K. Conaway

Mr. CONAWAY

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

Mr. CONAWAY

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

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is pretty straightforward. We have heard hours and hours today of debate on whether or not we should cut spending out of this proposed appropriations bill that has been brought forward. The elephant in the room that we don't talk about is, under the mechanics of the law under House rules, were any of these amendments that we will be voting on in a few minutes to pass, they would not actually reduce spending. The amounts would still remain within the 302(b) allocation and would be spent somewhere else within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. What my amendment would do would be to say that, instead of that being the occurrence, the savings would actually go against the deficit; and should we ever have a surplus, it would actually include that surplus. I intend to withdraw the amendment. I understand the point of order. But, before I do, Mr. Chairman, I want to make one other comment. Mr. Chairman, I am a Christian, and I take very seriously the instructions in the New Testament, particularly verses like Luke 12:48 that says, ``To whom much is given, much is required.'' I understand the parable of the sick and the unclothed and the jailed. But I see those instructions to me personally, to take my personal assets, my personal wealth, and deal with those issues for my fellow man. I see no instruction that tells me to take someone else's blessings and wealth to fix those problems. So I would urge my colleagues to be very careful when they invoke those instructions. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment if I could have some help from the other side in working towards a solution that would allow spending cuts that actually are voted on and passed to reduce deficits and increase surpluses, rather than staying within the 302(b) allocation.

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentlelady from Colorado. Mr. Chairman, the other side has been very good tonight, as they are most every night since they have been in the majority of retelling and retelling over and over the sins of the past. Quite frankly, those sins are hard to deny, given the empirical evidence is there. We have spent a lot of money and raised the size of this government. That being said, though, my colleagues' arguments seem to rest on the premise that, because the Republicans were spending more and screwing this thing up, that somehow this gives the Democrats, gives them some license to continue that process, to continue building on this growing government and spending more money in fiscal 2008 than we will bring in. Now, we have heard some arguments that this is not deficit spending, but, quite frankly, there will be more money spent under this budget in 2008 than we will take in. In the simplest form, that is a deficit. I am not, personally, a big fan of across-the-board cuts. I agree with some of the arguments said on the other side that it's mechanical, but, quite frankly, we need to start somewhere on the path to fiscal responsibility, and this is a modest start down that path. I urge support for that amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY. I want to thank the gentleman for allowing me to speak in opposition to this amendment. There are anecdotes for folks who have gone through this school at various stages over the last 50 years or 40 years, who have turned bad and been bad people. But there are hundreds, literally thousands, of men and women who've been trained at these schools, have gone back to their country of origin and taken with them the values that they get here, the respect for civilian authority. The human rights training that's gone on since the WHINSEC was reformulated, that is invaluable. I've been to Colombia and Panama recently with my good colleagues, Chairman Skelton and Dr. Gingrey and listened to the firsthand reports from the men and women who serve in our military who tell us that the men and women who are trained in this school come back to those countries better prepared to lead their country down a path that we would respect and we would want them to lead. So I respectfully ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman for his support. I understand there is a valid point of order against this amendment. If there is any possibility whatsoever of working with the other side and trying to accomplish what my colleague on the Appropriations Committee and I would like to do, we would like to work with you. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

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

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, during this process of the debate over the last several hours, Member after Member on our side have come to the aisle and proposed amendments that would reduce spending off of this appropriations bill. They do it in good faith but the truth of the matter is, were any of those to pass and should any of those pass subsequent to the actual recorded votes, that money actually stays within the jurisdiction of the committee and gets spent somewhere else. What my amendment would do is say that if we were able to succeed on one of the amendments that reduces spending or cuts spending, that that money instead of going back into the committee of jurisdiction pool or subcommittee of jurisdiction pool would actually go against the deficit. And should it be an unusual occurrence in the future with a surplus circumstance, that money would simply increase the surplus. This is straightforward, no tricks, no gimmicks. It is just simply if the cuts are successful, that money actually does not get spent. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate being able to offer this amendment tonight. What I would like to do is establish the legislative history for a pilot project that would help eradicate a tactical cover along the Rio Grande. My amendment simply adds $5 million to title II and subtracts $5 million from title II, but would take $5 million from the environmental regulatory assessments funding, which would lower that back to what the President requested. The Border Patrol would use this money to create a pilot project to eliminate, eradicate, noxious, invasive species of weeds along the Rio Grande. The Rio Grande creates the border between the Republic of Texas, United States, and Mexico; and many long stretches are inundated with a noxious weed such as Russian olive and salt cedar. These weeds can grow from 10 to 15 feet in height. They provide excellent tactical cover for anyone trying to sneak across the border, or in what is on this side of the United States, stage in ways that our Border Patrol agents can't see them. I have spoken with leadership of the Border Patrol, along with former sector chief Simon Garza for the Marfa sector in relation to this project, and it is an idea that they would support if they were able to get funding for that. This is a win on two different levels. One, it would eliminate this tactical cover that the folks trying to sneak across could use, and it would make our cameras and UAVs much more effective because of the loss of that cover. But it would also have a conservation issue in that these weeds, such as the salt cedar, will use up to 200 gallons of water a day. If these weeds were eliminated along the Rio Grande, that would put additional water in the Rio Grande, which would of course make that much better of a barrier to folks trying to sneak into this country. The safety of our Border Patrol would be improved as they walk up and approach the river. If this cover was eliminated, they would be able to see what was going on along our border to better do their job. This amendment would also ask or require that the Border Patrol report on how they spent the money and whether or not this is a program that they would want to pursue going forward.

Mr. CONAWAY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. I accept that. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY

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

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues a small story from a small corner of America called Rowena, Texas. The 20th century began with a tremendous movement of people to west Texas in search of good land, opportunity and prosperity. Among these intrepid travelers were many Czech and German Americans whose forefathers had come to Texas to farm, ply trades and create better lives. Their descendants found these lives in Rowena. In 1906, four Rowena Catholics, William Glass, Mike Feist, Frank Schwertner and John Jansa, sought to erect a church to serve their community and better practice their faith. After a year of toil, the church opened and celebrated its first mass, a wedding, on November 20, 1907. The church was aptly dedicated to St. Joseph, the patron of immigrants, families and working people. St. Joseph's grew rapidly during its early years, reflecting its growing significance in the community. In 1916, the church opened St. Joseph's School, with the Sisters of the Divine Providence serving as teachers. And in 1924, a new church in the gothic style was dedicated, and the annual fall festival was begun to support the church. To this day, the gothic church still stands, and the fall festival is still celebrated each year. Soon the church began to host community-service organizations and social clubs as well. The Knights of Columbus, St. Ann's Altar Society, Catholic Daughters of America, the KJT, KJZT and the Immaculate Conception Society would all call the church home through the coming decades. The Great Depression and World War II would see an especially important role for St. Joseph's and its parish organizations to play as they led their rural community through troubling times. As the church aged in the 1950s and in the 1960s, it prospered. It marked its 50th anniversary in 1957, and a new community space was constructed in 1961. And all the while, the high school continued to educate and graduate the youth of Rowena. Unfortunately, as with all institutions, the church inevitably faced a period of decline. As the small town of Rowena began to lose population, difficult times ensued for the church. The parish school finally closed in the late 1970s, and church membership shrunk. Shaken by these developments, the parish renewed its commitment to the sacraments, its members and its community. They reestablished religious instruction, revitalized their parish organizations, and moved into the modern age. Today, St. Joseph's is fittingly led by another immigrant, Father Bhaskar Morugudi from India. 2007 marks St. Joseph's centennial celebration. The belief of four men led to the creation of the parish, but it took the faith of a community to sustain it. Throughout the last 100 years, St. Joseph's has been the rock for the people of Rowena. It has educated their children, guided them through trouble and saved their souls. As the parishioners of St. Joseph's look to the future, I urge them to remember the rich history that lies in their past. The legacy of their founders created in Rowena through service, education and salvation is inspiring. The church is woven into the threads of Rowena itself and highlights the history of America herself, and I feel privileged to share this story with you all. No matter who we are or where we're from, we can all find common ground in the story of St. Joseph's parish. It is a story of individuals seeking and creating a better life for themselves and their descendants, and of a people of deep devotion seeking to practice their beliefs and enrich their community. We should all strive to be so noble in our ambitions and generous in our spirits. Today I celebrate and honor the parishioners of St. Joseph's in Rowena, Texas as they reflect on the past and embark on another 100 years of ministry and service.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's yielding. Next Monday, our Nation will pay tribute to all the young men and women who fought and died so bravely and honorably for our Nation. On Memorial Day, we will celebrate with parades and speeches and flag waving and fireworks, as we should. From the Revolutionary War to the war we are fighting today, we celebrate and remember the fallen as a group. For those of us who have lost a loved one in a war or through the service of this country, Memorial Day has a deep meaning. For the family and friends of the men who served with Marvin ``Rex'' Young, the last Monday of May is much more than just symbolic. On this day, Rex's family and friends and fellow soldiers remember and honor his brave actions on behalf of his country. On August 21, 1968, while in battle in Vietnam, Rex sacrificed his life to save the lives of his friends and comrades. He was awarded the Medal of Honor for his bravery and sacrifice. Mr. Speaker, today I ask my colleagues to honor the life and memory and heroism of Staff Sergeant ``Rex'' Young. Rex was born in Alpine, Texas, on May 11, 1947, the third and youngest child to Marilyn and Roy Young. Rex's mother has provided this picture of Rex serving in Vietnam back in 1967 and 1968. The family moved to Odessa when Rex was a child. I met Rex when we were both attending Odessa Permian High School. Rex was a year ahead of me and graduated in 1965. He was a gifted athlete, played both football and baseball while at Permian. His mother said Rex was more interested in just being on the team and contributing, but he was much more than that. He was a star player. Childhood friends remember Rex as an exceptional athlete who could have written his own ticket in baseball. And they remember him as a very unselfish guy, so they were not surprised when he was awarded the Medal of Honor for his bravery in battle. After graduation, Rex attended Odessa College and Kentfield Junior College in California and then joined the United States Army on September 15, 1966. He completed basic training at Fort Bliss, Texas, and advanced infantry training at Fort Lewis, Washington, and then departed for Vietnam on October 20, 1967. He was assigned to Company C, 1st Battalion (Mechanized), 5th Infantry of the 25th Infantry Division, known as the ``Bobcats.'' Rex earned his first Purple Heart from a shrapnel wound on December 7, 1967; and he earned his second Purple Heart on February 1, 1968, during the TET Offensive. On August 21, 1968, Rex was killed by enemy fire as he provided protective fire to shelter elements of his platoon as they were withdrawn to safety. It was in these final selfless acts that Rex saved so many of his friends' lives. Jesus said in John 15:13, ``Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.'' I would like to read from the citation that describes Rex's final moments on this Earth: ``Staff Sergeant Young distinguished himself at the cost of his life while serving as a squad leader with Company C. While conducting a reconnaissance mission, Company C was suddenly engaged by an estimated regimental-size force of the North Vietnamese Army. During the initial volley of fire, the point element of the 1st Platoon was pinned down, sustaining several casualties, and the active platoon leader was killed. Sergeant Young unhesitatingly assumed command of the platoon and immediately began to organize and deploy his men into a defensive position in order to repel the attacking force. As a human wave attack advanced on Sergeant Young's platoon, he moved from position to position, encouraging and directing fire on the hostile insurgents while exposing himself to the hail of enemy bullets. ``After receiving orders to withdraw to a better defensive position, he remained behind to provide covering fire for the withdrawal. Observing that a small element of the point squad was unable to extract itself from its position, and completely disregarding his personal safety, Sergeant Young began moving toward their position, firing as he maneuvered. ``When halfway to their position, he sustained a critical head injury, yet he continued his mission and ordered the element to withdraw. ``Remaining with the squad as it fought its way to the rear, he was twice seriously wounded, once in the arm and once in the leg. Although his leg was badly shattered, Sergeant Young refused assistance that would have slowed down the retreat of his comrades, and he ordered them to continue their withdrawal while he provided protective covering fire. With indomitable courage and heroic self-sacrifice, he continued his self-assigned mission until the enemy engulfed his position. By his gallantry, at the cost of his life, and which is in the highest tradition of military service, Staff Sergeant Young has reflected great credit on himself, his unit and the United States Army.'' In the heavy fighting that day, Company C suffered 17 men killed, 21 wounded. And no one knows how many other men would have died that day had Rex not stepped in to save his friends. For his gallantry and self-sacrifice, Sergeant Young was posthumously promoted to staff sergeant. Rex earned his country's highest award for bravery, the Medal of Honor. In addition to the medal, Staff Sergeant Young was awarded the Combat Infantryman's Badge, the Bronze Star with ``V'' Device, Purple Heart with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Military Merit Medal and the Republic of Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with Palm. Rex was buried with full military honors at Sunset Memorial Gardens Cemetery in Odessa, Texas. Near him lie many other Odessans who perished in the Vietnam War. Fifty feet north rests another Medal of Honor recipient, Alfred ``Mac'' Wilson, Corporal, United States Marine Corps. Rex's sister Margaret now lies next to him. His brother Charles Ray and his father are also deceased. His mother lived in Odessa for many years. She has recently moved to McKinney to be close to her friends. Rex's last day on Earth was almost 39 years ago. Because he and I are close to the same age, I think often of all the experiences that I have had that he willingly gave up that hot, fateful day halfway around the world. I am loved by a wonderful woman, and together we have raised four children. I have watched them grow into responsible adults. I have watched the boys play football and basketball, baseball and golf. I watched my daughters lead cheers as a cheerleader and a team mascot. I have watched our sons take beautiful young women to be their wives. I walked one of my daughters down the aisle so that her mother and I could give her in marriage to a starry-eyed young man. I have held our seven grandchildren in my arms and looked into the eyes of America's future. And I buried a wife and a father. These are life experiences that Rex should have had. All of these experiences that I know Rex must have looked forward to, the good and the bad, were sacrificed on freedom's altar in his heroic acts that day so long ago. Mr. Speaker, next Monday our Nation celebrates Memorial Day, a day set aside each year to honor all of the Rex Youngs our country has produced and who have made that same supreme sacrifice that Rex made. This includes, of course, the brave men and women who for the past 5- plus years have stood between us and some very bad, soulless people that want to destroy our way of life. I would like to challenge each of us that in addition to honoring these men and women as a group, that we think about them on an individual basis. By that I mean that each of us should have a specific person that we think about, honor and celebrate each and every time sacrifices are mentioned. It could be somebody in our family, it could be a friend or somebody that you know through a history lesson, but my challenge to you is this: That every time you are reminded of all the lives that have been given in defense of this country, that you think about a specific life given. For me, Mr. Speaker, that life is Rex Young. With that, Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and gratitude that I ask this House to honor SSG Marvin ``Rex'' Young by naming the post office at 4551 East 52nd Street in Odessa, Texas, after him. By doing so, his memory will live on not just in the hearts of those of us who knew him, but also by everyone that uses or drives by that post office and sees his name. His Nation honored him with its highest honor for bravery. I now ask that his Nation honor his memory by taking one more official act. I ask each of you to vote in favor of this legislation.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to one issue in this budget, and that is the tax trigger. I believe this is a ruse to hide behind a tax increase. I know my colleagues on the other side will argue it is not a tax increase, but I can assure you that American families in 2010 whose financial circumstances are similar in 2011, will pay more in taxes in 2011 than they pay in 2010. Call that what you may, but I believe it is a tax increase. It is a ruse, Mr. Speaker, because it is built on a foundation of brittle clay. One of the pillars of the foundation is that spending will be restrained. This Democratic majority can spend their way to a point where these tax cuts won't be triggered. They have already shown a great penchant for spending, a wanton disregard for fiscal restraint. There is $6 billion extra in the omnibus bill, $20 billion extra on the supplemental that is yet to pass, and another $23 billion of new spending in this bill. So they will spend their way. The other thing it is built on the good graces of the Secretary of the Treasury and the director of OMB, both of whom have to agree that the tax cuts can in fact go forward. I believe this is a ruse to hide behind the fact that American families will pay more taxes in 2011 and 2012 than they do in 2010 because rates will go up. I urge my colleagues to vote against this budget.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be withdrawn as a cosponsor on H.R. 1593, the Second Chance Act of 2007.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Southwest Airlines and their 30 years of service to the Permian Basin. For the past three decades, Southwest Airlines has provided friendly and affordable air services in and out of Midland International Airport. With over 13 daily departures to six cities in three States, the people of the Permian Basin are free to move about the country. On my many flights on Southwest Airlines, I am always struck by the friendly, good natured flight attendants, agents and pilots that make up the employees of this airline. There is an unmistakable sense of pride that comes with working with Southwest that can be seen in the faces of the pilots to the ground crew. I am honored to represent the many employees of Southwest Airlines that are headquartered at Midland International Airport and look forward to 30 more years of friendly and accommodating service.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the ranking member. Mr. Speaker, I think to the other Members in the House listening to this debate this sounds like a school yard kind of struggle: Yes, you are; no, you're not; yes, you are; no, you're not. We are back and forth. We are both using the same set of facts. But the truth of the matter is, in 2011 and 2012, however it happens, under the current code the revenues of the government will go up $400 billion. The rhetoric on the other side of the aisle that this does not represent a tax increase would have a lot greater credibility with me and those on our side of the aisle if in fact our colleagues on the Budget Committee hadn't spent that $400 billion. The chairman mentioned earlier about waiting until December 31, 2011, to fix these things. The problem with that is that at the end of 2010, maybe that is the date he was referencing, the estate tax goes from a zero tax rate to a 55 percent tax rate. I spent a career helping folks comply with a very complex code, and estate planning requires generally a lot longer period of time to react and put plans in place than from one year to the next. So, to keep estates out there hung up with the idea that the tax is going to come back fully at 55 percent, I think is unfair. The other thing that has to be said is that all of the tax increases go in fully. So the 33 percent bracket goes to a 39.6 percent bracket. If in fact the Democrats do want to protect the 10 percent bracket from going to 15 percent, as they have said, they are going to have to raise taxes on the top brackets. They are going to have to raise taxes in other places in order to stay within this bill's definition of PAYGO. So I am going to speak in favor of the motion to instruct, but just for full and fair disclosure, I voted twice, since we did vote on this bill twice, against the Democrats' budget.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. ``If less than zero, enter as a negative amount.'' That is line one. Line 2, ``Medical and dental. Enter the smaller of Schedule A (Form 1040), line 4, or 2\1/2\ percent of Form 1040, line 38.'' Line 3, ``Taxes from Schedule A (Form 1040), line 9.'' Line 4, ``Enter the home mortgage interest adjustment, if any, from line 6 of the worksheet on page 2 of the instructions.'' Line 5, ``Miscellaneous deductions from Schedule A (Form 1040), line 26.'' Line 6, ``If Form 1040, line 38, is over $150,500 (over $75,250 if married filing separately), enter the amount from line 11 of the Itemized Deductions Worksheet from page A-7 of the instructions for Schedule A (Form 1040).'' Line 7, ``Tax refund from Form 1040, line 10 or line 21.'' Line 8, ``Investment interest expense (difference between regular tax and AMT).'' Here is where we get that two scheme thing going. Line 9, ``Depletion (difference between regular tax and AMT).'' Line 10, ``Net operating loss deduction from Form 1040, line 21. Enter as a positive amount.'' Line 11, ``Interest from specified private activity bonds exempt from the regular tax.'' Line 12, ``Qualified small business stock (7 percent of gain excluded under section 1202).'' Line 13, ``Exercise of incentive stock options (excess of AMT income over regular tax income).'' Line 14, ``Estates and trusts (amount from Schedule K-1 (Form 1041), box 12, code A).'' Line 15, ``Electing large partnerships (amount from Schedule K-1 (Form 1065-B), box 6).'' Line 16, we are halfway there, folks. ``Disposition of property (difference between AMT and regular tax gain or loss).'' Again, two separate computations. Line 17, ``Depreciation on assets placed in service after 1986 (difference between regular tax and AMT).'' And line 18, ``Passive activities (difference between AMT and regular tax income or loss).'' Line 19, ``Loss limitations (difference between AMT and regular income tax or loss).'' Line 20, ``Circulation costs,'' that is not physical circulation. I think that is newspapers. ``(Difference between regular tax and AMT).'' Here they reverse the order. Previously it was alternative minimum tax versus regular tax.

Mr. CONAWAY. Line 21, ``Long-term contracts (difference between AMT and regular tax income).'' Line 22, ``Mining costs (difference between regular tax and AMT).'' They keep switching back and forth. Line 23, ``Research and experimental costs (difference between regular tax and AMT).'' Line 24, ``Income from certain installment sales before January 1, 1987.'' Glad you are keeping up with that. Line 25, ``Intangible drilling costs preference.'' Line 26, ``Other adjustments,'' you have always got to have other, ``including income-based related adjustments.'' Line 27, ``Alternative tax net operating loss deduction.'' And finally, line 28, you get to ``Alternative minimum taxable income.'' And there are some instructions, though. ``Combine lines 1 through 27. (If married filing and line 28 is more than $200,100, see page 7 of the instructions).'' That is just Part I. We will save Part II and III for a future date to work you through that.

Mr. CONAWAY. This is the alternative. The regular tax code is much simpler. It is straightforward.

Mr. CONAWAY. The IRS on some of the forms gives an estimate of how much time they think it takes taxpayers to comply with a particular form. I was looking through the instructions real quickly to see if they had this made that estimate.

Mr. CONAWAY. That is exactly right. I thank my colleague. The Internal Revenue Code, 1986, as amended, is incredibly complicated, as we have already talked about. If you look at most of the provisions in there, many of the provisions in there, they have a history. They have a reason for being. We are trying to manipulate our economy. We are trying to manipulate conduct. We are trying to do something, manage something. If you look at the alternative minimum tax, there is actually a story there. There is a history there. Back in the late 1960s, Congress discovered that there were 155, no commas, 155 taxpayers who made more than $200,000 in 1966, but they did not pay any taxes. So, in an attempt to get at those deadbeats making all that money, and now in all likelihood those folks hired folks who will say this argument, I have talked about that, but nevertheless in an attempt to get at 155 taxpayers, Congress created what is now known as the alternative minimum tax. In other words, Congress was offended that you could have people so structure their compliance with the tax code in existence at that point in time that they did not owe any tax. So they set in place an alternative minimum tax which started with your taxable income and then it added back certain preferences that folks, quote, unquote, took advantage of so that everybody paid some taxes. There is some value in that. In 1969 that went into effect. Thirty-eight years later, millions, literally millions, of taxpayers are now caught up in what is known as the alternative minimum tax. Now, today's alternative minimum tax is not your daddy's alternative minimum tax. This is a separate computation. So most taxpayers who are in this wreck have to keep a regular tax set of computations and an alternative minimum tax set of computations. You have got different basis on your assets. You have got different basis in your stock if you bought a set of stock options, all kinds of things that you have to do separate under alternative minimum tax. You have got an alternative minimum tax net operating loss that is different from your net operating loss on your regular tax. So two schemes trying to get at how much money you owe the Federal Government.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good colleague from Pennsylvania. It is actually the A-M-T. ATM is a money machine. It is an ATM for the Federal Government.