Shelley Capito

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman asked for examples? I have an example here of a study that was done by the Johns Hopkins University computer science students that found 1,500 dead people listed who had voted in past elections. Now, you want to talk about onerous voting. It is difficult to get out of a grave and vote.

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a point of clarification. If this goes into effect, and somebody does arrive at the polling place without their photo ID, they would be given a provisional ballot and be permitted to vote with the caveat that they would return within 48 hours to show their photo ID. I just wanted to make that point of clarification. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague on the Rules Committee, my esteemed colleague the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the House Administration Committee, the author of this bill, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I think the perspective of a chief election officer of a State is one that can shed great wisdom and knowledge concerning this bill, so it is my honor to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, last night the Committee on Rules granted a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 4844, the Federal Election Integrity Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on House Administration. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute as reported by the Committee on House Administration shall be considered as adopted. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, the right to vote is our most cherished freedom as American citizens. Over the years our Nation has evolved and progressed to include many more citizens in the voting process. Who could forget the wonderful accomplishments of Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Stanton, and Martin Luther King and countless others who fought to extend the right to populations that had previously been discriminated against? Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that today all American citizens, regardless of gender, race, creed or ideology, are free to vote for candidates from the Presidential election all of the way through to the school board. But, sadly, there are those who have taken advantage of this cherished freedom by distorting our election system. We have all heard stories about the rolls of deceased voters mysteriously voting from the grave, sometimes even voting more than once. Furthermore, with an increasing population of illegal immigrants populating our States, the possibility of noncitizens voting continues to grow. When voters go to the polls, they are electing representatives like us that will set policies for all citizens. Therefore, we should not allow these outcomes to be affected by individuals who have intentionally broken the law. In my home State of West Virginia, I am not proud to say, five individuals were recently convicted of illegally influencing elections. Our State has long suffered from these illegal and unethical tactics used to stifle the voice of our voters. While many of these problems that have been plaguing our system cannot be fixed overnight, the underlying legislation is a step in the right direction. The Federal Election Integrity Act simply requires that in order for a person to vote, they must be able to show proof of identification with a photo ID by 2007, and then 3 years later, in 2010, all voters will be required to provide a photo ID that could not have been obtained without proof of citizenship. We all understand this is going to be a challenge for some of our rural, elderly and indigent populations, but the REAL ID Act already requires all people to have a compliant ID to prove their legal status by 2008. Furthermore, this legislation authorizes funds to reimburse the States for providing IDs to the indigent at no cost. Seventeen States currently have similar requirements in their laws, most recently Arizona. The Secretary of State for Arizona recently testified that voter registration has increased in Arizona by 15.4 percent since the implementation of Proposition 200, a measure that requires all voters to present identification at the polls before casting a ballot, as well as provide a proof of citizenship before registering to vote. Recent reports show that the primary election held last week in Arizona, that there were no stumbling blocks to this new provision. Certainly this has been a success as more voters are registering, and they have peace of mind that their registration is protected by proof of their identify. During a recent NBC-Wall Street Journal poll, 81 percent of those surveyed expressed support for requiring ID at the polls. Clearly the voting population is concerned with voter fraud and is yearning for action. Even former President Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, a bipartisan duo, have endorsed this approach. Mr. Speaker, integrity in our election system is a goal that is shared across party affiliation. We want everyone to participate, to vote, and to know that their vote counts. And it is my hope that we can all work together to improve our system for future generations. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond, and then I will yield to the chairman of the committee. First of all, I think this is serious business. When you talk about one of the most precious rights we have as citizens, it is to vote. Obviously that is how we all arrived here. And I think we have, shamefully, a very low percentage of people who are voting, when we compare worldwide, in this country. So I think highlighting voting and voting patterns and the way to vote and the way to legally vote is an important issue. But what I have heard just now is a very cynical and I think slightly mean-spirited attack on why we believe and why the committee has brought forward very thoughtful legislation on voting and voter identification. If you want instances of voter fraud, come to the State of West Virginia. We just had five people indicted and sentenced in Federal court for this very thing. If you want to talk about the Commission on Federal Election Reform, which was quoted just a minute ago, headed by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, they recommended this very thing, that photo ID be used as an identifier to vote. And I can quote as well, to go to the other point, the former mayor of the city of Atlanta, Andrew Young, who talks about the concept of a photo ID for voting. I think this is an interesting point he makes: At the end of the day, a photo ID is a true weapon against the bondages of poverty. Anyone driving through a low-income neighborhood sees the ubiquitous check-cashing storefronts which thrive because other establishments, such as supermarkets and banks, won't cash checks without a standard photo ID. To go to the point of order that has been raised, this is an authorizing committee. The House Administration Committee is an authorizing committee. They have made provisions in the bill for appropriators to provide the appropriate funds of money that would be necessary to create the photo ID for the, and I will take the gentleman's figure, the 7 million people who are without. I think it is important to note that the REAL ID Act which is going to be going into effect in the next several years is going to require federally issued photo ID as a means for identification and citizenship. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), who is very thoughtful, very well respected, and certainly is known for his intense study of a subject, and this one is no different.

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to now recognize the chairman of the House Administration Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), for as much time as he may consume.

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1015 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, after the fact I cannot cite you one example, but I don't think the gentleman would deny that fraud occurred and has occurred under this.

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Florida for presenting his viewpoints on this, and we obviously have great differences. I think the underlying legislation is an important step towards improving the integrity of the election system. We have both talked about the lack of participation in our elections and how that is something that, really, as Americans we are not very proud of. But if we don't have a system that has integrity, our participation rates are going to go even lower, and that is a concern, I believe, for all of us. We have made great strides towards extending the right to vote to all citizens, but there is still work to be done to improve the integrity of our system. This is something the American people have spoken loudly on, with 81 percent of the population favoring the measures taken in this underlying legislation. I am pleased that my colleague inserted the report from former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker. They wrote in the New York Times in September of 2005 concerning this report: ``Our concern was that the differing requirements from State to State could be a source of discrimination, and so we recommended a standard for the entire country, the REAL ID card, the standardized driver's license mandated by Federal law, last May. With that law, a driver's license can double as a voting card. All but 3 of our 21 commission members accepted the proposal in part because the choice was no longer whether to have voter ID, but what kind of voter ID the voters should have.'' So I ask my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows: The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating. Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.'' Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.'' Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.'' Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman for not only his interest in this legislation, but his willingness to come to my State and his support. I rise in support of this legislation to reauthorize the Appalachian Regional Commission through 2011. My State of West Virginia is the only State fully within the boundaries of the ARC, and I am proud of the work that the Commission has accomplished in our State. Since the last reauthorization, three counties in my congressional district, and I have 18 counties, three of those counties, Lewis, Upshur and Randolph, have been removed from the list of economically distressed counties. That is good news. Putnam County, another one of my counties, has jumped to the competitive category. I am pleased that this legislation codifies ARC's at-risk designation to protect counties like Lewis and Upshur that have fragile economies and could be in danger of falling back into the distressed category. This bill will permit the ARC to fund up to 70 percent of the cost of projects in designated at-risk counties. The chairman of the subcommittee Mr. Shuster, the ARC Federal cochair Anne Pope, and I held a listening session earlier this month in Randolph County to hear some of the ways that the ARC has helped spur growth. We heard from several local elected officials, and we heard from really a variety of different entities in the county on how the ARC has helped spur development in Randolph County. The director of the West Virginia Wood Technology Center spoke to us about an ARC grant that helped workers learn the skills they need to work in the timber industry, in the forest industry. We heard from a teacher who received an entrepreneurship award to train high school students and actually won an award for that and traveled to Washington with her student to accept that award, and has since spurred that student on to graduating from college and becoming an accountant. We heard from the chairman of a rural public service district who is expanding sewer service with ARC funds. And we heard from the director of a regional planning council that assisted a seven-county region in obtaining grant funds for economic development. Job training, economic development, education benefits, housing and helping to build a community infrastructure are just some of the achievements of the ARC in this one county over the last several years. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the day when every West Virginia county and every Appalachian county is strong enough economically that the ARC is unnecessary. Until then, since 1965 until in 2011, until then, however, ARC is a tremendous asset in improving communities across the region. I know that there is some disagreement regarding this legislation, we heard about that, but the ARC and the programs it supports has broad bipartisan support across Appalachia. The Senate passed this bill by unanimous consent, and I hope my colleagues will pass the bill so that it can be signed into law.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the bill before us because we need to act immediately to seal our borders and protect the American people. My office is full of bricks, bricks mailed to me by my constituents, and to the offices of many of my colleagues, with urgent pleas to act to secure our borders. These bricks are more than a strong message from our constituents. They represent the passionate pleas of a country that knows we are losing the battle at our border and the demands of a Nation that understands we will never be secure until we have control over who is entering our country. The Secure Fence Act will take the necessary steps to give our Border Patrol agents the tools they need to regain control of our borders so they can protect our country. This legislation authorizes additional fencing as well as state-of- the-art technology and surveillance equipment to help us regain control of our borders. The Secure Fence Act tells the American people we are serious about getting control of our borders, stopping illegal immigration and securing our country. It is appropriate legislation. It will help get the job done, and I urge its passage.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Joyce Robinson of her service to the Social Security Administration and to congratulate her on her upcoming retirement. Mrs. Robinson began her career in 1975 as a Claims Clerk in the Martinsburg, West Virginia Social Security Office. She has held 7 different positions, reaching the level of Special Disability Workload Cadre Manger in the Charleston, West Virginia Social Security Office. Mrs. Robinson has been recognized numerous times for her outstanding leadership qualities. Her immense knowledge of programs and great interpersonal communication skills led her to gain the distinction of being a liaison to her peers, as well as, to Congressional Staffs and entities outside the SSA office. She will be greatly missed as a helpful resource to me and my staff. For her dedication and willingness to serve my constituents, the State of West Virginia, and surrounding states, I offer Mrs. Robinson my most sincere congratulations and best wishes for a well-deserved retirement.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, during the August recess, my constituents saw very clearly the need to increase enforcement along our borders. In early August, an illegal immigrant wanted for murder in Texas was found working in a lumberyard near Elkins, West Virginia. Last week, another illegal immigrant struck and killed 4-year-old Tyler Evans in a car accident in Boone County, West Virginia. The police report alleges that speed and alcohol were factors in the fatal crash. Both illegal immigrants had falsified immigration papers. I held a roundtable with law enforcement officers and elected leaders and talked with many constituents throughout August to discuss the House border security bill and the Reid-Kennedy amnesty bill. The response was unanimous: No amnesty and increased enforcement along our borders. We shouldn't stop there. It is critical that we provide employers the ability to check immigration status of employees and hold them accountable for their workers. Clearly, most people who enter illegally are not security threats, but it is critical to our homeland security that we are able to account for the people who enter this country. We need to pass tough immigration reform now. It is too late for Tyler Evans, but we need to act before it is too late for other Americans.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and gentleman from Washington for yielding me time, and I rise today in strong support of the rule and the underlying legislation. First, I would like to thank our leadership for having the foresight and leadership to bring this excellent compromise before the House. I am delighted to have been part of the 48 Republicans that have pushed through letters and meetings and other methods to ask our leadership to bring a vote on the minimum wage to this floor. I just heard a minute ago these words, ``just raise the minimum wage,'' well, guess what. That is what this bill does. Let me be clear, with the passage of this legislation, we will raise the minimum wage over the next 3 years to $7.25. This is real relief for those workers who are trying to support a family on a minimum wage job, bringing it closer to a true living wage. I have supported raising the minimum wage for years, and I am glad to see that on this day this vote is coming to the floor. I am also pleased that we are including death tax relief in this measure. Unlike some of my colleagues, I see this tax relief and minimum wage bill as complementary. The death tax is a punitive measure that unfairly burdens small business owners and farmers. The sustaining of small businesses by keeping their vital assets will allow those making the minimum wage to continue working and hopefully provide greater resources to bring them above the minimum wage. This is a jobs bill, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support this step forward for workers and the businesses that employ them.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Well, again, I think we are probably going to agree to disagree on this, our policies, and we have disagreed through our votes, I think, on the floor of the House. I think what I have appreciated about your argument is you have talked about the problems that we have, and I think that is what we need to do in this body. We need to agree on what our problems are, and we have not even touched on some of our bigger ones like Social Security and Medicare for the future, and this is all going to pool into this argument. So, my suggestion would be that, of course, I believe, and I think I have emphasized that point quite enough tonight, that the policies that we have put in place have us on the right track. What the future will bear, the future will bear, and we will be able to see, but had we not had these policies in place, I do not think we would see this engine moving as quickly as we have. So I am going to rest my argument here on those facts, on the economic facts, on the facts that in my State of West Virginia, we have some of the historically lowest unemployment we have ever had; and that we have 50,000 West Virginians who have children who are now paying fewer taxes; and that we have 94,000 taxpayers in West Virginia who are benefiting from a lower tax rate; and that we have 510,000 taxpayers who now are in the 10 percent bracket; and we have 194,000 married couples who are paying less, and these are not the wealthy 1 percent. These are the hardworking people of West Virginia who live in a beautiful State, the same State they want to raise their children in and want to have a future there. So I will rest my case with that and listen to your final argument.

Mrs. CAPITO. I would be for keeping the tax cuts in place, letting them grow for their maturation. I think a lot of them do not kick in for full force until 2010, because the trend that I am seeing is this 11.1 percent more collections, more people working, industrial production increasing 4.3 percent, real hourly compensation rising at 3.2 percent, real consumer spending increasing at 5.1 percent over the first quarter, productivity in the Nation up 3.7. See, I would say to you that because of the tax relief, because of the job growth package and because of that, we are going to be able to grow ourselves and our economy to meet the needs to be able to take a sizeable chunk out of that red part of your chart.

Mrs. CAPITO. Well, for some additional comments on that, before we move to our policy debate, I think you make excellent points. I want to congratulate you for your initiative on this matter. But I also know this is not a new initiative for you. When you were a Mayor of Kansas City, it was something that you were very dedicated to, a lot of coalition building, a lot of talking across the aisle or talking with maybe unnatural partners that you would not naturally see could be your allies. And I think that, you know, we know and I know that when we go to our committees and when we go home or when we are in different arenas with our follow Members, Republican or Democrat, we can get a lot done when we are not on screen, or when we are not a talking head on a 60-second campaign or television ad. I think that the American public has sort of lost faith that maybe we can accomplish things. We know that things get done. I think that what we are running the risk of, and you mentioned collateral damage, what we run the risk of is losing the ear of the American public. Not only are they not bringing their children to the television to listen to what we are talking about, they are turning us off, because they cannot find the truth in what we are saying. Because we overexaggerate or we try to disparage people's character or lose respect in our arguments. I think if we lose the attention of the American public, we run the risk of an apathetic country that no longer cares or has faith in their leadership to be able to cut through and cut to the chase and lead. So I think we are not alone in the Congress. There is a Center Aisle Caucus that was put together with Republicans and Democrats together to try to solve this problem. But I am really pleased that tonight we are going to launch into this debate and see what we can demonstrate and what we can learn. If you will, we are going to go, kind of go free-wheeling. So should I go ahead and start?

Mrs. CAPITO. Well, I think you have hit on an excellent topic in that the deficit is troubling to all of us. I certainly don't want to pass on to my children and grandchildren a heavy and burdensome deficit. And we found ourselves in a position with the recession, with corporate scandals, with the war on terror, with an attack on our Nation where we had to respond, we have had to beef up our defense, beef up our intelligence, beef up our armaments and at a very, very expensive cost. Not even to mention our homeland security costs, something that unfortunately I wasn't here but I am not sure I would have been any wiser. That is one thing I don't like about our debate in Congress, we all have great hindsight. We can predict what we would have done, but it is hard to say at the time that we would have been right. But I think we let our homeland security reach a point where we just weren't paying attention, and so we have put billions of dollars, and rightfully so, into not only protecting our localities to helping with our first responders. We found that was a real weakness on 9/11. We are now talking about border security and border protection, which is something that is tremendously important to all of us. So there is no question that the strains and binds on our budget have been very, very difficult. And what we haven't done, along with the tax and growth policies, is we haven't reined in our spending as well as we should on certain areas where we can be much wiser with the Federal dollar. But we cannot find ourselves in the situation where we are in now, where we have found this year with the larger tax collections of 11 percent higher that has been able to already demonstrate just this first 6 months that we are now able to say that our deficit growth is going to be $126 billion less than it was projected to be simply because we have more tax, a tax revenue that has been spurred by the economic growth that has been spurred, in my opinion, by the tax cuts and reconciliation packages that we passed. And I would just like to read one thing to remind myself and everybody else, and this is a little off the subject, but if you will allow me, all the individual taxes that we all pay, we pay State sales tax, a lot of us do in West Virginia, we do, 5 percent on food, 6 percent on everything else; State income tax, local property tax, Federal income tax, capital gains tax, dividends tax, State corporate tax, Social Security payroll tax, FICA tax, gasoline tax, gambling tax, cigarette tax, cell phone tax, telephone tax, Federal State tax, State tax, municipal fees. I mean, we are taxed not to death, but we are getting there. And I think the best thing that we can control here in Congress is our Federal income tax and the income tax that we assess on our small businesses. That is why I think Americans are always very mindful of their Federal taxes on April 15, but I think that come these past April 15s, with the tax relief, families with children, married couples, families in the lower-income brackets who have been moved either off the rolls or down to the 10 percent bracket have all seen, along with those who make more money on your chart, more than the $1 million, have been able to see more money in their pockets so they can have more discretion and more responsibility over their own personal money, and they don't send that money here to Washington where we spend it or, as you said, overspend it.

Mrs. CAPITO. I think the question I would ask you on your chart would be if those folks in the $10,000 to $20,000, and I do not know the answer to this, but I surmise that they really do not pay, by the time they get their deductions, by the time they get their child tax credit, by the time they get their marriage penalty erased, by the time the bracket is moved down, the actual amount that they pay in that income tax brackets is probably very small. While I admit to you a $2 average tax lowering is diminimus. I mean it is nonexistent for anybody. But my question would be, what is their actual tax burden at that level? And would you be advocating giving a tax break to somebody who does not actually pay the tax? We already have the earned income tax credit, where we try to take some of those things into consideration.

Mrs. CAPITO. I agree with the gentleman, and I have to say additionally that I am a mother of three, and I think sometimes that the lessons that we teach our children, when we come here, we have forgotten. We teach our children not to interrupt; we teach our children to show respect to their classmates and their parents; we teach our children to not say bad words; and we teach our children to listen or be quiet when other people are talking. I have even been in this Chamber when I have heard hissing at another Member when they are speaking. So I pledge to you my cooperation, and I enjoy your eloquent words.

Mrs. CAPITO. Well, I think that the way to pay for a war, the war on terror, it is tremendously expensive. We have had many votes on this. I think we both agree that in order to stand behind our troops and arm our troops and give them the best technology, we want to make sure that we have the dollars in the Federal kitty to be able to do that. I believe that the tax and growth policies that we have put in place, that we need to have the firm and strong engine of the American economy running on all cylinders. Because if we do not have businesses producing, if we do not have people employed, then we are not going to have the tax collections that we need to sustain what is a tremendously expensive time in our country's history. But I would like to say, with the tax relief packages that we passed, the two major ones that we passed, we have had a surge in tax revenues. Just this year alone, tax revenues are running 11.1 percent over last year and a 14.6 percent increase over 2005. So what does that tell me? That tells me that with more discretionary income for the individual, and we also have a higher per capita salary, rates are going up, with more discretionary interest for small businesses. I live in a State where the main economic engine is small business, so hiring that one more person is very significant in a small State like ours, a rural State. Because of the tax relief and the job growth policies that we have put into place, our engine, our economic engine is roaring in terms of employment, in terms of discretionary, in terms of consumer spending. And I think that is reflected in the numbers of our tax collections being higher and higher. My State of West Virginia, State tax collections are up over $100 million. I happen to live in an energy-rich State, so because of the energy situation, I do have to put my plug in for coal, because of our coal, we are enjoying a good economic stand.