Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS. We have not addressed either of those issues. Instead we brought forward this proposal, and I read its intent as a wholesome and good-faith one that says that the Secretary of Labor has no business meddling in the investment decisions of investment managers. I agree. So what we simply say is that he should be neutral with respect to all such investments and stay out. We hear the proponents of this bill saying that we should not spend $1 million of taxpayers' money on a clearinghouse. I agree. So my substitute strikes the authority to do that. The difference between my amendment and the pending bill is simply this: I say that we should not take a position at all on ETI's, that the position of the Secretary of Labor ought to be that is a decision that the investment fund managers ought to make under the prudent man and only under the prudent man rule.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond, if I could, to the two points raised about concern about the substitute. First of all, with respect to whether or not the substitute prohibits the Secretary of Labor from promoting ETI's or simply declares that to be the sense of the Congress, in fact, the amendment does prohibit, in section 3, specifically prohibits the Secretary of Labor from entering into any contract or taking any step which does so. So it is simply not a sense of Congress. Second, with respect to the chairman's concern about creating employment for attorneys, which is a truly valid concern, I would suggest that that really is something, with all due respect, it is a red herring for this reason: My amendment says that if the bulletin is construed to be null and void because it violates ERISA, my understanding is that an investment which runs afoul of the prudent man standard is, in fact, a violation of ERISA as ERISA has been interpreted. So, therefore, this incorporates by reference the prudent man standard that is applied, for years, since 1974, the year ERISA was first enacted. I believe, should litigation be brought to interpret this section, it would be quickly resolved, and it would be very clearly resolved that to the extent that this interpretive bulletin authorizes or permits an investment decision outside the scope of the prudent man rule, it is illegal and not permitted.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, we do not need to look at theories or predictions as to what will happen when OSHA is cut the way it is cut in this bill. I think OSHA is a agency in need of reform, and I am sure there are some bureaucrats in OSHA who are not necessary and who ought to go. That is not what this bill is going to do. Make no mistake about it, this bill means fewer inspectors, fewer inspections, and more risks for workers. We do not need to theorize or guess what happens when you have too few inspectors or too few inspections. We do not have to look to the future. We can look to September 1991, in Hamlet, NC, when the North Carolina Occupational Safety and Health Administration, with too few inspectors, too few inspections, underfunded, permitted a facility, a chicken packing plant that had committed egregious violations prior to September of 1991, to create a situation where 25 people burned to death. That is what we have to look for. That is why we should oppose this bill.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Wisconsin for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, this act is misnamed. It should be called the Special Interest Relief Act of 1995. One of the special interests that is no doubt dancing with glee over the contents of this act is the student loan industry, which has siphoned over $1 billion a year from the taxpayers of the United States of America, until 1993 when we adopted what I think was a good Republican idea called competition. In 1993 we said we would have two student loan systems compete with each other side-by-side. One was the expensive and complicated status quo system run by the banks, and the other was a new, more efficient system run through the college campuses called direct lending. Everything that we have seen from around the country, Mr. Chairman, says, direct lending is winning. Students like it, universities like it, taxpayers like it, but the special interests who profit from the student loan system most certainly do not. So what they have done in this bill is to cut off the competition at its knees. Language in this bill which would be removed by the Obey amendment says, direct lending will be effectively killed, dead and buried as a result of this. That is wrong. It is wrong for taxpayers because direct lending costs less than the bank-based system. It is wrong for students and administrators because around this country, a vast majority of them have said that they prefer the direct lending system. Perhaps most importantly, Mr. Chairman, it is wrong as a matter of process. It is wrong because it is based upon a CBO report which cooked the numbers. Mr. Chairman, anyone who follows this issue and is familiar with it knows that the conclusion that somehow or another the direct loans cost more than guaranteed loans was a conclusion CBO was told to reach for reasons of political convenience, and it is also wrong, Mr. Chairman, because this debate and this issue is being tucked away in this appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, the special interests of the student loan industry know that they cannot win a fair fight on this issue, because they do not have the facts on their side. So what they have done is to load it up in this bill, tuck it away in a corner where a lot of other issues will take precedent and it will not see the light of day. The Obey amendment is a way to correct that and bring us into the light so that there can be a fair and balanced debate. For that and many other reasons I would urge my colleagues to do the right thing and vote ``yes'' on the Obey amendment. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate and honor the accomplishments and contributions of George E. Norcross, Sr. Mr. Norcross is a man who has lived the American dream through hard work and dedication to the community. Having recently retired as president of the AFL-CIO Central Labor Council of South Jersey, I recognize Mr. Norcross as a shining example for us all. For over half a century Mr. Norcross has served the working men and women of this country. Mr. Norcross began his career with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. His leadership skills and personal rapport with others quickly earned him a position as an organizer with the International Union of Electric, Electrical, Salaried, Machine, and Furniture Workers. His dynamic leadership enabled him to lead successful organizing campaigns not only in New Jersey, but throughout the Nation. One such campaign brought him to Greenville, TN, where he met the future Mrs. Carol Norcross. After successful national campaigns, Mr. Norcross and his wife returned to Camden, NJ, to serve local 106 in Moorstown and raise their family. After concentrating on organizational activities at the beginning of his career, Mr. Norcross turned his attention to the administration of local labor organizations as well as concentrating on civic participation and service. Since 1955, Mr. Norcross has served as president of the Union Organization for Social Service. His achievements as president of this organization range from food banks and clothing drives to the treatment of alcohol abuse and disaster relief. His commitment to the needs of his community has been unending, and his desire to improve the lives of those who live there inspirational. Under his leadership, the 80,000 members of AFL-CIO Central Labor Union contributed tens of millions of dollars and countless working hours in support of civic programs. In 1979, Mr. Norcross founded and served as President of the RCA Local No. 106 in Moorestown, NJ, where he established such programs as annual food and clothing drives. In addition, he was an international representative for the International Union of Electrical Workers where he is remembered for creating scholarship programs for the children of union members. Mr. Norcross is noted for his leadership for the United Way. In 1982, he began as chairman for the United Way campaign. Shortly thereafter, he served as vice president of the United Way of Camden County followed by his office as president of the United Way for Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. Today, he is chairman of the United Way board. His leadership has inspired many to become involved in the work of United Way and the many services they provide to every community. In addition, Mr. Norcross founded the United Way Labor Support Committee, an entity dedicated to informing union members of the benefits extended to them by United Way. Mr. Norcross is truly a man dedicated to the continued improvement of his community. His many accomplishments throughout his career testify to his commitment and tireless service. He will certainly be missed in his retirement, however, his accomplishments will continue to improve peoples' lives for decades. His dedication and service will serve as a continuous example for others. I commend George Norcross, Sr. for all that he has done for his community, and I wish him peace and happiness in the years to follow.

Mr. ANDREWS

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman].

Mr. ANDREWS. I appreciate the questions, Mr. Chairman, that have been raised during this debate. I would like to attempt to answer them. Does it not make sense to help military facilities that were on the base closure list convert to civilian use? Yes. But only 2 of the 12 facilities we are talking about were on the base closure list. The other 10 were used for either mixed or strictly civilian use for dates going all the way back to 1952. This is really not something that is being done in the context of the base closure list. Should we not be doing something to deal with the very serious problem of the overflow of air traffic in the country? Absolutely. But here is what the GAO said in 1994 about this program: The FAA has made no efforts to better define such needs or to develop a mechanism for allocating funds. Also, the FAA has not analyzed the impact of the program on enhancing capacity in major metropolitan areas or system-wide. [[Page H 7603]] I think the burden of proof for changes that have occurred since that report a year ago should be on those who want more taxpayer money for the program. My suggestion would be, let them prove it is working first, then let's give some more money perhaps in the 1997 appropriations bill, after we see the changes that I accept have attempted to be made. The question is, What would happen to the 12 projects that are under consideration, that are more than under consideration, that are under way? The answer is there would be a 12-month interruption in their funding. I realize that would be difficult and undesirable. During that time, the authorizing committee could reexamine this situation, analyze what works, what does not work and bring legislation to the floor which could go forward and expedite solutions to these problems. Again, I think you fix it first, and the input more money into it. Finally, the distinguished chairman of the authorizing committee, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, says, ``Well, if the amendment were to pass, it would just go right back into the bill, anyway. It would not really save any money.'' I take at face value, Mr. Chairman, representations by the chairman of the Committee on Rules and others on the majority side that we are going to have a lock box amendment at some point in this Congress that will probably work retroactively. As I understand the commitments that have been made on the majority side, when the Brewster-Harman lock box amendment finally reaches its way to the floor and is enacted as I believe it will be, it will go back and capture any savings that were taken out of these bills over the last weeks. I would just suggest to this: We are being asked in this Congress to make some very difficult and controversial decisions--about less money for reading teachers to teach children how to read, less money for Medicare, abolition of programs that help senior citizens pay their heating and air conditioning bills, questions about funding for research about some of our more serious diseases, an appropriations bill coming here later this week that cuts funding for Head Start. I am not saying this program is a bad idea. I am not saying everything that has gone on under it has been all bad. That is certainly not true. But I am saying in that environment, in this context, should the burden of proof not be on those who claim the program ought to be fixed to show it has been fixed? I do not think they have met the burden of proof. I think the right thing to do is to prove this amendment, cut out funding in 1996, fix the program by 1997 and then refund it when it makes sense and is working the way it is supposed to. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in 1990 the Members of this body came up with a piece of legislation that embodied a good idea. That good idea was that if we are going to be closing military airports that had the potential for civilian use, that we ought to apply some of the funds that we use for airport improvement toward those airports, so they could serve two objectives: first, so they could serve the objecteive of making potentially successful civilian airports occur; and the second objective was so we could lighten the load on our traffic problem in major metropolitan areas. Therefore, we set up this program which said that when we had a military airport that was either closed or due for closure, that we could convert it as long as it served the twin purposes of being viable at some point and served the purpose of lightening the traffic problem in major metropolitan areas of the country. Thus was born the Military Airport Program. Mr. Chairman, in the 1996 appropriations bill which is in front of us, $37 million has been set aside for this program, which is an increase of about $6 million over last year's appropriation. Mr. Chairman, I would submit that this is a good idea which is not being carried out and executed the way the program is being presently run. Since 1990, 12 airports have received funding under this particular proposal. In 1994, the GAO issued a report analyzing the extent to which the FAA had complied with the conditions of the 1990 law which set up this program. Here is what the GAO had to say: ``Nine of the 12 airprots in the Military Airport Program do not meet the level established program goals. Five of the airports are not located in congested air traffic areas and are unlikely to increase capacity, and nine of the airports selected had already been operating as joint or civilian airports for 10 or more years.'' Mr. Chairman, this is the legislative equivalent of us saying that we have a traffic problem in certain areas of the country, and setting aside highway funds to alleviate the traffic problem, whether it be in Washington, DC or Philadelphia or New York or Los Angeles or some highly traveled area, and then spending the money in isolated areas that do not have a traffic problem. This was a good idea. It said that military airports that could be successfully converted for civilian use ought to, if that conversion would ease the air traffic control problem and flight problems that we have in the country. The problem is that the good ideals and good ideas behind this legislation have in fact never been carried out. I would suggest that the solution, Mr. Chairman, is not to abolish this program, because it is a fundamentally good idea. The solution embodied in my amendment is for a timeout. It is to say that for the present fiscal year, let us not throw good money after bad. Let us take a deep breath, let us go back to the authorizing committee, so it can analyze the results of this GAO report and other criticisms of the program, and make it work better. It says, again to use the analogy of the highway program I talked about earlier, if we are setting aside taxpayers' money to alleviate traffic, let us alleviate traffic. Let us not put the money into road projects in parts of the country that do not need it. Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that we will hear in the minutes ahead, and I have no doubt of the accuracy, that many of these projects are worthy, they are beneficial to the areas that they serve, and are justifiable on any of a number of host of criteria. The problem is that those criteria meet the conditions of the General Airport Improvement Program, for which any airport in America can apply and compete fairly for the funds. They typically do not meet the criteria set forth by the Congress when it enacted this law in 1990. Put simply, my amendment says, ``Let us take a time out. Let us not throw good money after bad. Let us take the $37 million out of this amendment that is in for 1996, let us go back to the authorizing drawing board, and let us not throw good money after bad.'' Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment offered by my friends and neighbors, the gentlemen from Pennsylvania, Mr. Foglietta and Mr. Fox. In rhetoric, we talk a lot about protecting the environment, in encouraging mass transit, and in encouraging people to use more cost-effective ways to go to work. In New Jersey as well as other States in the Union people are being forced to endure higher cost car inspections costs and put new emission controls on their vehicles, all in the name of environmental protection. The best thing we can do in the name of environmental protection is to encourage people to use mass transit. Dramatic cuts in name work in the opposite direction. The gentlemen from Pennsylvania, Mr. Foglietta and Mr. Fox, have offered a modest, sensible way to reallocate funds from one part of this bill to another to encourage more people to use more mass transit. This is good economically, it is good environmentally, and I want to urge my colleagues to support this well-thought-out amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Minge amendment and support the underlying Lowey amendment. Mr. Chairman, this has been a revolutionary year, or promises to be a revolutionary year with respect to the budget of the United States. This Congress has made decisions to give school districts less money to teach children how to read, for better or for worse, I think for worse. It has made decisions to dredge fewer rivers. It has made decisions to raise rates of interest for students for student loans. It has made decisions to reduce school lunch allocations. Now we are being asked to do the following: we are being asked to say that people who own farms, who have gross adjusted income other than from farming of more than $100,000 a year, other than from farming, should no longer be given a Federal welfare check. In the same year, my colleagues, in which we are saying that we can cut back on school lunches and student loans and environmental protection, are we not ready to say to those who own farms and have income other than from farming, other than from farming, in excess of $100,000 a year, that it is about time that they took a cut, too? If this is to be a revolutionary year in the Federal budget, let the revolution continue with the Lowey amendment. Support it. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, this Thursday will mark the 21st anniversary of Turkey's invasion on the peaceful, self-governing island of Cyprus. For 21 years, Turkey has tried to make the island its own. It has done this by installing 80,000 illegal colonists, by maintaining over 30,000 heavily armed troops on the island, and by moving 200,000 Greek Cypriots from their homes. Through 21 years of hardship, the people of Cyprus have held on to a hope for peace and for the return of their island. Their purpose has not been revenge, but negotiation and reconciliation. Here in the House of Representatives, we have the opportunity to help the cause of justice. I urge my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 42, calling for demilitarization of Cyprus. I encourage them to cosponsor H.R. 3475, legislation I have introduced that would reduce United States aid to Turkey by $500,000 per day until that country complies with several conditions, including progress toward withdrawal from Cyprus. As saddened as I am by their plight, as dismal as their treatment by a foreign force has been, we should all be inspired by the patience, courage and faith shown by the people of Cyprus. Let us make this the year when the people of Cyprus once again can govern themselves with peace and dignity.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding community, the Borough of Magnolia. On May 12, 1915, a special election was held to create the Borough of Magnolia. This year the borough recognizes its 80th anniversary. In this year of celebration, I commend the people of Magnolia for their commitment to their heritage and their community. The history of Magnolia begins with the Lenni-Lenape Indians, who inhabited Magnolia over a hundred years ago. At the time, the Indians lived and hunted in the forests of what is today known as Magnolia. The name ``Magnolia'' originated from a beautiful Magnolia tree which grew on the Alhertson property at 610 W. Eveshan Avenue. Prior to this, Magnolia was known both as Fredersville and Greenland, and was located in old Gloucester Township. Magnolia was originally divided into two townships, each one having its own specialty. Commerce was the dominant industry in one of the townships. In 1914 Assembly Bill No. 45 was drawn up to create a new township in the County of Camden. On May 12, 1915, the Borough of Magnolia was established. As the township grew, new forms of government were established. On July 27, 1915, a special election was held to vote for a mayor and to establish a council as the residing local government. Harry B. Wolohan became the first mayor of Magnolia. As the small community began to grow many changes took place. A train stop in the heart of Magnolia brought many people into this community. It was these people that gave Magnolia its small town character. Families such as the Barretts, the Marshalls, the Speegles, the Millers, and other civic minded families made Magnolia what it is today. With the help of the entire community Magnolia is making significant steps forward. Progress can be seen in better roads, and a more extensive transportation system. An invigoration of environmentally aware citizens is also taking place. These civic minded citizens are becoming interested in preserving the town's environment and heritage for future generations. In this anniversary year, I commend the town and people of Magnolia for their progress and accomplishments. With continued civic involvement by all residents, Magnolia will continue to grow and thrive. I would also like to recognize Mary F. Martz whose extensive research of Magnolia I have relied upon heavily for these remarks. Happy anniversary.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment proposed by my friends the gentlemen from Wisconsin and Texas. I do not doubt for one moment the importance of wildlife management and preservation. I do not doubt for one moment the sincerity of the commitment of the Members who oppose this amendment. But I do not doubt for one moment that a huge majority of our constituents if asked to review our priorities in this case would want us to vote for the Neumann-Stenholm amendment. The test that I think Members ought to use here, Mr. Chairman, is what I call the supermarket checkout line test. If this Saturday, Mr. Chairman, a Member were home in his or her own district and had to stand in the supermarket checkout line on Saturday morning and look one of their neighbors in the eye and explain to them why they had voted to spend their tax money on this program at a time when we are considering ways to spend less on reading teachers in the public schools, on the acquisition of public lands, on public health research in this country, I do not think there are many of us, Mr. Chairman, who could do that. There is sincerity in this program, but there is not priority. It is a relatively small number, but it is a relatively big principle. I urge my colleagues to support the Neumann-Stenholm amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend the gentlewoman from New Jersey, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of a group of high school students who have succeeded in their studies, academic and vocational, despite the barriers which they faced. On June 1, 1995 in Atlantic City, a group of 34 outstanding youths from the State of New Jersey were honored and awarded for their perseverance at the Student Training Achievement Recognition [STAR] Awards. The STAR Awards, created by the Garden State Employment and Training Association, and sponsored by members of the business community, aim to increase awareness of education and its relationship to employment. The awards are given to youth who are determined to be at risk and who, despite the most difficult of circumstances, either completed their high school education, or who dropped out of high school but completed a training program and obtained a job. Some of the obstacles which these youths overcame include physical or sexual abuse and neglect; family trauma such as divorce, unemployment, or death; school-age single parenthood; physical and emotional handicaps; and contact with the judicial system which led to conviction or designation as a delinquent. Many of the youngsters honored with these awards overcame more than one of these barriers. Each Private Industry Council in New Jersey participated in the nomination process, designating a young member of the local community who fought against seemingly insurmountable odds and emerged a winner. The following individuals are the recipients of the 1995 STAR Awards: Chad B. Jenkins; Wanda Lopez; S. Jonathan Deauna; Ramon Mejia; Jessica M. Carter; Mark Anthony Logan; Gerald F. Wynkoop, Jr.; William Alcazar; Michael McDonald; Olga Sierra; Paris Armwood; Tywanda Whitefield; Brenda Carpenter; Carla Owens; Robyn Murgas; Nicole Richardson; Lakiesha Stokes; Barbara Gomez; Tonia Singletary; Tyese Nichols; Marilyn Sanchez; Ivelys Bruno; Kisha Ann Franklin; Sujeil Rosa; Morris E. Lawson; Madelyn Ramos; Gregory Wertz; Linda Kulick; Lisa Beckett; Sean Devaney; Yanette Gonzalez; Jessica Corchado; Monique Gallman; and Jason Kinney. The recipients of the STAR Awards are an inspiration to millions of students in similar circumstances throughout the country. They are a shining example of youth who became responsible members of the community despite circumstances which might have prevented them from doing so. I salute these extraordinary young men and women.

Mr. ANDREWS of New Jersey

Mr. ANDREWS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding. Mr. Speaker, in 1992 and again in 1994, millions of Americans went to the polls and demanded fundamental change in what they called politics as usual. In 1992 they turned out an incumbent President, gave him only 38 percent of their vote. In 1994, as we well know, they turned out the majority in the House of Representatives and gave it to the new majority. I wonder what those voters would say if they understood what was in this rule that is before us this afternoon. I wonder what they would say if they knew that their majority was about to spend $7 billion and cut $16 billion in a bill that was not even on this floor this morning when we went about our business, and many of us are reading it for the first time right now. I wonder what they would say if they knew that an important question which we just heard some debate about between the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] and the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams], about whether or not to log on federally owned lands, whether to permit timber practice on federally owned lands was not even going to be debated in this bill, that there will be one single up-down vote on the whole bill, and the debate that the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] had will not get a vote, because the rule does not permit it. I wonder what they would say if they knew that this bill took money out of the program that we used to help senior citizens pay their heating bill and their air-conditioning bill. At the same time it forgives a $275 million loan owed to the United States by the Government of Jordan. I wonder what they would say if they heard, Mr. Speaker, that we could not debate and take a separate vote on that. I think they would say that that is politics as usual. I think they would say that is exactly what they voted against in 1992 and 1994. I do not know what the right answers are to those questions, Mr. Speaker, but I sure do know that those questions should be debated on this floor and voted on this floor, and my colleagues know, and I know, they will not be under the terms of this rule, and that, Mr. Speaker, is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this suppressive and wrong-headed rule.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, I am going to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] even if amended in this way. I agree with what the chairman just said. I would ask the chairman and the Republican leadership to consider actively inclusion of this issue in the reconciliation bill that is forthcoming. I see no reason why we have to wait until next year to resolve the underlying debate. That is obviously your call. I would respectfully request you consider dealing with this in the reconciliation bill.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. ANDREWS. I object to and oppose this amendment for the following reason: I think that the authorizing bill that we passed here 2 weeks ago was correct in moving us toward privatization of OPIC. I wish we had done it much sooner and much more aggressively. I do not think it makes any sense, when we are moving toward privatization of a Government agency, to increase taxpayer liability, which is precisely what we are doing here. The impact of moving OPIC's program appropriation from 33 up to 69 is to increase the amount of exposure that the taxpayers can be exposed to by OPIC over the next fiscal year. That makes no sense to me, if we are going to, in fact, take a deliberate, thoughtful look at privatization, which I support, it makes no sense whatsoever to me, to be increasing the level of public risk at the same time we are doing that, for two reasons: First is the taxpayers ought not to be subjected to more risk, and second, it seems to me the more debt that you load up, the more difficult it is to sell. It makes it a more difficult object for privatization. For that reason, I would oppose respectfully the subcommittee's amendment.