James Lankford

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. 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. LANKFORD

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. 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. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. 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. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. 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. LANKFORD

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

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LANKFORD. 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. LANKFORD. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. LANKFORD. 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.

Mr. LANKFORD

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

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

Mr. LANKFORD. I yield to the gentlelady from West Virginia.

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Similar to Mr. Quigley's amendment earlier--his amendment was to provide transparency at CFPB meetings--this amendment brings transparency to the regulatory process decisions, cost and staff structure. Both parties want reliable information from the Inspectors General of every agency and of this bureau. Congress has a responsibility for oversight. That responsibility is not possible without good information. This will make the CFPB consistent with other agencies in oversight transparency. Because this new Federal Bureau is within the Federal Reserve, we must provide, Congress, citizen watchdog groups and the general public with the tools for proper oversight. The Lankford amendment will put in place a mechanism for bureau transparency. Specifically, this amendment would require the Inspectors General of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to post online and submit an annual report to Congress each February 1 illuminating four key elements in the bureau's operations during the previous fiscal year: Number one, a list of all new rules, guidelines, regulations prescribed by the bureau within the previous fiscal year with corresponding descriptions of each. Number two, a detailed list of all authority that the Federal Reserve Inspector General deems in conflict with other Federal departments and agencies. Number three, administrative expenses of the bureau, including the amount spent on salaries, office supplies, and office space. Number four, the current balance at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, their fund itself. As lawmakers, we have to have quality information at our disposal to conduct our constitutionally required duty of oversight. The report required by this amendment would provide Congress and the public a broad look into the operations of the bureau. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. We have two distinctly different views. And it's not just Republican or Democrat views. One group sees the impending crisis as whether we're going to vote to increase the debt ceiling and all the crisis is based around August 2. The other group sees the crisis as the debt itself. How you see the crisis will affect your view of how you choose to solve it. If the problem is the uncertainty around just this vote, then we do whatever it takes to get past August 2 and the problem is solved. If the problem is the debt, when we raise the ceiling, we will face a debt approaching $14 trillion with no strategy to pay off that debt. Our disaster is not averted. It has been accelerated. As we know, just raising the debt limit does not solve the problem, as we've done that many times in the past. The economy that we have now is as a result of the actions that we've taken in the past to continually raise the debt ceiling over and over again with no plan to get out of it. What if we raise the debt ceiling and agree to the President's oral plan that he has given of $14 trillion, whatever that plan may be? From the best we understand, Timothy Geithner made the statement in June that the plan is $2 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years, $1 trillion in tax increases and $1 trillion in interest savings, whatever that means. If we accomplish that plan and do that and just raise the debt ceiling, we will then have a debt in 10 years of $24 trillion with still no plan to pay it off. That does not solve the debt crisis. That accelerates our debt crisis. I have heard all day what a disaster it would be to balance our budget. Only in this room is it a disaster to balance the budget. I don't think Americans understand what we're talking about. I don't think they understand how out of touch we have really become that we would argue about balancing the budget. S&P and Moody's have both threatened to downgrade our debt, not because we're approaching August 2, but because we have no credible plan to ever pay this off. Cut, Cap, and Balance gives us a credible framework from which, year after year, we will work to be able to resolve this debt, pay it down, and get back to balance.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you. I am honored to get a chance to talk about a great American resource, and that is our energy. Let me take you back a little bit. I'm 43 years old. I can remember in elementary school I was allowed to be able to work with the debate team in high school. It was my honor to be the littlest guy in the middle of this high school debate team. In the 1970s, the debate topic that year was ``Resolved, America Should Pursue Alternative Energy Options.'' Since the 1970s, we've been talking about hydroelectric and solar and wind. We've been trying to advance this technology, and I hope we will continue to crack the code on that to make those energy solutions work well for us. Since the 1970s, we've been talking about trying to get off fossil fuels and--guess what--it is still the dominant resource that we are using in our country, and it is still the most effective resource to be able to move our vehicles, to be able to heat our homes and to be able to produce these petrochemicals that are used in almost everything that we lay our hands on nowadays. I hope one day I can run my car off a pinwheel that's on the top of it, but currently I run my car on gasoline. I hope I can heat my home one day with a solar panel on the roof, but currently the technology is not there to be able to do that. My home is heated with natural gas. There's electricity in all the different dynamics that come in. I look at it and I say, at 43 years old, I've been hearing my whole life that we need a national energy policy--drilling, pipelines, production, retailing--to be able to work out a plan that we can run as a country that is all of the above that is every bit of our energy, but that is not ignoring the energy that we have here. I can tell you I am sick to death of hearing how we need to shut down fossil fuel production in the United States because of environmental reasons, knowing full well that we will just import more of those fossil fuels from all around the world. The United States produces the cleanest energy on the planet. If we want to have clean energy, whether that be fossil fuels or alternative fuels, we should be doing whatever it takes to make sure we drill here, that we produce here, and that we are the ones that are using the energy in the cleanest method possible. No one does it cleaner than us. I can assure you we don't go to Saudi Arabia and find out they produce energy cleaner there. So if you're truly concerned about planetary issues with the environment, you would make sure all the production that's needed in the United States is produced in the United States to make sure that we continue to protect that. Let me take you to my beautiful State. Come walk into Oklahoma sometime. Since 1949 in Oklahoma, we've been fracking for oil. What many people are calling some new technology of fracking, and everyone seems to be afraid of it, and say, Is it going to hurt the groundwater and is it going to hurt all these things, I smile and I say, Come to my beautiful State. Since 1949, we've been fracking. Over 100,000 times we have fracked in Oklahoma; 100,000 times plus. Come drink our water, come breathe our air, and come see our absolutely beautiful God-given State. We can do this in an environmentally friendly way. We have in my district 5.7 percent unemployment because we have a lot of great energy companies that are doing a terrific job of both protecting our environment and providing jobs for the people in our area. We can do this. And to flippantly say, these are dirty oil companies and they're big oil companies, and we've got to do whatever it takes to punish Big Oil is flippant. I was in a hearing not long ago with Timothy Geithner. He was discussing punishing Big Oil and getting more taxes on that. I was able to say to him, Mr. Secretary, are you aware that the majority of energy companies in the United States are independent producers and they're small companies? Ninety-five percent of the drilling and the oil and gas production that happens in the United States is done by independent producers, these 18,000 small companies that are out there. These 18,000 small companies that are out there, they account for 67 percent of the total energy production in the United States. These small companies, on average, have 12 people on staff, 12 employees. These are not big, giant companies. And throwing around terms like ``Big Oil'' and attacking them makes me smile when I think about what is happening in Oklahoma with lots and lots of service companies and producers and drillers that are really doing great jobs. I was talking to one of those companies recently. Guess who they are targeting to be able to hire? Their favorite people to be able to hire are returning vets because of their work ethic and because of the skills they are bringing back. They are companies specifically going after returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans to be able to hire them. It was interesting. We were talking about drilling. You go into a drilling platform, and they say their favorite people to be able to hire are actually tank drivers returning from the war zone because they are used to driving equipment and looking at a screen and dealing with multiple things all at once. These are folks who are employing our veterans and providing great jobs. Recently, I was on a fracking site, being given a chance to watch it. When you go into a frack site, I don't know what your image is of what it looks like to actually see a well being fracked, but it is high-tech jobs, people on computers, as well as people and pumping. It is trucks and people providing food and people providing all the equipment. It is both people with big wrenches and people with small computers. And you see this multitude of jobs that are provided by oil and gas and by fossil fuels that we are producing right here in America. We are at a moment that we can either say: We want all green jobs. We want to destroy the jobs that are in producing fossil fuels and try to create new jobs in green jobs; or we can say: Let's do both. Let's encourage the growth of green jobs, but let's not, in the process, also discourage one of the most productive industries that we have in the United States, and that is providing our own energy. I would love for folks to come to Oklahoma and to be able to see the great companies that are doing some very innovative things. If I may mention one more thing, just today, one of our companies, Chesapeake, announced a new initiative that is taking natural gas and injecting it into a heat-up service and using biomass and injecting air at a high temperature, and out comes gasoline that runs in our cars. They are not asking for any kind of Federal grant. They are doing it on their own and producing brand new clean energy that will run the current vehicles we have now. At the same time, they are, in the next 10 years, dropping $1 billion to upgrade an infrastructure for natural gas on the highway system so big trucks can run on natural gas and will have a place to be able to fill up. Industries are doing this. They want to see this. This is a way that great American companies can produce great American energy. They are patriots, and I hope we will continue to encourage these folks.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Nineteen years ago, when my wife and I married, I was still in school, I was working as much as I could, and she was also working, but we were barely making it. But we made the decision we were not going to run up credit card debt and live beyond our means. We paid our school loans, we tithed to our church, we ate a lot of peanut butter, and we lived simply. As Dave Ramsey says, ``We determined to act our wage.'' It is a biblical principle for myself and my family. Proverbs 22:7 states: ``The borrower is slave to the lender.'' Proverbs 22 applies to families, and Proverbs 22 applies to nations. If we were living within our means as a Nation, almost all the debate in the last 6 months in this Chamber would have been different. We've tried every method in the Fed's bag of tricks to protect our interest rate, because if the rate goes up at all, the house of cards falls. We work to manipulate banks, mortgage lending and manufacturing because we must keep revenue up. We carefully manage every relationship worldwide because we need the borrowing liquidity. We pour billions of dollars into the economy that we borrow from future generations because we're afraid this generation will have to make hard choices if we do not keep up the borrow pace. Our economy struggles, which leads Washington regulators to overmanage every sector, which causes even more economic uncertainty. Our focus has shifted from families to corporate bailouts because we're living beyond our means, and we're trying everything we can to make it work. It's not sustainable. We have to get back in balance. Capital investment in business and industry is slower because so much of the money that would go toward starting new businesses is actually financing our national debt obligation. There's only a limited amount of money in the world economy at any one moment to subsidize our debt and the debt of other nations around the world. When we consume that money for our debt payments, we remove it from the market. America is the world leader. Unfortunately, we have led the world in debt and deficit spending, and now it's time we lead the world in how to solve a debt crisis. You see, I believe we have a debt crisis, not a debt ceiling vote crisis. If we increase the debt ceiling without beginning to solve the debt problem, we did not avert the economic disaster; we accelerated the disaster. I understand we're painted into a corner, and we cannot balance our budget instantly without completely collapsing this fragile economy. I get it. But I also get that we were sent here to make adult choices. This is a bipartisan problem. We all point fingers at each other, but we all know both parties made promises with no plan to pay for it. So since we know that, why don't we also agree to a bipartisan solution? I've heard a hundred times since I've been here, we need a balanced approach to solving this problem. Well, let me tell you I agree. We do need a balanced approach--a balanced budget amendment approach. That is the first big step to forcing us to get into balance permanently. The Constitution is not a Republican or a Democrat document. A balanced budget amendment is not a Republican or a Democrat issue. You see, you can't make changes to the Constitution without both parties engaged. But if both parties actually worked together, we can solve this debt crisis for our children and grandchildren. The last time this body dealt seriously with a balanced budget amendment was 1996. It passed this House with overwhelming bipartisan support, and it failed in the Senate by a single vote. Can you imagine for a moment what our financial condition would be like right now if we'd started balancing our budget during the good economic times of the 1990s and kept that discipline to this present day? If you want to know the true consequences of that failed balanced budget amendment vote in 1996, point to the financial collapse of 2008, because I believe the financial collapse of 2008 would not have occurred if we had balanced the budget when we did. Even if we did, we would be in a position to better respond to it. We can either learn from that lesson or repeat it. The balanced budget amendment passed the Senate in the 1980s and failed in the House. Then it passed in the nineties in the House and failed in the Senate. This is the moment we will either doom the next generation of Americans to more financial uncertainty or we will solve the problem. A balanced budget amendment solves the S&P and Moody's rating question because it settles the issue forever that we will live within our means. While this body should be able to make tough choices, we all know full well this body will make the tough choices only when it has to. It has always been that way; it always will be that way. A balanced budget amendment gives future Congresses the gift of a moment each year when they must make tough choices. Let's bring up the amendment. Let's send it to the States for a vote. It is the ultimate ``allow the people to speak'' moment. I think Americans get this more than Washington gets this. Forty-nine of our 50 States have a structure in place right now for a balanced budget every single year. They make it work every year. We can too. The only fear from Washington is the inability to spend more money at will and to control the States with our preferences and money. At the end of this labor, if we birth a balanced budget amendment, all the pain of this process will have been worth it. Let's show the Nation we can work together. Let's solve the debt problem. Let's take up and pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, and then let's get to work in solving our debt crisis.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, today I rise after spending the week of July 4th in the heartland of America, central Oklahoma, where I had the opportunity to hear the thoughts of the families in my district regarding our economy and the debt. No one approached me during the last week to tell me they wanted more government spending to create jobs. No one asked me to create more instability in our economy by raising taxes. In fact, no one told me they wanted to celebrate Independence Day by seeing more government dependence. But over and over again, people asked me to work on solving the problem of the debt, not just voting for another blank check debt ceiling. We need real spending limits to offset our serious budget shortfall. We can't pretend that we can borrow forever with no consequences. There is a limit to how much debt this Nation can carry and our worldwide markets can sustain. Our current real debt equals our GDP. And I would hope that many others in this House would see that as a problem as well. Second, we need to address our entitlements. These programs are critical safety nets for the neediest Americans, but they will be worthless for everyone if we allow them to go insolvent. And, finally, we need a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution, with real teeth to hold Washington accountable. There is simply no other way to bring future stewardship of taxpayer money. Fifteen years ago, the Balanced Budget Amendment failed to pass the Senate by one vote after it passed this House with overwhelming bipartisan support. Our fiscal reality would be very different. Mr. Speaker, we are at a crossroads in our nation's history. We do not have a debt ceiling vote crisis, we have a debt crisis. We need to stop focusing on a single vote and instead focus on the future consequences of our actions. It is time to put America back on track to debt reduction and job growth.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of my constituent, Mo Anderson, for her commitment to volunteer community service which has inspired true acts of kindness all across communities in North America. Mo was an elementary school music teacher for 14 years, after which she developed her first and very successful real estate office in Edmond, Oklahoma in 1975. In her current role as vice chairman of Keller Williams Realty, Mo spends much of her time traveling across the United States teaching at real estate training events. She has received numerous awards for her hard work and dedication. Mo is the beloved leader of her real estate firm, significantly influencing her colleagues, and it is her story that has inspired the Keller Williams annual national Renew, Energize and Donate Day. Each year, on the second Thursday in May, thousands of associates from across the United States and Canada participate in projects and devote their time to renewing and energizing aspects of the neighborhoods in which they serve. As an Oklahoman, I am proud of Mo for setting a wonderful example. She has inspired others to see needs in communities and to be sure those needs are met. Oklahoma is very grateful to Mo Anderson and to her building a legacy of caring.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Abortion is one of the most divisive issues in America. One side sees the child in the womb as nothing but tissue, like a skin mole, and no one should tell a women when and if she can have an unnecessary and inconvenient tissue removed from her body. The other side looks at that ``tissue'' in the womb and sees it sucking its thumb, reacting to her mother singing, and possessing unique DNA, and asks the question: How can that not be a child? The debate about life will not be resolved today, though for the sake of millions of children who will die in the womb in abortion clinics, I wish it could have been resolved yesterday. H.R. 3, which we will be discussing all day today asks the question: Should the Federal Government ever use taxpayer dollars to pay for or supplement abortions? When the Nation is so divided over this issue, isn't it common sense not to force a person who is passionately opposed to the death of the unborn to assist in paying for the procedure? H.R. 3 also protects the conscience of health care providers to not be forced to perform a procedure that they believe violates their most basic oath: Do no harm. Each year, this Congress votes to prohibit abortion funding through our appropriations process. It's time that we settled this issue permanently and clearly. No taxpayer funding, support, or tax incentives of abortion in any way for this year, in any future year. In a day of skyrocketing debt, how can we justify supplementing abortion and saying that it's a necessary and essential element of government? I think we cannot. This is time to resolve this issue. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 3 today in that vote.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1423, introduced by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), would designate the facility of the United States Post Office located at 115 4th Avenue Southwest in Ardmore, Oklahoma, as the Specialist Micheal E. Phillips Post Office. This bill is cosponsored by the entire Oklahoma State delegation and was favorably reported without amendment by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on April 13. Mr. Speaker, it's altogether fitting and proper that we name this post office in Ardmore for Army Specialist Phillips to honor a true American hero and his service to country. At this moment in our war on terrorism, with the recent death of Osama Bin Laden, this is a moment to remember those who have been fighting the war on terror for years. Micheal E. Phillips hailed from Ardmore, Oklahoma, and graduated from Ardmore High School in 2006. At Ardmore High, Specialist Phillips excelled in both academics and athletics, playing football, track, and cross country. He loved history as well as drawing, and was so talented he was offered admission to the San Francisco Art Institute. Instead, however, Specialist Phillips felt a calling to serve his country. His mother recalled that, ``He came home one day and said he wanted to join the Army, and we got in the car and went down to the recruiting station.'' With this motivation and inspiration to serve and protect the country he loved, Specialist Phillips enlisted in the Army in 2006 and was assigned to the Army's 1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Air Division, based in Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Tragically, on February 24, 2008, Specialist Phillips was killed when the vehicle he was riding in was hit by an improvised explosive device in Baghdad. He was 19 years old, and he left behind his parents, Angela and Steve, as well as two younger brothers and a younger sister. As a Representative from Oklahoma, it is an honor to stand before this body and pay tribute to a fellow Oklahoman who made the ultimate sacrifice courageously defending our freedom. I am truly grateful for the service of Specialist Phillips and for all of those who serve and protect us each and every day. I urge all Members to join me in strong support of this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

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. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1423) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 115 4th Avenue Southwest in Ardmore, Oklahoma, as the ``Specialist Micheal E. Phillips Post Office''.