be a simple thing--focus on our own national security. Why wouldn't we continue to focus on it and say we are this close to being energy independent, and we are not dependent on energy from the Middle East. Why wouldn't we continue to take the steps on that? In addition to that, why wouldn't we continue to expand on our pipelines? You see, this is not the first time for Keystone to do a pipeline coming from Canada to the United States--it was just a very few years ago. In fact, that Keystone that they did a few years ago took 24 months to permit. From the exact same area to the same area, 24 months for the total permitting process. That pipeline is functional and active and running right now. They want to double up the capacity. So you would think this would be a slam dunk. Let's just add a second line there. They run through the permit process to the same system, but instead of 24 months this time, we're now at 42 months of permitting and still climbing. Where the same pipeline crossing over the border, drawing oil from the exact same area, took 24 months a few years ago, now that pipeline takes 42 months and climbing. We're not sure how much longer it's going to take. In addition to that, Keystone is running there, that's one company. There's also another company, Enbridge, which draws oil from that exact same area in Canada and takes it through the United States. That pipeline is also currently running and hasn't had any issues with permitting and through the process of construction that it did years ago. You see, this is not some new oil discovery that's up there that we've never tapped into. The United States uses that oil and has used that oil for a long time. It is a reserve that is from a reliable neighbor next door in Canada that's consistent, that we're not having to deal with issues in the Strait of Hormuz and wondering about the flow of oil coming from the Middle East. We're dealing with the United States, now 58 percent of our oil usage coming from our own home country, and we're dealing with reliable neighbors dealing with our pipelines, like Canada and Mexico. It's the right thing to do for our national security. It's the right thing to do for jobs. We're talking about immediately, private jobs. No government participation other than the permitting being finished. Private money begins to sink in the billions of dollars to be able to run almost 1,700 miles of pipeline. We're talking pipefitters, which are based often in Oklahoma, by the way, union jobs, right-to-work areas and other job areas. You're dealing with steel manufacturers for that pipe, pipe manufactured, most of it done in Arkansas. People digging the ditches, running the tractors, driving the trucks. All of the different areas that are attached to that, thousands of jobs that begin immediately across the entire central part of the United States and many manufacturing areas. We need to be able to open that up and let those jobs run and let's get those going on that. And then the third thing on this, not only national security and jobs, but just basic common sense. That oil will be sold somewhere. It's not a matter that we can argue and complain about it and say that Canada is not going to use their own resources. When the second-largest discovery of oil in the world is underneath your feet, they're going to sell that oil. So just shutting it down and saying Americans aren't going to take it, we're going to let them sell it off, and they'll send it west over into Asia, and that will make things a lot better, doesn't make common sense, number one. Number two is we should provide as much national security as we can for this. That's basic common sense with reliable neighbors. Number three in the common sense is this basic simple thing: It's new pipeline. Now we can argue about pipeline safety, and there are areas we need to work on pipeline safety, and we in this Congress as Republicans and Democrats together have passed pipeline safety initiatives, and we should do that. This will be the newest pipeline in the country. It will have the highest standards for safety, it will have the highest level of technology and of monitoring of any pipeline in the country. It is the best possible way to do it. The alternative is to be able to put it on trucks and trains, which have a higher incidence for accidents. This is the safest way to be able to do this. And as I mentioned before, it's not as if we're not already drawing this oil already. This just increases our capacity and increases our ability to not be dependent on Venezuela and OPEC countries for our oil. There are pipelines from Enbridge and Keystone running from that exact same area all the way down to the gulf already. We need to continue to increase our capacity so that we are providing for our own energy long term. I would submit to this Congress, and I would submit to the President and ask for his prompt approval, even early would be great, of approval of this to be able to move forward and say let's get this off our back, let's get the jobs going, let's continue to move forward with our national security, providing for our own energy, and let's continue to work through this process so that we don't have to deal with issues like this again. Far be it from us, in the days to come, that manufacturers would say I don't want to do manufacturing and construction in the United States because I'm afraid the President will slow down a jobs project. I'm afraid Congress will slow down a jobs project. I'm afraid that that country is not open for business. We should do it better than the rest of the world. We can and we do. This is a simple project. Approve the Keystone Pipeline. It's been approved through these States, and Nebraska is working through its system of its approval process. We need just to approve that 50 feet crossing the border from Canada to the United States, and let's get this project going. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Millions of Americans are jobless. In response, the House of Representatives has passed more than 20 jobs bills. This past July, the North American-Made Energy Security Act urged President Obama to issue a final permitting decision on the Keystone pipeline, which will connect Canada's rich oil sands to the U.S. refineries along the gulf coast. Our dependence on Middle East oil is a security and economic challenge that we must overcome. The proposed pipeline would consist of over 1,700 miles capable of delivering more than half a million barrels of crude oil each day. In my home State of Oklahoma, this pipeline project is expected to add $1.2 billion in economic impact. This pipeline presents a unique chance for America to truly cull back our precarious dependence on Middle East oil while also adding tremendous economic activity to our stagnant economy. In early November of this year, the Obama administration made an unacceptable political decision to punt the approval of the Keystone pipeline until after the Presidential election. A few weeks ago, I formally asked the Secretary of State to at least approve the southern route of the pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma, to the gulf. Our country has waited for Presidential approval for 3 years.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise the incredible people of Oklahoma City and the wonderful community they're building for our retired military veterans. A recent study conducted in 379 cities nationwide by USAA and Military.com ranked Oklahoma City as the number one city for a second career for military retirees. Oklahoma City's economy is boosted by a great combination of veteran-owned businesses, defense contracting companies, Federal workers, and Tinker Air Force Base. This study simply proves what Oklahomans already know: Oklahoma is a great place to live and to work. Oklahoma City has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the Nation and one of the highest work ethics. Oklahoma City is a great place to raise a family, start a new career or retire. The vets who have chosen to live in Oklahoma City are hardworking individuals with great skills, a great work ethic, and a love for our country. Military retirees make long-lasting contributions within their communities, and they're vital to our State's success. My message to veterans across the Nation who want to start a new business or new career or find a new community that honors vets for their service, you're welcome to join us in Oklahoma City.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, 27 times the United States Constitution has been amended. It's something we do rarely, and it's something that we should think through in the process. We do it only because it is absolutely required and we have common agreement across the House, the Senate, and the American people. This is one of those moments. If you ask most every American on the street, ``Should we balance our budget?'' they will nod their head. If you ask them again, ``Should we force Congress to balance the budget?'' again they will nod their head and say yes, this is something we should do. There is common agreement across the American people because it's common sense. It's hard to explain to any family or any business why they have to balance their budget but Congress does not. It is the ultimate exemption for Members of Congress that they can spend as much as they want as often as they would like without any retribution. I hear all the doomsday statements that if we balanced our budget, what would possibly happen if we had to live within our means? It makes me smile and say, just like every business and every family, we have to make hard choices, and we have to do it. But it's not what doomsday prediction happens if we balance our budget. It is look up across the ocean at what is happening in Europe right now to nations that did not balance their budget, and for some reason, we think as Americans we can run up as much debt as we would like with no consequence. We are fooling ourselves. The doomsday is coming. We must put a boundary around the United States Congress to be able to balance our budget. In 1995, when this failed by one vote, we will forever regret that if this occurs again. It's time for us to balance our budget once and for all.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Madam Speaker, in my district, we disagree a lot about football, but we strongly agree that the Federal Government must balance this budget. As a freshman, I've seen firsthand this body will only make the hard decisions when they have to make the hard decisions. Though we don't agree that we need to balance the budget every time and every place, we do understand that, as a Federal budget over the course of a year, we must balance our budget. We don't do that because the Constitution doesn't require it. It's time to change that reality. In 1995 this body overwhelmingly approved a simple balanced budget amendment, and it required that we would balance our budget each year. It failed in the Senate by one vote, passed overwhelmingly in the House. If it had passed both bodies and been ratified by the States, within 10 years we would have balanced the budget by 2005. Our total debt in 2005 was $7.5 trillion. It is now $15 trillion. In just 6 years we doubled our debt. Now we stand here again debating if this is the best language or the best option for a balanced budget amendment. If we fail to pass it this year, 10 years from now some freshman congressman will stand at this microphone and berate the 2011 Congress for delaying again the decision and passing on to their generation an even bigger debt. Let's build the wall around the Federal checkbook, and let's pass this simple budget amendment.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in honor of the Close-Up Foundation on their 40th Anniversary. Since 1971, Close Up has educated over 750,000 students and teachers in the democratic process through their Washington-based civic education programs and classroom publications. Close-Up provides students and teachers from diverse backgrounds all over the country with the opportunity to use the institutions and historical sites of our nation's capital as a backdrop for their lectures, small group discussions, and interactions with key policy experts. The programs are designed to enrich students' knowledge of the basic concepts and institutions of American constitutional government and develop a practical understanding of the processes of the democratic political system and the role of its citizens. They leave each student with a better understanding of the complex policy issues that surround our country every day. As a 10th grader on my first trip to Washington, D.C. with the Close- Up Foundation, I had an opportunity to experience the benefits of the program firsthand. The inner workings of democracy and the legislative process fascinated me. The information and education I received during my visit as a student provided me with the foundation to be an active member of my community and engage in the civics process. I rise today in appreciation of the Close-Up foundation on their 40th Anniversary and thank them for the opportunity they have provided to hundreds of thousands of students from across our great nation. I look forward to meeting with the many more students that will visit our nation's capitol in the future.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, I hear many people say, that our country has never been more at odds or our rhetoric more divisive than now--I would strongly disagree. While I believe that our debate and tone should reflect respect for each person, regardless of the deep philosophical divide--I would remind us of a time in 1861 when our nation stood at the precipice of the Civil War and the oratory spilled over into bloodshed. During that dark moment in our nation's history, the Secretary of the Treasury ordered the Director of the US Mint to create a new inscription for the nation's coins: He wrote, No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins. You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition. The Director of the Mint responded back with a variation of the phrase used in the Star Spangled Banner, The Motto, ``In God is our trust''--since it was a familiar hymn and indicative of the American people, but though he thought it had too many letters for a coin, so he recommended ``God our Trust'', it was later finalized as, ``In God we Trust'' and was first put on a two cent coin in 1864, near the end of the Civil War. Most coins then followed with that motto until 1907 when some coins were approved without the words, In God we Trust, but after a huge public outcry, it was added back in 1908. This was not an isolated moment in our American story, it was a consistent theme of our American story. As we struggled as a group of thirteen small colonies we penned, ``We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. . . .'' As I already mentioned, Francis Scott Key watched the shelling of Baltimore in 1814 after the burning of Washington, DC thinking that this could be the decisive moment when our young nation would be wiped out, he wrote the Star Spangled Banner--which ends with ``So this be our motto, In God is our Trust.'' After fighting World War I and then in short order World War II, then immediately finding the world waging the Cold War against Communism in the 1950's, we declared again our national value, what defines our nation--how we are different than the rest of the world. The Communists declared their confidence that man can solve every problem of mankind, the educated and benevolent heart and mind of a few leaders could fix all of man's inequities, if you would only put your trust in the government. In 1954 and 1956 our nation declared again with a resounding voice by adding, Under God, to the pledge, In God we trust to all currency and declaring ``In God we Trust'' as our official national motto. The Francis Scott Key's poem, that became a song, that declared since 1814, ``this is our motto, In God is our trust'' finally actually became our official motto. In a time of national crisis the nation, through its elected leaders declared again that as a free people, we do not put our trust in Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, in the creativity of people or anyone else. We expect that the nation's leaders will also be the nation's humble servants, but we do not put our trust in them. We have a national optimism because we believe that this world and this nation was created with a purpose and that the creator cares for his creation--from our founding documents, we believe that all people are created equal and are given certain rights from God, including Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. We are different as American, we believe that our rights come from God, not men--our core value comes from something higher than ourselves. It is that belief that drives Americans to not give up in the struggle to restore our great Republic. We have been through hard times before, war, depression, poverty and struggle, but in this world of chaos, debt, irresponsibility and fear it is wise to stop and reflect again on our hope and our trust--we must work with all diligence to do what is right--but we should also remember that at the end of the day, we will have this world and its problems in right perspective if we will work and put our trust in God. This is not an establishment of a religion, it is an acknowledgement of our history, our present and our future--we are a diverse nation, with all kinds of belief and some with no belief--but a common theme has resonated through each national crisis, In God we Trust. In this moment of national debate over the issue of our day, I encourage the continued support of this simple and historic national motto.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. As we talk about jobs in America, let's talk about a positive story: Oklahoma City, ranked yesterday as having the number one best employment rate in America among cities of 1 million or more. In our federal system of government, States and cities compete for excellence, and the result is a terrific city like Oklahoma City. What made it work? I can tell you what made it work: Great State and local leadership, people who love to work, commonsense regulations locally, business owners who build great businesses, and a great community. In Oklahoma City, you see, we have traditional and new energy production working well side by side, community banks that work through the regulatory maze and do commercial lending. We have reasonable real estate development, trucking and manufacturing for all types of products, a military and civilian workforce who work together, small business owners and employees who love to serve our community, and pro-business, pro-family laws and regulations. There is something our Nation could learn from a city like Oklahoma City.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. I hear many people say that our country has never been more at odds and our rhetoric more divisive than now. I would strongly disagree. I would remind us of a time in 1861 when our Nation stood at the precipice of the Civil War and the oratory spilled over into bloodshed. During that dark moment in our Nation's history, the Secretary of the Treasury ordered the Director of the U.S. Mint to create a new inscription for the national coins. He wrote: ``No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.'' The Director of the Mint responded back with a variation of the phrase that he pulled out from the Star Spangled Banner, the statement, so our motto is ``In God is our trust,'' since it was a familiar hymn and indicative of the American people. It was later finalized as, ``In God We Trust'' and was first put on a 2-cent coin in 1864, near the end of the Civil War. This was not some isolated moment in American history; this is a consistent theme. Whether it be the shelling of Baltimore in 1814, when Francis Scott Key watched, knowing this was the decisive moment, or whether it was World War I or World War II that entered the Cold War, immediately after that as we were fighting against communism, trying to find what is it that sets the United States apart from the other nations around the world, it is this unique thing: Our founding documents are based around this statement, We are given our rights from God, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We as Americans believe our rights are from God. It is in God we trust.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 674, which repeals the 3 percent withholding requirements on State and local governments for goods and services. The 3 percent withholding requirement is just another layer of burden and unfunded mandates on our States, cities, counties, and private entities. Withholding 3 percent of a contract at the start just in case sets a horrible precedent. When we find a bad actor in the contracting community, we should have aggressive prosecution, suspension, and debarment. But, we should not have a national policy that assumes every contractor in America is a tax cheat. It's a dreadful policy, and it's horrible economics. Let me break this down to what it will mean for communities in my State of Oklahoma. In Oklahoma City, it will cost between $75,000 and $250,000 to implement the initial financial system and all of the modifications to comply with these rules. After that, it's expected to cost at least $15,000 a year to maintain those modifications in the financial system. To ensure that Oklahoma City fully complies with these mandates to maintain the financial system, Oklahoma City estimates that they're going to have to hire two additional full-time employees. Now I understand that we're all about job creation here, but our job creation should focus on goods and services and taking care of people, not filling out even more Federal forms. In Edmond, Oklahoma, they're concerned as to how the 3 percent withholding requirement would eventually be passed along to the buyer, increasing the overall cost. Edmond's annual contractual services expenditures line is over $130 million this year. If the cost of these products and services are increased by 3 percent to cover the withholding costs, Edmond's expenditures could be raised by $4 million. Worse yet, that could mean contractors choosing not to bid on city and local projects, ultimately decreasing competition and increasing the cost. A contractor in the small town of Tecumseh, Oklahoma, told me that with a down economy, he only had a 2 percent profit margin last year. The 3 percent requirement would stifle his cash flow and would force him to increase his bids, which of course would be passed along to the taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, as we continue to find ways to kick-start our economy and encourage job growth in the private sector, I'm hopeful we can come to a bipartisan agreement to reduce the regulatory burden on State and local governments and encourage private sector growth. I'm sure it was well intentioned at the start, but it is time to eliminate this burdensome regulation.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. We are a Nation that values all life. When a bridge is under construction and a migratory bird's nest with eggs is discovered, the Fish and Wildlife Migratory Bird Treaty Act forces the delay of construction until the birds have hatched and flown away. Why? Because life is important to us. When a baby is born prematurely, we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to save that child because each life is important to us. We have one glaring and obvious exception to this passion for life: abortion. For some reason, we see the life of a duck and its egg as more valuable than an infant in the womb. For some reason, we think that a baby born 5 weeks early is worthy of hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical technology to save; but if that same mother wanted to hire a doctor to reach in the womb and kill that child with scissors 5 weeks before delivery, some would demand her choice must be protected. What our Founding Fathers considered a self-evident truth is that we have been endowed by our Creator with certain rights, beginning with ``life,'' which is now a topic open for discussion in our modern day ethic. I still believe in the value of the instructions given to leaders thousands of years ago in Proverbs 31: ``Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly.''

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, let me just mention, I congratulate my counterpart from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan) in bringing this forward and giving us a chance to work through this process. We both come from the beautiful State of Oklahoma. And I invite anyone to be able to come to Oklahoma and drink our water and breathe our air and see the beautiful land, but also see a very successful State in dealing with energy. We've done hydraulic fracking in our State since 1949. And while it may be new to other States, it's not new to Oklahoma. Over 100,000 times in Oklahoma we've done hydraulic fracking. Yet I would invite you again, come drink our water, come breathe our air, come see our beautiful land. Our State leadership has done a tremendous job in dealing with environmental quality issues, and they have done great in relationships with companies, whether that be power companies, utility companies, whether that be actual producers, whether it be service companies, through the process. It's a great model in much of the United States, if you get a chance to come and see what's going on there. But what we're currently experiencing is this whole sense that if the Federal Government doesn't come down on Oklahoma and every other State around the United States, surely children will die. Surely people will be thrown out of work because they have these wonderful compliance jobs required by the EPA and other areas. It's a frustration for me to be able to hear someone stand up in this Chamber and say, If those Republicans get what they want, 25,000 people will die next year because those mean Republicans are going to come and shut everyone down. People should know, I have children that live in the State. In fact, I have a child that has asthma. If you want to talk about a dad who loves his children and who wants to see a great future for them, that's me as well. It's not as if Republicans are suddenly wanting dirty air and dirty water; we just want basic common sense in our regulations. If every company, whether they be the energy producer or whether they be some utility, is constantly looking over their shoulder worried every day that some new restriction is going to come down on them and change their plan, they can't function. They can't go forward. They can't find investors for that business. What they're doing is very capital intensive, and if the rules change constantly and the regulations are constantly shifting, no one can really do investment, and the cost of all of our electricity goes up. The cost of every product that we buy goes up. The cost of every bit of our food goes up because we've added regulations, many of which make no sense. And they spend years and years trying to fight them in the courts just to not be shut down from doing what is best and right for the community. I understand there are bad actors. I do. And those bad actors should suffer consequences. But to be able to say that every energy producer and every utility out there is suspect and they'll never do the right thing unless we stand over them with thousands of regulators, I think overlooks the reality of a great-hearted group of Americans scattered around the country who are doing their best to do the right thing. Now, some would also say that these regulations aren't all that large, they're not all that expensive. They're just a bunch of small regulations. It reminds me of a friend of mine several years ago that was hiking through central Africa. And he and a guide were hiking through and he made the mistake in this particular area of swatting a bee that was one of those killer bees that we hear so much about. And as soon as that bee stung him and he swatted it, thousands of bees came down on him and began to sting him. Those bees kill, not from a single sting, but from thousands. That's what our utility companies are facing right now. It's not one little regulation; it's hundreds of them coming at them all at once, and they're trying to figure out through lawyers and through adding additional staff and compliance people, how do we manage all of these regulations coming. This TRAIN Act does a simple thing. It begins to pull all of these regulations together and look at them in totality. I understand that you say that's just one little piece, and it's one little piece there, but let's look at them all together and be able to find out the consequences of them. Rather than have these things coming from everywhere, let's simplify the structure on it. I urge this Chamber's support of getting some common sense back into our regulatory scheme.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. 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.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. 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.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. 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. LANKFORD

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

Mr. LANKFORD. 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. LANKFORD. 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.

Mr. LANKFORD. 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.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. 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. LANKFORD. 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. LANKFORD. 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''.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. 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. LANKFORD. 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.