Steve Chabot

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 118) reaffirming the principles of the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development with respect to the sovereign rights of countries and the right of voluntary and informed consent in family planning programs.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, they are at it again. We learned this morning from The Washington Post that those big government loving bureaucrats in the Clinton administration are up to their old tricks again. When we last heard from our friends in the Federal health care data collection business, they were attempting to carry out a little known provision in the law that would require every single American to have a special identification number so that their medical records could be tracked by the government. Now we learn that the administration seeks to create a new database that would collect personal information about millions of Americans who receive in-home benefits under the Medicare program. Under the guise of improving service, the Clinton administration intends to conduct a 19- page assessment of each patient, including questions concerning the patient's sense of failure, or socially inappropriate behavior. Enough already. Let us put a stop to this nonsense before it begins. Let us protect the privacy of millions of Americans. Let us once again say no to Big Brother.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, the Republican party stands for saving Social Security; and, yes, we stand for tax cuts, too. We stand for across-the-board tax cuts for all Americans. We stand for the elimination of capital gains taxes because capital investment is the engine of job growth, the key to economic opportunity for all Americans, whether rich or poor. We stand for the expansion of IRA accounts. We stand for elimination of estate taxes because we think the government should not have two and three whacks at the fruits of a lifetime of work and because we think the government has already done enough to kill the family farm and to kill small businesses. We stand for elimination of the marriage tax penalties. Right now, a married couple pays higher taxes if they are married than if they are not, and that is just plain wrong. So let us work together to reduce the tax burden on all Americans whether rich, middle class or poor.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, it is the official policy of the United States to remain vulnerable to a ballistic missile attack. That might be surprising to many, but it is true, even though it flies in the face of common sense. Iraq, North Korea, Iran are all embarked on nuclear weapons programs that would enable them to reach the United States with a ballistic missile, and China already has that ability. Mr. Speaker, the only thing we have to protect us is a relic of the Cold War, an ABM treaty with a country that no longer even exists. Do my colleagues think the leaders of Iraq and North Korea and Iran and Communist China are impressed with our ABM treaty? I do not think so. Mr. Speaker, the administration's timid, weak and uncertain steps to begin building a national defense system are not enough. They are too little, and I am afraid they are going to be too late. I urge the Congress to take the lead on this vital issue, Mr. Speaker, and as my liberal colleagues so often love to say: Let us do it for the children.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, a lot of Americans look at what the government does and conclude that many of the things that it does simply make no sense. The marriage tax penalty certainly falls into that category. The Federal Government has actually set up a system that makes married couples pay more in taxes than couples that live together but are not married. When people shake their heads when they hear about the latest crazy scheme coming out of Washington, Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the kind of thing that they have in mind. There is no telling what absurd rationale the social engineers had in mind when they set up the marriage tax penalty, but Americans with common sense think it is time finally for some accountability. It is time to get rid of this dumb idea of taxing people more just because they get married. It is time to bring a little middle America common sense to a tax code that is an affront to the common sense of American citizens, and it is time that we reduce taxes for all Americans across the board. Mr. Speaker, we are just overtaxing this country. Let us finally do something about it and lower taxes.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, education is critically important to the future of our Nation. I venture to say every Democrat and Republican who is in Congress would agree with that statement. In order to assist parents in financing their children's education, this Congress passed into law education IRAs. In a nutshell, they allow parents to set aside some of their hard-earned money for their kids' education and get some tax relief for doing so. But a constituent of mine, John Michael, who happens to be a tax accountant, says there is a glitch in the law that needs to be fixed. I agree with him. With most IRAs, the taxpayer has until April 15 to make a contribution for the previous tax year, but under current law the education IRA's contribution must be made by December 31. I would ask my Democratic and Republican colleagues to support my Education IRA Fairness Act which I introduced last week. It brings the education IRAs into line with all other IRAs, and it will improve education in this country.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, every Member of the House now recognizes what members of the Committee on the Judiciary have come to realize over the last few months: This is likely the most important vote that we as Members of Congress will ever cast. It also comes at an especially difficult time, a time when our Nation's brave sons and daughters are actively defending our Nation's freedom overseas. I share many of my colleagues' concerns about this unfortunate timing. But, just as we have a responsibility to our troops, we now have a responsibility to keep our word to the American people and put this matter behind the country as soon as possible. Throughout the Committee on the Judiciary's consideration of this very serious matter, I worked to uphold my constitutional duty to fairly and thoroughly investigate the charges brought against the President. Throughout the proceedings, I tried to keep an open mind, giving the President every opportunity to refute the evidence. But the President made a calculated decision to avoid the facts. Instead, he presented witnesses that could offer little more than excuses, insults and historical perspectives tainted by partisan politics. The President's attorneys did not fare much better. They, too, decided to hide from the truth, consistently adhering to the company line. ``The President did not really lie under oath,'' they testified. ``It depends on how one defines the word `alone.' '' The President was not paying attention when his attorney offered false evidence to the court. The President has continued to rely on these absurd explanations and linguistic contortions for one reason and one reason alone; he cannot dispute the facts. The evidence against President Clinton is conclusive: The President lied under oath before a Federal grand jury. He lied under oath in a sexual harassment case. He obstructed justice, and he abused his constitutional authority. Standing alone, each individual offense is extremely serious. Collectively, they are overwhelming. After months of painstaking review, it has become apparent to me that impeachment is the only remedy that adequately addresses the President's illegal and unethical acts. The President's actions have gravely damaged the office of the presidency, our judicial system, and our country. This was not an easy decision to reach. Impeaching a President cannot be taken lightly. But in this case, our constitutional duty is clear. Some of my colleagues have come to the floor today using inflammatory rhetoric and attacking Members for voting their conscience. This is unfortunate and does not reflect the dignity that we owe this debate. It is the President, by breaking his oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, who has violated the trust bestowed upon him by the American people. As to those who mistakenly claim that this body is seeking to overturn an election or we are involved in a coup d'etat, let me remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that it is the Democratic Vice President, Al Gore, who would become President if the Senate decides to remove President Clinton because of his crimes and remove him from office. I ask every Member of the House to consider the question I posed to my colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary last week: What message are we sending to the youth of America if we abdicate our constitutional duty and condone perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power by the President of the United States? I have two children at home, a daughter and a son. With the help of their teachers and their church, my wife and I have tried to teach them about honesty and integrity. We have tried to instill in them a belief that character does indeed matter. We have taught them to obey the law. Sadly, they have seen these principles corrupted by the chief law enforcement officer of this land, the President of the United States. William Jefferson Clinton has disgraced his sacred office, he has cheapened the oath, he has disillusioned an entire generation of young Americans, and he refuses to accept responsibility for his actions. Abraham Lincoln, perhaps our Nation's greatest President, once said, ``Let us have faith that right makes might, and, in that faith, let us dare to do our duty as we understand it.'' Today, we must fulfill our constitutional duty and vote to impeach the President.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this Conference Report. I would first like to thank Mr. Hyde, Mr. Gekas, Mr. Hatch and the other members of the Conference Committee. The current bankruptcy system, which this legislation seeks to reform, clearly discourages personal responsibility. Our bankruptcy laws often allow those who can afford to pay their bills to declare bankruptcy and walk away debt free instead. As a result, personal bankruptcies are skyrocketing. In fact, despite economic growth, low unemployment and rising incomes personal bankruptcies reached a record 1.4 million last year, and are projected to rise even further this year. This places a terrible financial burden on consumers who are forced to pay higher prices for goods and services. In fact, the average family pays a $400 bad debt tax every year. The Conference proposal is, I believe, substantial improvement over current law. This legislation will strengthen the bankruptcy code, reducing the number of ``bankruptcies of convenience.'' I believe that the needs-based test that is implemented in this Conference Report will take substantial steps in reforming this system by reestablishing the link between one's ability to pay and ability to discharge debt. The needs-based test is a balance between the House and Senate bills on this issue. It adopts the bright-line standards for measuring repayment capacity from the House bill, while at the same time preserving the right of a debtor in bankruptcy to have a judge review his or her individual case so that their unique circumstances could be taken into account. This legislation also cracks down on a number of ways in which debtors abuse the system bankruptcy. For example, it makes debts that are incurred to pay nondischargeable debts, such as taxes, would become nondischargeable, as well. In other words if a person uses a credit card to pay their income taxes, this legislation prohibits them from turning around and declaring bankruptcy, making the credit card company in effect pay their income taxes. At the same time, however, it recognizes that there is some real need for the protections that bankruptcy offers, and it strengthens that protection. For example, it strengthens child support and alimony payments, making alimony and child support payments the first priority, not the 7th, as under current law. Finally, while I believe that some sections of the House passed bill would have better addressed some of the problems with the bankruptcy laws, this strong, pro-consumer bill makes vital reforms to the bankruptcy system. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, Mr. Speaker, because it takes some significant steps in the right direction in restoring some personal responsibility to our bankruptcy laws, while protecting those who need the protections of bankruptcy. I urge my colleagues to support this Conference Report, and I hope that the President will sign this important legislation, giving hard- working American families protection from those who abuse the bankruptcy system.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. Our responsibility today is to determine if the evidence we have examined thus far warrants further investigation by the Committee on the Judiciary. We do not sit in judgment today. We are not here to convict or punish or sentence today. We are here to seek the truth. To fulfill our constitutional duty we must determine if the evidence presented to date strongly suggests wrongdoing by the President and if the alleged wrongdoing likely rises to the level of an impeachable offense; that is, a high crime or misdemeanor. I would submit that strong evidence exists that the President may have committed perjury and the historic record demonstrates that perjury can be an impeachable offense. Based on the facts and on the law, this House has a constitutional duty to proceed to a formal inquiry. Mr. Speaker, I think I speak for most of my colleagues when I say that this is not a matter to be taken lightly. Rarely in one's political life is one forced to confront such an awesome and historic responsibility. It is my sincere hope that we can work together as the Founding Fathers envisioned, in a bipartisan fashion, to complete this task as expeditiously as possible and to do what is in the best interests of the country. I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to rise above the partisan fires that too often burn in our Nation's capital. Consider the facts at hand and fulfill our constitutional responsibilities by moving forward with a fair and thorough investigation of this important matter.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today is the result of a negotiation resulting in a compromise among the union that represents major league players, the owners of major league baseball clubs, and by the owners of minor league baseball teams affiliated with major league clubs. The compromise addresses only the limited area of the labor relations of major league players at the major league level. The bill does not affect any other aspect of the organized baseball exemption. Also, the legislation does not change in any way the antitrust exemption for the major league players union or the major league clubs in the collective bargaining process provided by the nonstatutory labor antitrust exemption available to all unions and employers. The legislation is a success because it has been carefully crafted to make clear that only major league baseball players, and no other party, can bring suit under this amendment to the Clayton Act. This protection will help to ensure the continued viability of minor league baseball. Minor league baseball owners were concerned that any legislation preserve the antitrust protections for the historic relationship between the major league clubs and the minor league clubs. The minor league owners were particularly concerned about the work rules and terms of employment that impact both major league and minor league baseball players. The language of the bill guarantee that neither major league players nor minor league players can use subsection (a) of new section 27 of the Clayton Act to attack conduct, acts, practices or agreements designed to apply only to minor league employment. I believe the compromise is successful because it protects minor league baseball by barring minor league players or amateur players from using the antitrust laws to attack issues unique to the continued economic success of minor league baseball.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong support of the McIntosh-Weldon amendment. The Clinton administration's record on missile defense has been very, very weak. Incredibly, on June 23, the President vetoed the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanction Act. And only one month later, on July 23, the White House confirmed that Iran had tested a missile with a range of 800 miles the previous day. Clearly, Cold War or no Cold War, the world remains a very dangerous place. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration consistently fails to see that danger. Rogue nations are continuing to attempt to acquire nuclear weaponry. And our liberal friends are always saying that we must do this for the children, do that for the children. If we really want to do something for the children of this Nation, we ought to make sure that they are protected from the threat of nuclear weapons falling upon their home towns.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. As all of us who work in the House of Representatives know, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) has for many years been one that has fought the scourge of drugs that we have had going on in our country for a long time. I just want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for his leadership.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues, particularly the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), for their support of H.R. 3633, the Controlled Substances Trafficking Prohibition Act, legislation that I sponsored and that was adopted by the House earlier this afternoon. This important initiative will close a loophole in Federal law that allows dangerous drugs, particularly drugs used in connection with date rape, to be legally imported into the United States. Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies have raised serious concerns about the trafficking of controlled substances from Mexico. Right now uppers, downers, hallucinogens and date rape drugs similar to Rohypnol may be easily obtained from so-called health care providers or pharmacists in Mexico with no documentation of medical need whatsoever. According to DEA, these drugs are frequently resold illegally in the United States. This situation is especially dangerous because these powerful drugs may be used in connection with date rapes. While Rohypnol, the most well-known date rape drug, has been banned in the U.S., it is still being used to rape young women, and many other dangerous controlled substances have taken its place. Jane Maxwell, director of the Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, says that this loophole continues to allow date rape drugs to cross the border. For example, the drug Rivotril is everywhere, according to Maxwell, and is now being used by juveniles, just as Rohypnol has been used. A 1996 study documented the controlled substance drug trafficking problems along the U.S.-Mexico border. The study found that in just one year at the Laredo border crossing over 60,000 drug products were brought into the U.S. by more than 24,000 people. All of the top 15 drug products, which represented 94 percent of the total quantity of declared drugs, were controlled substances. These dangerous drugs, classified as prescription tranquilizers, stimulants and narcotic analgesics, are potentially addictive and subject to abuse. Specifically, Valium was declared by 70 percent of the people, with the average person bringing in 237 tablets. Rohypnol was brought in by 43 percent of those who declared their prescription medication. Over a full year that means that over 4 million doses of Valium and almost 1.5 million doses of Rohypnol were brought in at one single border crossing. The median age for those who declared Valium and Rohypnol is 24 and 26 years old respectively. The large quantity of dangerous drugs passing through a single border crossing underscores the seriousness of the problem. The quantity and types of pills discovered also back up DEA's view that these drugs are being used for illegal purposes. While this problem is most notable in communities along the U.S.- Mexico border, it impacts communities well outside the Southwest. The study in Laredo found that residents from 39 States crossed the border and returned to the United States with a variety of drug products. Around the country, prescription drug abuse is a growing problem, especially among our youth. The purity and low price of prescription drug pills makes them an attractive alternative to traditional street drugs. At a recent Subcommittee on Crime hearing on date rape drugs, experts testified that GHB, Rohypnol and other date rape drugs are rapidly becoming the drug of choice in various communities and among the different types of users, particularly among teenagers. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will help close the loophole which allows these dangerous drugs into our communities. I thank my colleagues for their support, and I particularly want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) for yielding me the time.

Mr. CHABOT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will close a loophole in federal law that allows dangerous drugs--particularly drugs used in connection with date rape--to be legally imported into the United States. Federal, state and local law enforcement agencies; drug abuse prevention organizations; independent studies; and media reports have raised serious concerns about the trafficking of controlled substances from Mexico. Right now, uppers, downers, hallucinogens, and date rape drugs similar to Rohypnol may be easily obtained from so-called ``health-care providers'' or ``pharmacists'' in Mexico with no documentation of medical need. According to DEA, these drugs are frequently resold illegally in the United States. This situation is especially dangerous because these powerful drugs may be used in connection with date-rapes. While Rohypnol--the most well-known date-rape drug--has been banned in the U.S., it is still being used to rape young women, and many other dangerous controlled substances have taken its place. Jane Maxwell, director of the Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse (TCADA) says that this loophole continues to allow date-rape drugs to cross the border. For example, the drug Rivotril is ``everywhere'' according to Maxwell, ``and is now being used by juveniles . . . just as Rohypnol has been used.'' A 1996 study documented the controlled substance drug trafficking problem along the U.S.-Mexico border. The study found that in just one year at the Laredo border crossing, over 60,000 drug products were brought in to the U.S. by more than 24,000 people. All of the top 15 drug products, which represented 94.1 percent of the total quantity of declared drugs, were controlled substances. These dangerous drugs, classified as prescription tranquilizers, stimulants, and narcotic analgesics, are potentially addictive and subject to abuse. Specifically, Valium was declared by 70 percent of the people, with the average person bringing in 237 tablets. Rohypnol was brought in by 43 percent of those who declared their prescription medication. Over a full year, that means that over 4 million doses of Valium and almost 1.5 million doses of Rohypnol were brought in at a single border crossing. The median age for those who declared Valium and Rohypnol? It was 24 and 26 years old respectively. The large quantity of dangerous drugs passing through a single border crossing underscores the seriousness of this problem. The quantity and types of pills discovered also backup DEA's view that these drugs are being used for illegal purposes. While this problem is most noticeable in communities along the U.S.- Mexico border, it impacts communities well outside the southwest. The study in Laredo found that residents from 39 states crossed the border and returned to the United States with a variety of drug products. Around the country, prescription drug abuse is a growing problem, especially among our youth. The purity and low price of prescription pills makes them an attractive alternative to traditional street drugs. At a recent Crime Subcommittee hearing on date-rape drugs, experts testified that GHB, Rohypnol and other date-rape drugs are rapidly becoming the so-called ``drug of choice'' in various communities and among different types of users, particularly teenagers. Surprisingly, prescription painkillers, sedatives, stimulants, and tranquilizers account for 75 percent of the top 20 drugs mentioned in emergency room episodes in 1995. While American children become addicts or overdose, Mexican drug dealers use this loophole to make a mockery out of our anti-drug efforts. Their brazen practices include providing detailed instructions to help people entering the U.S. avoid arrest or drug confiscation. These instructions read: ``Don't use marijuana or cocaine for 2 days before because dogs may smell.'' ``Don't open boxes in Mexico.'' ``Customs and Border Patrol don't care about medication.'' ``Medication must be used only in U.S.A. not in Mexico.'' Ironically, while Mexican authorities don't mind supplying dangerous drugs to American citizens, they strictly prohibit their use in Mexico. This gaping hole in U.S. drug policy exists because of a so-called ``personal use'' exemption to the Controlled Substances Act that allows American drug dealers to bring in up to a 90 day supply of such drugs without a legitimate prescription or medical purpose, as long as they are declared at the border. This lax exemption permits people to import multiple drugs and thousands of pills in a single day. We have been working with Customs, DEA, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy to solve this problem. This legislation offers a targeted and straight-forward solution. This legislation would limit the exemption for individuals who do not posses a prescription issued by a U.S. physician or documentation which verifies a legitimate prescription. An individual without this documentation would be limited to a maximum of 50 dosage units of a controlled substance. The 50 dose limit would provide those people who have a legitimate need for a controlled substance ample time to seek medical attention in the U.S. while virtually eliminating the abuses that are now prevalent. I want to be very clear about what this legislation does and does not do: The legislation is strictly limited to controlled substances. Controlled substances are drugs that the DEA has either banned or subjected to closely regulated status because of their danger, addictiveness and potential for abuse. The legislation is strictly limited to those individuals that do not posses documentation that a U.S. prescription exists. The legislation does not impact the ability of people with a prescription issued by a U.S. doctor to import any medications, including controlled substances. The legislation does not in any way change current U.S. law as it relates to the importation of prescription drugs that are not considered controlled substances. In other words, this legislation will not make it more difficult for people to obtain drugs to treat heart disease, cancer, AIDS or other serious illnesses, because these drugs are not controlled substances. In fact, none of the top 20 heart, cancer or AIDS drugs are controlled substances. The manager's amendment makes an important change from the Judiciary Committee passed version. Throughout the process of learning about this problem and researching possible solutions, I have worked closely with the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Texas Department of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the U.S. Customs Service, Crime Subcommittee Chairman Bill McCollum, Senator DeWine, the sponsor of this legislation in the Senate, and Senator Grassley's Senate Caucus on International Narcotics to come to an agreement on this legislation. The principal change in the final version is that the legislation includes all international land borders in its coverage. This is to guard against possible diversion from Mexico to Canada and to ensure that this problem does not expand to Canada. This expansion is supported by the U.S. Customs Service, which prefers a uniform standard, as well as DEA and ONDCP, who support broader application of this legislation. The other changes made from the Committee version to the final version are technical changes that don't change the force or effect of the legislation. They are changes that were suggested by the Justice Dept., DEA and Customs, as well as language tightening up the bill as drafted by Legislative Counsel in the Senate. Mr. Speaker, this should not be a controversial proposal. DEA and Customs identified this as a critical problem over two years ago. General McCaffery has written to me and expressed his belief that there is general agreement among my office, ONDCP, DEA, and Customs regarding the scope of the problem and the proposed solution. Mr. Speaker, I especially want to thank Mr. Joe Rubin of my staff for his outstanding work on this legislation.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Patient Protection Act. There have been numerous managed care reform proposals offered in Congress this year, and many share similar consumer protections. The Patient Protection Act guarantees that patients can choose their own doctor, gain access to emergency care, communicate openly with health care providers, and independently appeal decisions made by managed care companies. This bill also contains a number of pro-consumer provisions that the other proposals do not. This legislation increases patient access to affordable care by expanding health care coverage options for workers and their families, many who have no health care coverage at all now. American families know that the most important patient protection is access to affordable care. Families should not be forced to choose between expensive health care coverage and putting food on the kitchen table. This legislation will protect consumers from abuses in the managed care industry, while increasing access and affordability. That is why I support the Patient Protection Act.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I think the gentleman from Michigan is aware that if you allow an exception for health reasons, it can mean if a psychiatrist thinks that somebody is going to feel better about themselves.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, a minute is not nearly enough time to address the horrors of partial-birth abortion. But I trust that during the course of this debate the truth will come through and this body will do the right thing, the decent thing and vote to override the President's unconscionable veto of the partial-birth abortion ban. This ought to be simple. You should not kill babies. Partial-birth abortion is infanticide. It is the termination of the life of a living baby just seconds before it takes its first breath outside the womb. The procedure is violent, it is gruesome, it is undeniably wrong. It is the killing of a baby as it is being born. This morning's vote is among the most important we will ever make. It is one that will long be remembered. I would urge my colleagues to say ``no'' to the abortion President and ``no'' to the most militant leaders of the abortion lobby and vote to protect the lives of helpless, defenseless little babies. Madam Speaker, let us vote today to defend those little babies who cannot defend themselves.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CHABOT. Under the proposal we have----

Mr. CHABOT. We would accept this procedure if the mother's life is at risk.

Mr. CHABOT. I think everybody would accept when you have a balance between the mother's life and the child's life. That is not the issue.

Mr. CHABOT. It is wrong to kill babies, as simple as that.

Mr. CHABOT. If the gentleman will yield further, I think the gentleman is aware of when you talk about health risk.