mrs. lummis: excuse me. mr. hastings: i'm glad the gentleman brought up 3310 because that's what we're talking about here. the first sentence under section 1 purpose reaffirms, it says the secretarial order about the protection of wilderness characteristics. nobody is arguing about that at all. then you go to page 2 of the secretarial order, section 4 policy and it goes on through the process of inventory and so forth and the last sentence is the problem where we have our heartburn. and it says, and i will quote, where the b.l.m. concludes that protection of wilderness characteristics, which nobody argues about, is appropriate, the b.l.m. shall designate these lands as, quote, wild lands, end quote. now, that is a made-up definition. nobody argues about the inventory part but all of a sudden they're superseding and suggesting that there should be a new designation called wild lands, that is what the problem is. they have no authority to do that. and we affirmed that by the way in testimony in front of our commit

mrs. lummis: i move to strike the last word. and i would like to yield to the the gentleman from oklahoma to give him the opportunity to comment and i will reclaim my time. lambing mr. lankford: this was a wonderful description but the problem is it's the same responsibilities that e.p.a. has and department of energy has and noaa has and these are executive agencies and to say you have to watch over this executive agency is one of the prime examples of why it is so difficult to combine agencies for efficiency. we have multiple bureaucracies and it would save us money. yes, this is a small agency, but another one of those prime examples why the executive branch has multiple agencies doing the same thing and we have to find ways to combine these. we are creating jobs. but the reality is we have to be able to find ways to save money and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mrs. lummis: the underlying bill reduces c.e. q. to 2006 levels and caps their to 2006 le

ryan: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from wyoming, mrs. lummis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from wyoming is recognized for two minutes. mrs. lummis: thank you, mr. speaker. we don't have to pass this bill to read this bill. we know what's in it. it's been online for 72 hours. the american people can go read it. but in case you haven't read it, let me tell you what it does. it caps spending. it caps spending consistent with the discretionary spending cuts that we passed in the budget earlier this year. and it cuts the mandatory spending in 2012. setting us on the path that moody's and s&p say they need to assure investors that they can have confidence in u.s. treasuries. it will create the glide path that ben bernanke has told us over and over that we need to bring spending under 20% of g.d.p. and it will pass a balanced budget amendment. like the vast majority of states have. this is the way to implement what we need to raise our debt ceiling. we know that we cannot default on our debt. so we will raise our debt ceiling in a way that s

mrs. lummis: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized for five minutes. mrs. lummis: mr. chairman, i rise to oppose the amendment and to support the underlying bill. water rights are a state issue and this amendment would allow two federal agencies to increase their own scope of jurisdiction pursuant to the clean water act. those agencies have acknowledged that this amendment would allow them to increase the scope of their jurisdiction under the cha clean water act -- under the clean water act. it is not that nonnavigable waters non-navigable waters go without regulation. non-navigable waters are regulated. they are regulated in the states by state systems. in the state of wyoming that system is a regulatory system administered by the executive branch. in colorado that system is an adjudicatory system regulated through the courts. but in every case in the west where water is precious and sparse the people who control it, whether it is in my state like the control and our water commiss

i am opposed to the lummis amendment and i yield back to the gentleman. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: i appreciate the comments and i do agree the issues dealt with are important issues. so is the fiscal stability of this nation. that's a very crucial and very important issue that is laid before us. at this time. so is sending a message to our constituents and to the taxpayers of this nation that yes, indeed, we are going to require the bureaucracy to tighten its belt. one of the questions i'm most often asked by my constituents is, look, in our homes, in our businesses, in our churches, we're all tightening the belt. why is the bureaucracy not tightening its belt? why does washington seem to be recession-proof? they want to see this bureaucracy engaged in this. they want to see the bureaucracy join us in the fight to put this nation on a firm fiscal footing and when it comes to our nation's security, i would just remind my colleagues that on july 6, 2010, admiral mullen made the comment that the g