K. Conaway

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, as has been spoken earlier, the Endangered Species Act is broken. What began as a tool to help scientists protect vulnerable populations of endangered animals and plants has metastasized into an economic straitjacket from which there is no relief. To illustrate my point, I would like to share the stories of two species that make their home in west Texas: the Concho water snake and the dune sagebrush lizard. The Concho water snake was first listed as threatened on September 3, 1986. Since that time, the citizens of Texas have spent millions of dollars complying with Federal mandates, performing surveys, and generally advancing knowledge of the snake's biology far beyond that which existed when the snake was first listed in 1986. Today, there is little question that the snake's population is stable and exists in far greater numbers than during the original listing. Because of this research, the service proposed delisting the snake on July 8, 2008. This delisting should be a victory for the service and the supporters of the Endangered Species Act. Instead, it has collapsed into a maddening, saddening caricature of endless government bureaucracy. During a federally mandated 10-year study of the snake, researchers caught and released 9,000 individual snakes. The data collected was the basis for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission's decision to remove the snake from their threatened species list in August 2000. At that time, Fish and Wildlife declined to delist the species, instead requesting an additional population viability study to be conducted, with, of course, updated data. Eight years later, in July of '08, the service finally issued a formal delisting proposal after what must have been an exhaustive, thorough, and detailed review of all of the best available science. Unfortunately, as of today, the service still has not completed action on its own proposal. Today, to the best of my knowledge, the final delisting rule is hung up somewhere with the lawyers in the solicitor's office of Fish and Wildlife. It is inexcusable that this snake persists on the endangered species list. Its continued inclusion on the list represents a significant commitment of Federal, State, and local tax dollars. At a time when our financial commitments are under a strain at every level of government, dollars are wasted because of the failure of Fish and Wildlife to make a final decision on their own recommendation. But beyond the dollars wasted while protecting a species that the service supports delisting, I'm more concerned about the long-term impact this non-decision has on the public's trust in our Federal Government. By proposing and then failing to delist a species, the service is undermining the very reputation it relies on when it hands down drastic and painful mandates sometimes needed to protect a species on the brink of extinction. The dunes sagebrush lizard is just one such species whose protection will require the service to demand significant and costly compliance measures from the landowners and communities where this lizard exists. Unfortunately, it's also a species that has a paltry amount of science behind the support of its listing. In Texas, there are but a handful of places that anyone has looked for the lizard, and the service is unable to answer basic questions as to how many lizards exist today or how many are needed to support a viable population of these lizards. This might not stir up much trouble, except that the dune sagebrush lizard lives above one of the most productive oil and gas producing basins in the lower 48. Its inclusion on the endangered species list would dramatically curtail oil and gas exploration across this vast patch of the Permian Basin until the Fish and Wildlife Service decides on how best to proceed several years from now. The oil produced on this land provides the livelihood for hundreds of thousands of Texas families, millions of dollars of support for Texas university and public school students and, most important, is used as energy by millions of Americans. The Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed closing this land to development based on too little science and too little concern for the economic consequences. I believe that the interminable delay in delisting the Concho water snake and the paltry science behind listing of the dune sagebrush lizard is damaging the service's credibility as an honest steward of the powers its agents are entrusted with. Fair or not, the Endangered Species Act as implemented by Fish and Wildlife is viewed in my district as little more than a cudgel to beat up disfavored industries, in large part because the science is often shoddy, species are rarely delisted, and the mandates continue in perpetuity. I support the underlying legislation today because I believe it is the best short- term chance to correct the imbalance in the implementation of the Endangered Species Act. The underlying legislation will allow the Fish and Wildlife Service one full year to clear out its backlog of Concho water snakes across this Nation. Free from new listing requirements, the service can focus on the recoveries of the species that are under its care and better managing the charges it already has. I hope that the service takes this year off to pay particular attention to the dune sagebrush lizard and work to understand this animal better before it moves to close down thousands of well sites across west Texas while the resulting energy prices are crushing our constituents. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's amendment because the amendment locks in the failed status quo for another year and offers communities around this country like mine no relief from the arbitrary mandates in the Endangered Species Act. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleague in asking to exempt the Department of Defense from section 526; 526 was added to the energy bill in a wrongheaded move to placate some notion that it would have some impact on global warming. It's wrong to require the Department of Defense in these times, where every single dollar is scarce and every single dollar should have a home, to require them to spend extra money beyond what they would normally spend for fuel for their planes. This amendment would also allow the continued development of coal-to- liquid jet fuel, which would make this country much less dependent on foreign oil in terms of powering our jets and other engines. So 526, maybe it belongs in the Department of Energy bill, maybe it belongs somewhere else, but it does not belong in the Department of Defense spending bill because those dollars are scarce. They are going to get scarcer. And to require the Department of Defense to spend more money than they would have otherwise have spent on energy under this wrongheaded notion, in my view, is just simply bad policy. So I rise in support of my colleague's amendment, and I urge the adoption of his amendment when it comes to a vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chair, I rise today to speak in support of the B-1 bomber fleet. To echo what my colleague, Mr. Neugebauer has said, I too believe that we should carefully examine the way we modify our bomber fleet for the future. As part of the New Start Treaty, the U.S. and Russia will limit their nuclear capable delivery vehicles to a total of 700 deployed assets, including heavy bombers. At this time, we do not yet know what those cuts will look like. Preserving the size of our non-nuclear bomber fleet until we know the results of the New Start Treaty analysis is simply good policy. My colleagues on the Armed Services Committee and I are very concerned that if we go down this path and prematurely reduce a portion of the fleet, that we will regret that decision. Mr. Chair, I recognize that cuts need to be made. Every aspect of the budget needs to be thoroughly reviewed, but let's not make bad budgetary decisions without considering our mission capabilities first.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. This amendment is very similar to the one we just debated except as to the amounts, and it does strike the entire infrastructure account. I would like to make a couple of points that I didn't make earlier with respect to the previous amendment. None of the conversation that I was ever aware of prior to bin Laden's death remotely said that the war was over or that the fight was over if we killed bin Laden. Had my colleagues on the other side of the aisle been making that argument from start one, then it might have some validity to it; but quite frankly, that was just a marker in this long fight against Islamic jihadists and these terrorists. The other issue of invoking past costs, or sunk costs, is informative as to how we got to this point in time and as to looking at where we go from here to when we have all American troops out of there; but how we make the intelligent decisions and intelligent investments in Afghanistan between now and then is the bigger question. Whatever it costs to fight in Afghanistan, whatever it has cost to fight in Iraq over the past 8 years or whatever, I understand those are big numbers; but we are looking forward as to how we push the Afghan security system to a point where they can take care of themselves and, in fact, begin to run their country as they should. Most of my good colleagues' arguments were better suited for the conversation we had in April with reference to the overall budget. That budget passed. This amount that we are now going to spend on the Department of Defense fits under the discretionary spending cap that we put in place by the majority vote of this House back in April. The Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations had done their work, allocated their amount of moneys across a lot of priorities, said ``no'' to a lot of things, and said ``yes'' to this issue. So I rise in opposition to my colleague's amendment, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose it as well. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against my colleague from Tennessee's amendment. General Petraeus testified before the House Armed Services Committee and stated that the current counterinsurgency strategy employed by U.S. forces and NATO in Afghanistan is seeing success. I was there in mid-April; and having been there since 2005 through that time frame, the narrative there today is better than it has been since I started going over there in 2005. What we are doing there is working. The Afghan Infrastructure Fund is key to General Petraeus' counterinsurgency campaign as improvements to Afghanistan's infrastructure is necessary to obtain support from the local populace. General Petraeus' successful counterinsurgency strategy is dependent on the local populace and the intelligence they provide. Visible development projects increases the Afghan Government's legitimacy in relation to the Taliban, especially since these projects are conducted in areas vulnerable to Taliban influence. Furthermore, economic development increases security in Afghanistan by providing jobs for former insurgents and building markets for alternative crops to opium, thus reducing corruption. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. The House Armed Services Committee has fully authorized this program. The House Appropriations Committee has gone through this bill with a fine-tooth comb. They believe that these funds will be properly used and properly supervised in the building of Afghan infrastructure as we continue to put in place the system we need so that when we leave, and we will leave, the Afghan people can sustain what we are doing. One of the messages I got when I was there in April, unlike some of the previous efforts, we will build things to Afghan standards. That is not meant to be a pejorative; it is meant to face reality. When you build a road to U.S. standards, they cannot maintain that road to U.S. standards. But when you build a road to Afghan standards, they can in fact maintain that infrastructure. That is the new paradigm that they are working off of. Good enough for Afghanistan is not a pejorative; it is simply facing a reality that this country is different from the United States, and infrastructure projects there will be built to those Afghan standards. I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following: H.R. No. 1694, Resolution Whereas, On September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden, a sworn enemy of the United States of America, coordinated a series of monstrous and cowardly terrorist attacks that resulted in the tragic loss of 2,977 innocent lives, leading to an engagement in a war on terrorism across many fronts; and Whereas, On May 1, 2011, after nearly 10 years of bin Laden's evasion of military and intelligence forces seeking his capture, President Barack Obama declared to the nation and the world that bin Laden had finally been killed, and that ``Justice has been done.''; and Whereas, The president's patience, leadership, wisdom, and determination have led directly to the demise of the most wanted man in the world and have hardened this nation's resolve to defeat the forces of malevolent fanaticism, and by destroying the mastermind behind the worst terrorist attack on American soil he has struck a significant and historic blow against Al Qaeda; and Whereas, Following the death of the perpetrator of the attacks, the family members and friends of those who lost their lives in the attacks on September 11 are able to achieve a greater sense of closure; and Whereas, After months of meetings of the National Security Council, led by President Obama, who directed intelligence officials to zero in on bin Laden's whereabouts, intelligence officials devised and carefully carried out a clandestine operation, which had frequently been rehearsed in an effort to minimize casualties, both civilian and military; and Whereas, As commander-in-chief of our great nation, he boldly gave the final authorization to commence the operation to brave and highly trained members of our nation's armed services; and Whereas, Upon hearing the news of bin Laden's elimination, in an impressive show of unity and in defiance of the fanatics who still today seek to destroy our free way of life, jubilant citizens expressed pride in our nation and our president by spontaneously celebrating the news in cities across the country, singing ``The Star Spangled Banner'' and loudly chanting ``U-S-A,'' and former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have offered him their congratulations; and Whereas, Domestically, he has acted with both initiative and organizational acumen toward the precautionary defense of our citizens and has successfully prevented a terrorist attack on American soil during his service to our nation as president; and Whereas, Internationally, he has wisely exercised the use of diplomacy to nurture collaborative relationships with other nations, which has helped improve the freedom and safety of the world's people; and Whereas, President George W. Bush had the near universal support of the freedom-loving peoples and countries of the world after the attacks on September 11, 2001, when he famously pledged to defend freedom, against fear, saying ``We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail,'' and President Obama had the strength and wherewithal to see that pledge through to fulfillment; and Whereas, Legislators in Texas reaffirm the solemn creed that we are one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, who stand strongly behind the president with respect to these several issues as he confronts the grave problems of national and international security; now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Legislature of the State of Texas hereby congratulate President Obama on his proven and successful policies in the war on terrorism and in homeland security; and, be it further Resolved, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Legislature of the State of Texas hereby commend the intelligence personnel who diligently and quietly toiled for years to uncover the whereabouts of bin Laden and whose achievement, while historic, may never be fully known to the public; and, be it further Resolved, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Legislature of the State of Texas hereby commend the members of the armed forces who successfully and heroically carried out an incredibly sensitive mission with no military losses and with a minimal loss of civilian lives; and, be it further Resolved, That the chief clerk of the Texas House of Representatives forward official copies of this resolution to the president of the United States, to the speaker of the House of Representatives and the president of the Senate of the United States Congress, to the governor of Texas, and to all the members of the Texas delegation to Congress with the request that this resolution be officially entered in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Joe Straus, Speaker of the House. I certify that H.R. No. 1694 was adopted by the House on May 2, 2011, by a non-record vote. Robert Haney, Chief Clerk of the House.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Chair, I want to make a couple of quick points. The ranking member, the former chairman of the Ag Committee, made a good point, which is the percentages that get bandied about in this regard that seem to make the arguments a little more inflammatory are based on a skewed definition. You don't live on a farm that makes only $1,000 of gross revenue. That's not a farmer who's in the business of farming, and that's who these Ag support safety nets should support. I would like to make one comment about why the Ag Committee is the one that ought to be making these kinds of things. If you will read the gentleman's amendment, it says, ``to a person, legal entity, if the average adjusted gross income of the person or legal entity is $250,000.'' Average of what, Madam Chairman? Average of 1 year? Average of 5 years? Average of a lifetime? Average of what? And so a poorly crafted amendment--I know the gentleman is working in good faith, he has been at this for a long time, I don't have any problem with that, but this is an example of a hastily drawn, poorly drafted amendment that is unenforceable in effect and it skews up. So in addition to all the other things we have said about letting the Ag Committee do it, here's a good example of why. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Chair, I'm going to oppose my good friend from Arizona's amendment. He tried this in the CR 1 and lost this vote. This is a bad way to attack this policy. Quite frankly, the Ag Committee did a good-faith effort in addressing what we thought were the issues in 2008 with a farm bill by doing away with Step Two and other programs. Quite frankly, though, the Brazilians won't lay out for us exactly what it is about our policies that they don't like. We would be happy for the gentleman to elucidate that for us, if he can describe exactly what those policies are. It's not the countercyclical payments; it's not the marketing loan payments. It's other things that we've been trying to fix, and we will attempt again to fix those in 2012. This safety net that he attacks with a meat cleaver instead of a scalpel is important to production agriculture in this country. As we've said over and over these microphones the last 3 days, America has always had an ag policy that attempts to put a safety net under production agriculture. We enjoy the safest, most abundant, cheapest food and fiber supply in the world because of the hard work, the sweat equity, and the risk- taking of the American ag producer. They rely on this safety net that is intricate, it's complicated, it's interwoven, and it works. We understand in 2012 we will have far fewer resources with which to work that safety net. And the Ag Committee is committed to getting that done; the chairman is committed to getting that done. We will then bring that work product to this floor. The gentleman from Arizona will then have the opportunity, if he doesn't think we've fixed the Brazilian problem, to present a solution at that time. But at this stage, using an appropriations bill to rework the farm bill in this manner and ignoring the work of the Ag Committee in my view is wrong policy. We should defeat this amendment once again, as we did in the CR in February-March. I ask my colleagues to vote against the Flake amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. CONAWAY. I also oppose the amendment. This amendment does not save one nickel in fiscal 2012. It's a bit theater. And unlike mohair, peanuts and cotton have a little different circumstances. The storage that is talked about here is only paid if the prices for these two commodities drops below their loan rate. CBO does not estimate this to happen for the next decade in terms of these prices. The loan rates are substantially below where the current prices are. That means the producers pay for these storage costs as these products are moved to market. So this amendment, while we debate it for some 15 to 20 minutes, will cost more to debate than it will save for the taxpayers. It is an integral part of the safety net that these producers rely upon. You've heard this over and over tonight: The Ag Committee is best suited to develop a proper safety net and an ag policy for this country. This country has had an ag policy from its inception. We ought to stand by that ag policy once it's put in place. We put it in place in 2008. Many tradeoffs were made between conservation programs, commodity programs. Cotton and peanuts were in the mix. We will have those exact same conversations this time next year. The farm bill will come to the floor, and those who disagree with the farm policy that's developed in the Ag Committee will have ample opportunity to come to this floor and make these arguments once again. But to do this in an appropriations bill in basically a drive-by shooting manner, in my view, is wrongheaded. We ought to trust that the Ag Committee will get this work done and get it done properly. The 2008 farm bill was put in place. Ag producers across this country, bankers across this country, implement dealers across this country have looked at that as a deal. Most folks in the business world don't back up on a deal when they don't have to. And we don't have to in this particular instance because, as I said at the start of this, it does not cost the taxpayer any money as long as prices are high. CBO and most folks estimate that in the near term the prices will not drop below 18 cents a pound for peanuts or 52 cents a pound for cotton. So I respectfully disagree with my colleague's attempt to alter the farm bill in this way, in an appropriations bill, and I would ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My colleague is very passionate, but he is also very wrong. This money does not go to Brazilian farmers. That's illegal for us to do that. What it does do, it does go to an institute that promotes Brazilian agricultural production. It may be a fine line to distinguish there, but it's inflammatory to say it's going to Brazilian farmers, that we're doing that, and he knows it and it is wrong, but it is a payment. It's a payment negotiated by the Obama administration in reaction to a loss at the WTO in order to buy time so that a trade war with our 10th largest trading partner in the world doesn't erupt that has actually nothing to do with ag protection. The trade war that is being prevented, over $800 million worth of exports to Brazil, protects a broad variety of nonagricultural industries in this agreement. This buys us time until the 2012 farm bill could get done. We cannot tonight nor should we tonight delve into a very complicated farm safety net program that has worked well for the American people. It is unquestioned that the American people enjoy the safest, most abundant and cheapest food and fiber source in the world, in the developed countries; and we do that because of the hard work, sweat equity, and risk-taking of the American ag producer. They rely in turn on a safety net that is relatively complicated and interwoven across a bunch of things that make it help. The budget that we did pass says that the farm bill will be written in 2012. I understand my colleague's disdain for the process of the Agriculture Committee. He doesn't like the Agriculture Committee, he doesn't like the work product that we come out with, but that's the group that knows the most about the process of the safety net. Doing this, what the gentleman would like to do tonight, would disrupt that trade agreement and undercut the U.S. Trade Representative and his ability to negotiate around the world because he's negotiated with a group who won't stick by their word. The 2008 farm bill put in place a 5-year contract, 5-year agreement with the American ag producers, it goes to the 2012 farm bill--2012 crop year, and we ought to stand behind it and defeat this amendment. So the money does not go to farmers. It does protect $800 million a year in exports of nonagricultural exports that are imported to this country, including intellectual property rights that would be abrogated if we back out of this deal that we've made with Brazil. So with that I respectfully request my colleagues to oppose the Kind amendment as being wrong-headed tonight. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, once again we have come to a point where I need to defend the work of the Ag Committee, the authorizing committee, the committee that knows the most about this process. The $125,000 limit is picked out of whole cloth. It is made up. It is arbitrary. It is capricious. It has no clue what it might have as an impact on the farmers and ranchers in the district and parts that I represent. It is a drive-by shooting of farm policy that, frankly, makes no sense whatsoever if you are really going to seriously protect the production of agriculture in this country. On the one hand, we hear our colleagues on the other side rant about imported foods, and they want to then turn around and make sure that the American farmer and producer does not have the safety net that we promised them in 2008. Now, I understand my colleagues don't like that safety net. They had ample opportunity when they were in the majority in 2008 to effect a farm bill when it came to this floor. If they didn't like the process, they needed to take that up with Speaker Pelosi and them. The process going forward that I anticipate happening next year is that we will begin, as the chairman has said, to audit these farm bill programs over the next several months. We will then craft, with limited resources, a new farm bill that will be introduced in the committee, debated through subcommittees and at the full committee, and then we will bring it to the floor. It will be exposed to all of these arguments in an appropriate manner that should take place, not in the appropriations process. I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not vote for the budget we passed here in April. That budget clearly said the appropriations process in 2012 would not be used to effect a farm bill, that the farm bill would be written by the Agriculture Committee, the authorizing committee in 2012. My colleagues' arguments are unpersuasive, and I do believe this is an ill-advised amendment to go at a safety net that, by every description, is complicated, is difficult to understand, but it has worked to protect production of agriculture from the risks that they take year in and year out to provide the safest, most abundant and cheapest food and fiber source of any developed country in the world. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Blumenauer amendment. It is the wrong policy at the wrong time and the wrong place. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. CONAWAY. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. CONAWAY. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following: H.R. No. 1955 Resolution Whereas, The United States Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed granting endangered species status to the dunes sagebrush lizard, a measure that would have a significant negative impact on the Lone Star State; and Whereas, The business climate in Texas has been consistently ranked as the nation's best, and the oil and gas sector is crucial to its continued vitality; Texas is the nation's leading producer of oil and natural gas, and it holds 30 percent of the nation's natural gas reserves and almost a quarter of its oil reserves; the oil and gas industry contributes $30 billion annually to the Texas economy and employs more than 315,000 Texans at some of the highest salaries in the state; and Whereas, Despite its resilience, the Texas economy has not been immune to the global economic recession; there have been significant job losses over the past two years, and recently high gas prices have posed new challenges; the Fish and Wildlife Service failed to take these factors into account in its proposal to grant endangered species status to the dunes sagebrush lizard in southeastern New Mexico and adjacent oil-producing areas of West Texas; and Whereas, In addition, the service has failed to consider that approximately 75,000 acres identified as habitat for the lizard are owned and managed by The University of Texas for the benefit of higher education; university officials have estimated that the listing could stop the drilling of approximately 1,000 oil and gas wells and eliminate the production of seven million barrels of oil equivalent annually; and Whereas, The Texas Legislature and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department have traditionally recognized the private landowner as the primary steward of our state's natural resources, but the Fish and Wildlife Service has not adequately consulted with the State of Texas, Texas landowners, or other stakeholders; moreover, the service has failed to fully consider issues unique to species protection and habitat conservation in Texas; and Whereas, Listing the dunes sagebrush lizard as an endangered species would inflict severe economic damage, harm property owners, and undermine higher education in the Lone Star State; Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the house of representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby respectfully urge the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to withdraw its proposal to list the dunes sagebrush lizard under the Endangered Species Act of 1973; and, be it further Resolved, That the house of representatives direct the agencies of the State of Texas to cooperate with the efforts of the Texas Endangered Species Task Force to investigate the scientific basis of the proposed listing and the potential burdens on private property rights and economic development in the state; and, be it further Resolved, That the chief clerk of the Texas House of Representatives forward official copies of this resolution to the president of the United States, the acting director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the president of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress, and all the members of the Texas delegation to Congress with the request that this resolution be entered in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Joe Straus, Speaker of the House. I certify that H.R. No. 1955 was adopted by the House on May 25, 2011, by a non-record vote. Robert Haney, Chief Clerk of the House.