Brian Bilbray

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the exemptions in this motion. I find it hard to believe that anyone who wants to really fight greenhouse gases is going to try to have winners and losers and allow these major exemptions that are in this bill. The City of Los Angeles is going to continue to go without the same mandates and requirements and standards that the City of San Diego would have. Why are public utilities exempt in this bill, as if their emissions are not going to affect the environment, as if government is somehow immune? Government should be leading, not being exempted. Mr. Chairman, as many surfers know, like myself, Hawaii has some of the most sun, wind and surf of any State in America. Why are Hawaii emissions exempt from this mandate when the rest are included? These exemptions are irresponsible and do not justify the environmental intention of this motion. I have strongly supported the intention, but it is too bad that special interests, special lobbying and the back-room deals have snuck in these exemptions that should not have ever existed.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, as a former member of the Air Resources Board in the State of California and working on air pollution issues for decades, I was looking at the text that said this bill was going to move America forward. This text is not moving America forward; it's moving us back to a 1970's agenda. This agenda is the same agenda we had in the environmental community in the 1970s. In the 1970s, we were doing the best we could then. But this is the best America can expect from this Congress, is 30-year-old ideas that have been proven false, and the example, this bill is going to pick winners and losers in the industry. It is going to mandate not only the inclusion of poisons in our gasoline in places like California where in 1992 we warned you about MTBE, we warned you that ethanol was going to cause problems, but this place was bought off by special interest groups that claimed to be environmentally sensitive and forced MTBE into the fuel of America. Later, when you realized we were right, you said, sorry. Just last, a few months ago, Harvard came out with another study about ethanol. All we are asking is, don't mandate that this poison is put in the fuel. If you can't believe CARB, then why are the States around the north using our standards at CARB to clean up the environment? Look before you leap, but this technology that we are talking about doesn't even include zero mission generators like high pressure gas reactors, doesn't include. The only way we are going to beat greenhouse gases is to go nuclear, but you don't have the political guts to look our friends in the eye and say we have got to move beyond the 1970s. We have got to move forward. We have got to be willing to do what is right for the environment. If that tells Archer Daniels Midland or the extreme wackos who are always going to be against nuclear that, sorry, guys, the environment comes first, if you don't have the guts to do that, don't claim this is a green proposal. 1970 cars are polluting and wasteful. This bill is polluting and wasteful.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BILBRAY. The most gracious gentlelady from Connecticut pointed out that the gentleman from California had cooperated here. Is there any reason that the gentlelady from Connecticut or the majority could accept the amendment and bring it back tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. so the American people could be assured that illegal aliens would not get this benefit, as the gentlelady from Connecticut has assured us?

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. BILBRAY. To the gentleman from West Virginia, let me just say I know your concern about the process here. But I think that if you reviewed this situation and the process these two Border Patrol agents went through, you would understand why some of us are standing up and saying, first of all, the 10-year minimum for the commission of a crime while carrying a firearm, it was used to apply to these agents, was never meant to apply to law enforcement agents who are required by law to carry firearms. And I think we can kind of understand. Remember when we passed that and it went through, it was sort of like, criminals, if you are going to engage in criminal activity, leave your gun at home, as a way of lowering the level of violence and the potential violence of criminals carrying firearms at the time of the commission of the crime. This law that we passed at the Federal level is being applied to Federal officers who are required by statute to carry a firearm. And so now what we have is that we have law enforcement agents who are sworn to serve the American people, that are being prosecuted under a statute that says we are going to nail you because you were carrying a firearm during the commission of a crime when, as a requirement of their employment, they had to carry the firearm. Doesn't anybody else find this kind of absurd, if not ridiculous? And all I have to say is I would sincerely hope that the chairman of the committee will take a second thought about opposing this amendment, because I think in all fairness the American people are saying we have two agents who were serving their Nation as best as they could. They might have made a mistake that should have been administered through an administrative process; and those of us in local government that have worked with law enforcement know this, excessive force happens in certain situations. But this is where a Federal law that we passed in Congress that says we are going to nail the criminals who use firearms in the commission of a crime and tell them don't ever carry a firearm when you are thinking of breaking a crime, that that law is being applied to our agents who are executing the requirements of Federal law. That was never the intention of this law, but it is being applied to these two agents. So I just have to say sincerely, I would really ask the chairman to reconsider his opposition to this amendment. I think fair-minded people that know why this Federal law was passed know that it was not meant for Border Patrol agents or any Federal agents that are required to carry a firearm, to use this law against those agents. And if you can do it to Border Patrol agents, you can do it to FBI agents, you can do it to everybody. Now, let me just say something about the unique situation that we are seeing down at the border. At this location, Mr. Chairman, within the month of this incident you had Border Patrol agents under fire by automatic gunfire, AK-47s firing at our agents from across the border. There was good reason to think that our agents might have been a little more active with their guns than we might have preferred. But, in all fairness, it really comes down to: Are we willing to stand up and say there has been a mistake, that mistake needs to be addressed, needs to be reassessed, and do we now relinquish our responsibility of the budget to the executive branch where we say these agents have been wronged? And if those of you that want to talk about this, in all the years I was in local government I saw excessive force cases brought very seldom. In this one sector, this Federal attorney has brought excessive force cases against three different law enforcement officers. Every one of them that we know of, or I know of, just happened to have been cases that involved illegal aliens, drug smugglers, foreign nationals committing a crime. That is really unique. I have never heard of that kind of situation occurring anywhere else. In this case, it is time that we stand up and we say, you have the jurisdiction to prosecute, you have the jurisdiction not to give clemency on this issue, but we have the jurisdiction of saying you will not use the taxpayers' funds to prosecute these men.

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

Mr. BILBRAY. I think you agree, though, that when we talked about the 10-year minimum, the jury was told that they had to administer the 10- year execution based on the commission of the crime. And I think you were here when the 10-year minimum was passed. I think you would agree the idea was to try to encourage anybody that, if you are going to do something that was illegal, you don't carry a gun, because it would lower that level of potential.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Chairman, many people in this country would think the compromise being proposed doesn't go far enough. I think most people would say that the money for AIDS should follow the patient, not a bureaucracy. But it's equal protection. Does somebody with AIDS in Fort Worth have any more or less of a right to Federal funds to take care of AIDS than somebody who lives in San Francisco? How about equal protection here? Does an AIDS patient in Fort Worth have equal rights with an AIDS patient in San Francisco? That's the question here. The compromise gives 75 percent preference to San Francisco. How much more preference do you want? And let's not talk about equal protection any more if you want to do this. He has bent over backwards to try to cooperate and meet the people from San Francisco halfway at phasing this out. All we're asking for is stick to the compromise rather than continue to go. And I don't think that anybody that believes in equal protection can honestly say that an AIDS patient who happens to be in Fort Worth doesn't have the same rights and shouldn't be given the same protection and just as much money per capita as somebody in San Francisco.

Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Chairman, I had the privilege to serve 10 years as a county supervisor in the County of San Diego serving a community that desperately needed help with the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and I also happened to have been privileged enough to serve on Interstate and Commerce on the Health Committee that reauthorized the Ryan White Act. The biggest issue here that is being discussed by the Member from Texas (Mr. Barton) is the fact that the need should follow the patient. I am sure the gentleman from Chicago recognizes that all of these agencies and all of this money is supposed to be to service the people, not to groups, not to cities. It is human beings we are talking about in need. His motion is a compromise. It doesn't say don't strike the need on everything, but it says let's take half of it or take a portion and give priority to those who need it. Madam Chairman, this would be like somebody thinking that it would be appropriate to send as much money to an empty hospital that used to serve patients as it is to send it to the new hospital that is full of patients. All he is saying is, let's take a portion of this and commit it totally to need. Not all of it, but a portion of it. How can we go back to our districts and say the agency in a certain city was more important than the patients and the people who are sick who just happen not to be sick in that same area? The fact is having a formula that puts weight to those who used to be served is an inappropriate formula, and we all agreed in the 1990s that we were going to phase that out. The gentleman's motion only moves forward that agreement we have always had when we talked about Ryan White, that Ryan White was a young man, not an agency. Ryan White was a human being who had AIDS. This grant, this program was never meant to serve groups, cities, or agencies except if they were the victims of this hideous disease called AIDS/HIV. And so I think, let's stop a second. These groups and people that want us to send them money because they used to serve a large number of patients and realize that they may have to move or they might have to change their employment, that is not what this fund is for. It is for serving patients. And so all the gentleman is saying is, please, let's follow the need, and let's not say that it is for treating those who are sick if we are going to send it to agencies that are not serving. Let's send it to those agencies that are serving. At least let's start moving towards the total amount of this fund. And the honor of Ryan White is to make these funds totally committed to serving patients that are ill today, the patients that need the service today, not patients of the past. We can't solve the problems of the past, but we can solve the problems that face us today, this year, and in the future, and that is by making sure funds are committed to those who are actually sick today. And I would support all of the funds going to only those based on a formula of today's service, because we are talking about this year that these funds are supposed to be sent. The gentleman has accepted a compromise; I am willing to accept that compromise. We should be able to go this far, and common decency says the gentleman should get a chance to be able to have this compromise worked out. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia for yielding, and Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you in holding the Chair tonight and thank you very much for the courtesy of allowing us to speak tonight. I appreciate the privilege. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that the American people have not only asked, they have demanded, is that the Federal Government live up to its responsibility of defending our neighborhoods from forces from afar that may be entering this country with harm in their hearts and weapons and viciousness in their hands. I think that one of the things that we've really recognized in the past is the review and the oversight of who we allow to come into this country is one of our big responsibilities. Let's face it, it doesn't take an act of Congress for a community to hire a teacher or hire police officers, but it takes an act of Congress and it takes the Federal Government to make sure that the people that are allowed into this country are people that are going to be friendly to us, to help us, to actually add to the quality and security of America rather than threaten it. The visa system has always been sort of the minimum we've done in the past, and the visa waiver actually is an extraordinary concept of saying we are so sure that these countries are so secure and so safe that we're willing to waive the traditional international policy of having people kind of report in and prove that they are who they are and we allow them into the country. And we've allowed this with many countries like Britain, my mother's home country, and Australia, and we've allowed it with many countries. But it's almost as if we've taken this concept that a little is good, a whole bunch must be great, where the political pressure is to expand this program to such a force that there's no counter-balance of saying, no, wait a minute, who's there really checking and keeping a tab on what is reasonable from a security point of view. And I think what's important tonight for us to say is tonight is a way for the Immigration Caucus to sort of push back and balance. And I don't mind people that are wanting to have this waiver expanded, but I do mind that when we do not balance the perception, that those who may for business reasons or for their own special reasons want to throw away the paperwork, throw away the procedure for security and say it'd just be easier to do without it, they can say that but then there should be those of us who are willing to stand up and say, yes, but it's there for a reason and that reason is very important, the protection of our families and our homes and our neighborhoods. And only the Federal Government can provide this protection. Remember, if we allow somebody with harm in their heart to enter this country, there is no defense once they're in this country from gaining access to those neighborhoods, those playgrounds, those schools, those hospitals that we take for granted are protected. Local government cannot check a visa once the United States Federal Government allows them into the country. A county sheriff cannot check a visa once we've allowed them through that port of entry at the airport or at that seaport. So it is incumbent on us that we're extraordinarily vigilant to make sure that only those that we are sure should be in this country are in this country, and it is extremely important that we only allow the waiver process in those extraordinary situations where we can look the American people in the eye and say we really believe this is a safe and prudent way of treating our immigration policy. I think people will say then, well, why is there debate here? And I think that the gentleman from Georgia understands, there's people that want for business reasons, for personal reasons, to have people coming, going from all kinds of different countries, and they have their personal reasons to do that. Some may be profit and some may be convenience, but those reasons and those pressures need to be counter- balanced. And the Federal Government must be reminded again and again that there's not just one agenda here, convenience of people coming into the country. There's not one agenda here, people making money by tourists coming and going. There's not one agenda, just business wanting to be able to have their partners come and go as they want. There is the major agenda that needs to be introduced into the formula, and that is the defense of the communities.

Mr. BILBRAY. I think the real key there, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the outcome does matter when you talk about the security of our Nation, and we forget sometimes when we talk about the security of the Nation that we're talking about the security of our neighborhoods and our homes. I had the privilege of serving as mayor and chairman of San Diego County and mayor of a small county on the border, and I know and I think any mayor will tell you that those of us in local government just assume the Federal Government's going to do its part. The trouble is the mayor and the police chiefs and the county sheriffs end up having to take on these responsibilities, and they don't have the right to do what is the Federal Government's responsibility and, that is, check these documents and make sure that the right type of people are coming into the country. Local government, the mayors, the city council members, the county supervisors, county commissioners, sheriffs, police chiefs, they have to live with the repercussions and the challenges once someone's here, but they don't get the chance to be able to review and approve this. And so that's why it's essential that the Federal Government, which is the only agency that can do this, the one line of defense that we have over inappropriate entry in this country, has to be strong and vigilant and effective.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia's kind words, and let me just say that in the words of the former Inspector General of Homeland Security, specifically said that we should be abolishing the waiver system, not expanding it. So, on a minimum, we've got to stop the expansion. I think that it just shows a lack of understanding of just how far the pressure's going to back off on our due diligence when it comes to border security by those people that don't see the big picture, and to think that at this time where we're talking about threats, especially what just happened in England, where somebody who they thought was a safe immigrant, literally drove a fire bomb into the front door of a terminal, if I remember right, and what will happen when we allow somebody to do that? Frankly, I haven't spoke a lot about this, but on 9/11, I was in the immigration commissioner's office the day the plane started crashing into American buildings. I was actually in the office, and we watched the second plane crash into the second tower. That commissioner said, can you imagine being the agents who let these guys into the country. Now, we didn't know who did this. We didn't know who was responsible. We had no idea. But the immigration commissioner had the foresight of saying, my God, somehow I know I am responsible, and you imagine being the agent who personally let these people in. I don't think we think about this, but tightening up and controlling the waiver process is going to be one of the things we have got to do so we don't look back and say, my God, we were warned, we knew this was coming, and why didn't we do more. Why weren't we there to stop this from happening? All I have got to say is that I was out of politics. I was just meeting with them about immigration issues, but I saw the anguish and the frustration in his eyes and his voice realizing that somehow he knew the immigration agency that he was in charge of somehow contributed to this disaster. The fact is, I hope all of us start looking at this as being what are we doing today to make sure that we are not faced off in saying, my God, why didn't I do more. Why didn't I push harder? Why wasn't I the bothersome one that told the administration, I know you are being pressured by these guys, but I am going to pressure you back? I am going to give some balance to the process here in Washington? I think that's all the American people have asked for, a little balance. Again, as the Inspector General said, now is not the time to expand this program. If the President and the administration honestly believes that this country is under a threat, that this country must do extraordinary things to defend our neighborhoods, then the minimum is not to expand this program. I think reasonable people should say the administration, rather than looking into expanding this program, should be looking to reduce it, at least temporarily, and ratcheting down and reducing the opportunities for people to come in here unreviewed. Because for every country, for every person that we allow in this country that we have not done our due diligence, we are exposing the Nation to that threat, and we are exposing ourselves to a lifetime of regrets that we did not do the right thing by the American people.

Mr. BILBRAY. Just a couple of weeks ago, the Senate was shocked, the White House was shocked at what they saw was a groundswell from America against a proposal that America rightfully thought was amnesty. They wonder why is there so much animosity against Washington on the immigration issue. It's exactly because of things like the US-Visit system. The American people think that the political leaders of Washington just don't get it and aren't willing to do the heavy lifting. It has been how many years that since, is it 1996, that the US-Visit system was supposed to be implemented. It still hasn't been implemented. Now we have people at a point where they say let's just forget about it. This is much like the commitments and promises, much like building the fence that the American people have heard so many promises and seen their promises broken so often that they assume this town just does not care or, worse, has been enticed by whatever forces for whatever reason not to do the right thing. I think when it comes down to developing confidence on the immigration issue, the American people are saying, before you ask us to trust you one more time, we want you to prove to us that you deserve to be trusted. Go back to the things that you have been promising us for 20 years and do those, get your House in order and take care of it. Things like finish the visit system to where you know who has come into the country and who has gone out of the country. Without that, both, you don't know who stayed in the country. What's your excuse, Washington? Why are you doing all of these other things that everybody talks about? You can talk about health care. It doesn't take an act of Congress to hire a doctor. It does take an act of Congress to stop a terrorist from crossing the border. I want to say that it was very scary in February that the Senate was actually looking at expanding the visa waiver. Frankly, I was very proud of one move my Senators, Senator Feinstein, for standing up and saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, we are going a little faster. I want to thank her for that. It's important that we have bipartisan effort here. The American people are tired of both parties finding excuses and not doing the right thing. They want both parties working together to protect their neighborhoods. When a neighborhood gets blown up, it's Democrats, Republicans and independents whose lives are at stake. It doesn't draw political lines where the threat is. Frankly, the issue of being able to address these commonsense things like implementing the US-Visit system, to implement or reduce the impact of the waiver system is something that we need to work together. I want to publicly thank Senator Feinstein for standing up on that issue. I think that we need to push more on that. But this one right now is that if we can't get the visit system in, what are we doing expanding the visa waiver? That's an extraordinary, extraordinary challenge. Again, this is why the American people are saying, I don't understand it. How can you ask me to trust you with another law that could be 300 or 1,000 pages when you haven't taken care of the promises you have made over the last 20 years?

Mr. BILBRAY. I appreciate that. And, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about a visa and we talk about a proposal to go to a $10 visa processing fee, I go to Latin America on most of my family's casual time; it is kind of the untold story that the chairman of the Immigration Caucus spends so much time in Latin America. But they charge $10 for a visa and you go through a process down there. And as a visitor, I don't feel put upon to participate in their security in places like El Salvador or Nicaragua or Mexico. But here, when you talk about these countries that are under the visa, you are talking about some of them with massive amounts of immigration. So somebody could come in from Iran, immigrate to Australia, like I said, my mother's former country, could immigrate from Morocco into France, and then once they get their citizenship in that country then use that citizenship as being a free ride into the United States. So in reality, because immigration has become so fluid and nationalization of foreign nationals has become so easy in so many countries, that the issue of allowing some countries to be exempt from review and oversight and others not really are becoming antiquated, and we need to get back there. If you do not want a terrorist coming in from the West Bank, going through France and coming into this country, then we have to review everyone who comes into this country. So, in reality, we should be reducing the visa waiver, because we are not talking about people who have come from those countries, born in those countries, and have long term loyalty to those countries. We are also talking about people who have moved to those countries and might have moved there just a few years ago with the intention of getting their citizenship or getting legal residency to use that residency for the next move. And I think the doctors that tried to kill so many in England this last few months is an example that we really do have to be careful how we get it. Who would have thought that doctors from England could be terrorists. History has proven that those assumptions are wrong. And how many other assumptions are we making today that could be proven wrong in a much more graphic way? I appreciate the chance, Mr. Speaker, for your patience of allowing us to address you here tonight and the American people here tonight, and I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his leadership on this issue. And I do thank the Georgia delegation for standing so strong and so firm and defending our national sovereignty and defending our neighborhoods by standing strongly for immigration control and proper regulation.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, as a former member of the Clean Air Resources Board in California, as I think a lot of people in this town know, one of the premier air pollution agencies in the world, the one thing that we have got to send a message out there is ``do no harm.'' Even though the chairman may think that there isn't a need to send a message, I think we need to say very clearly that climate change is a threat, something we need to address. We have to be willing to make sure we do the right things now. This amendment is really a way for us to start off right from the get-go that we are not going to allow a mistake to happen that could cause major impacts on climate emissions and that we just didn't care enough to pass this resolution. I strongly support the amendment of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) because I think we should say right off, our first step at reducing greenhouse gas emissions is to make sure we do not decommission any zero generators from this point forward unless it is part of a comprehensive plan to reduce greenhouse gases. So please, here is a motion at least we can stand up and say, we did no harm; we made sure that a mistake wasn't made.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, the American people have listened to Democrats and Republicans blame each other about budget crises. I became a Member in 1995. I left for 5 years. How things change. The parties change names, but it is the same tactics. The American people want us working together on the budget. This amendment is a minimal effort of just saying to the American people, look, we recognize that even the best operation and the best budget can still be operated on 99 percent of what was projected. It is a minimalist kind of approach to this. If you can't vote for a 1 percent across-the-board cut, go to your town hall meetings, go into your communities and say, well, I really didn't want to do it because of what it symbolized. The fact is that this is the minimum of what we can do to say, look, we are trying to get back in the discipline of doing the right thing by the American taxpayer. And if you can't vote for a 1 percent, how can you expect in the long run to be able to control the Federal budget, and that is exactly what the constituency wants us to do. So I just say dump the Republican and Democrat argument. You get back to the fact that you have a motion that says quite clearly: we will make the effort of a 1 percent reduction across the board. That is a very small, little step towards fiscal responsibility and let's get together, Democrats and Republicans, and do the right thing and support the new Hefley amendment as authored by the gentleman from Georgia. If you can't do that, please don't think you can stand up and carry the mantle of self-righteousness when it comes to budget. We all bear the responsibility. Even those of us who weren't here bear the responsibility of doing the right thing and dumping the jargon about being Democrat or Republican and the other guy is at fault. We all bear that responsibility, and the voters and the taxpayers will blame all of us, regardless of our party affiliation, if we can't even make this minimal stance of a 1 percent across-the-board.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?

Mr. BILBRAY. My dear colleague from California, we've worked on environmental issues. I was a border mayor. I saw groups that were trying to use environmental regulations to stop the construction of the border fence in San Diego when the fence ended up being the best benefit to the protection of the environment, and the use of environmental issues as an excuse to stop the fence.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I find it hard to believe my dear colleague from California can really believe that an unmanned observation platform like the Predator is not more cost effective than having a rotor wing with twin crews that have to switch off at least every 6 hours. Where you are able to do an unmanned observation, you can switch off crews while they're on site. You don't have to take the vehicles off station to be able to do the transformation from one crew to the other. And I don't know what data, where you're getting the saying that the unmanned vehicle is somehow not as cost effective as having rotor- winged manned vehicles on site in very remote areas. It just doesn't pencil out. This is the same kind of argument we heard 5 years ago in the military saying unmanned vehicles would never work in some place like Afghanistan, where you and I know the great hero of the Afghan war was the Predator. So I've just got to say sincerely, you've been in government long enough to understand that putting a rotor wing, a major helicopter up with two individuals to do aerial observations compared to an unmanned vehicle that has proven its technology over time and time again, that is able to stay on station, and this is one key along the border that most people won't talk about, they are able to stay on station so that the smugglers don't know when they're coming off station to switch crews to go down. A crew actually switches in the trailer on site. One guy says, you've got it now, Joe, I have it now, and the smugglers never know when you're going through. And to do the same kind of test to your manned vehicles and other aerial observations that you are proposing for this technology, this technology is the greatest success in the world.

Mr. BILBRAY. I will yield.

Mr. BILBRAY. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. BILBRAY. You and I have both operated in local and State government and we've worked on this. If you really think that you should place that kind of condition on one technology that is a proven technology that even the military originally did not think was going to be cost effective and which now admits that they were wrong to underestimate the cost effectiveness of, the fact is, why apply it to this technology and not apply that condition to every other application along here? The fact is, this technology has been the breakthrough that has shocked the world. And it is absolutely astonishing that we would pick out the hero and the technology that opened the eyes to the fact that remote technology was a great break through for effectiveness and cost effectiveness. Why would you back off from the fact of doing that and not apply to every other technology going except for this one?

Mr. BILBRAY. Would the gentleman yield?