Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. I thank the chairman and I appreciate the good work that he and his committee do, under terribly tough circumstances. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conditional continuing resolution. Republicans call this a conditional CR because it goes into effect based upon one simple condition, that the President present a certified budget that reaches balance in 7 years. I call this legislation the trust-but-really-verify temporary spending resolution. We have tried other approaches before, as the people know, and those approaches have failed to dislodge this President from his defense of the status quo. All we are asking is for Bill Clinton to give fiscal responsibility a chance. But we have heard through the grapevine that the President will work to oppose this bill based on his opposition to a real balanced budget. If the President actively opposes this CR, he presents the American people a vivid contrast between his words and his deeds. He of course has mouthed with numbing regularity his support for the goal of a balanced budget. But he has worked to kill every balanced budget initiative, including the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and the coalition balanced budget with every ounce of his being. President Clinton may think he can fool all the people all the time but if he fails to fulfill the conditions of this continuing resolution, he will finally be unmasked as the big-spending liberal that he really is. The President has the ability to either put up a balanced budget or shut down the Federal Government once again. I just urge my colleagues to give the President a chance to expose his true intentions. Pass this conditional CR and let us see if the President will ever present a real balanced budget.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, and reclaiming my time, let me just finish by saying that the American people have seen the future of Government that is partially closed, and many have found that it works just fine. We will get to a balanced budget by weeding out wasteful and inefficient Washington spending, and this is a good way to start that process. So I urge all of my colleagues to support this very historic legislation.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the United States, the President, and Washington, DC, better understand what went on last night. The Speaker, the majority leader, and the President negotiated for 2\1/2\ hours. We were under the impression that the President was absolutely adamant about making a deal and bringing a balanced budget now. Within 15 to 30 minutes, the vice president walked out and contradicted what the Speaker understood to be the beginning of a deal. This is deja vu all over again. This is exactly what happened on November 20 that we have been manipulated for now going on 30 days. The President obviously is not interested in balancing the budget. This administration cannot be trusted. They can not keep their word. They cannot keep their promises. And so make no mistake about it, there will be no CR until the administration proves that they can be trusted.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this sad alternative to a real balanced budget. The President agreed almost a month ago to balance the budget using honest numbers. Instead, he has offered us this budget, unbalanced and discredited. This budget alternative has been discredited for two simple reasons. It does not balance. It will not get any support from an overwhelming bipartisan majority of this House. First, the budget does not balance. it does not even come close to balancing. Even with a parade of smoke and mirrors that would make Houdini blush, the President's budget still remains $87 billion short of balance. Why is reaching balance so important? Because if we do not reach balance, we cannot get the balanced budget dividend. The President wants his cake, and wants to eat it too. That may work in the White House, but it does not work in the real world. To get interest rates down, to give middle-class families a break on car loans, on mortgage rates, on school loans, we need a balanced budget. And if my colleagues do not believe me, look what happened yesterday on the stock market. Second, this budget will not come close to receiving a majority vote in this House, and that opposition will be bipartisan. Members on both sides realize that the President's budget is a loser. My question to the President is this: If you knew it was wildly unpopular, why did you put it on the table? And that is the real reason why we are voting on this alternative. We have not been able to engage the President in honest discussions, so we are forced to show the American people where the administration has failed. And it has failed miserably. So, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to send the President another message: Get serious on a real balanced budget. Keep your promise, keep your word, and work with the Congress to save America's future. Balance the budget now.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee and I commend the ranking member. He is, indeed, an honorable man and is trying to protect his values. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin, the distinguished ranking member of this committee, said he did not know what kind of dictionary we used. I would just challenge him to go look up the word ``truth.'' There is a lot of stuff going on around here that has a hard time meeting that definition in the dictionary. The President is telling the American people that the Congress has shut down the Government and we have not done our work; that he wants to balance the budget, but because of his values he is having a hard time agreeing with Congress and what bills he is being sent. If the President was so concerned with the balanced budget or the Government shutting down, he should have signed the first balanced budget in 26 years. Twenty-six years. He vetoed it. The President vetoed the Interior appropriations bill. The Interior Department hires 133,800 employees. He could have opened up all the parks, all the monuments, by signing this bill. He vetoes this bill that employs over 293,000 employees, and if we combine the two, that is 426,800 employees that could be going to work right now, being paid, and those offices would be open. Mr. Speaker, we have done our work. We worked all year long putting these bills together and bringing them to the floor under the auspices of balancing the budget by the year 2002. But the President is like a procrastinating Christmas shopper. He has not thought about balancing the budget or these appropriations bills all year long, and here at the last minute, a week before Christmas, he decides he wants to be involved in the process. We are at a crucial time in our history. On one hand, the President's values want to spend more money in Washington. On our side, we think we ought to empower the family, stop the credit card, and provide empowerment for the local and State government.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, already patriotic American young men and women are in the former Yugoslavia preparing for the arrival of thousands of troops to help implement the recent peace agreement. President Clinton, without the support of the American people or the Congress, has exercised his Presidential authority to send troops into action without the consent of Congress. Republicans don't question the President's authority as Commander-in- Chief to send United States troops to Bosnia. We do question his judgment. I believe the President has made a grave mistake. He has put Americans in danger without clearly articulating what national security interest requiring the use of United States forces is at stake in Bosnia. The President's promise to send some 20,000 United States ground forces into war-torn Bosnia was made in an off-hand remark more than 2 years ago. It became a commitment in search of a mission. President Clinton made the promise without seeking the support of the American people. As a result, both the American public and the Congress have been shut out of the process that now involves sending American men and women into a very dangerous situation. This fact is highlighted by numerous polls indicating that close to 60 percent of Americans continue to disapprove of the Clinton plan. There is no doubt that Republicans will unconditionally support our troops now and throughout the entire time they are deployed. We will make sure they are properly armed and have every resource available so they can adequately defend themselves. However, the President needs to understand that he has not successfully made his case, as is demonstrated by the fact that the House has voted three times in opposition to his policy. Unfortunately, the President has chosen to ignore our counsel. Today will mark the House's final attempt prior to the signing of the peace agreement in Paris to express to the President the will of the American people with regard to sending our young Americans to Bosnia. Mr. President, please take heed this time.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, to compare the Wright investigation to the Gingrich investigation is like comparing a gnat to a hippopotamus. Last night, the Ethics Committee unanimously dismissed 64 of 65 allegations against Speaker Newt Gingrich. Both Republicans and Democrats concluded that most of these charges were unwarranted, unnecessary, and not worthy of further investigation. The 65th charge is narrowly focused on a technical tax law that requires an outside expert to investigate. And even this charge has been found to be baseless by a former commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. Let there be no mistake. This effort to destroy Newt Gingrich is not about finding the truth. It was not about discovering the facts behind his book deal. Those allegations were dismissed. It was not about his college lectures. Those allegations were dismissed. This is an effort to change the subject, as Republicans try to change the country for the better. At great expense and great fanfare, liberal Democrats have abused the ethics process for political gain.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Members' indulgence to allow me to go ahead of the line. Mr. Speaker, today the American people have some good news and some bad news when it comes to balancing the budget. The good news is that President Clinton has finally decided to come to the negotiating table with a 7-year budget. The bad news is that he has vetoed the only real balanced budget that gives tax relief to families, moves power out of Washington, saves Medicare for the next generation, and reduces Washington's spending. The President's decision to offer a plan that balances in 7 years is a positive first step. He seemingly realizes that the American people want a balanced budget now, not a balanced budget sometime after the next election. Of course, we are waiting to see if his budget actually balances according to the accounting experts, but it is a shame that the President has waited until the last possible moment to start serious negotiations, and it is a shame that he has chosen to veto the first significant balanced budget the Congress has produced in decades. We in Congress have been working for a full year, we have been working diligently to deliver the American people a real Christmas present. We have shopped around our ideas, we have balanced the costs and the benefits, and we have delivered a product that all America can take pride in. Our budget reflects the principles so important to the American people. Our budget saves Medicare, it reforms welfare, it reduces Washington, spending so people can spend more of their own money at home. It returns power to the States from the Federal Government, and it balances the budget now. President Bill Clinton is the proverbial Christmas Eve shopper, spending little time thinking about his balanced budget, and now rushing to beat the Christmas deadline. We hope his budget meets the test of being real, of being balanced, and of being fair to all Americans. Mr. Speaker, I urge the President to join Republicans in doing the will of the American people: Balance the budget now. [[Page H 14139]]

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, my good friend and noted railroad expert Ray Chambers put it correctly. It is entirely possible to have healthy passenger rail service again in America. Congress would like it, and the American public would like it. But Amtrak today is fatally dependent on Federal operating subsidies. This bill is the big first step toward allowing Amtrak to be self- sufficient. It makes many concessions that allow passenger rail service to flourish. For years, passenger rail transportation has been weighted down with rules, regulations, and politics. Amtrak's board is controlled by the Federal Government. Many of the routes Amtrak travels have been designated right here by Members of Congress. Because of the long- distance trains that are politically designated, schedules to connect to these long-distance trains are driven by necessity rather than passenger demand. Under the legislation, Amtrak would decide the merits of various routes according to commercial potential, not arbitrary statutory preference. What a novel idea. Supply and demand. This legislation allows Amtrak to climb out of another hole. The tremendous weight of Labor restrictions. Although I would have like to have seen the committee go much further, there are several provisions in the legislation that enable Amtrak to crawl out from under the Labor rock and begin to function competitively and efficiently. A Seattle-based think tank, Discovery Institute, has taken a close look at Amtrak and its problems. They have devised a six-step approach that takes a reasonable approach toward creating self-sufficient, private, and competitive Amtrak. Their plan is forward thinking and deserves a close look. There is already strong congressional support for a plan such as the Discovery Institute and other plans that offer privatization, self- sufficiency, and competition. With public support, these ideas could be instituted in a matter of a few years. Until the 1950's, the American train system was the best in the world. The airplane did not kill passenger rail service, Government and Labor's rules, regulations, and demands did. We in Congress have the ability to make passenger rail in the United States a success. This bill is the necessary first step toward that goal.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. We have not set the schedule for next week, but it would be sometime next week.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, this last vote is the last vote of the day. The Committee on Rules will be meeting at 2:30 or later this afternoon to write a rule on the Amtrak legislation that we intend to bring up tomorrow. We do not anticipate any vote on Friday or Monday.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Michigan will continue to yield, we intend to bring up that piece of legislation sometime next week.

Mr. DeLAY. Sometime next week.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for all the fine work he has done in trying to get our business done, and I know there is always at this time of the year people claiming we have to be here in this position because we have not got our business done. Mr. Speaker, if the President had ever come to the table during this whole year we might be home with our families right now enjoying the holidays. The problem is that finally, finally the President has decided to sign this most historic agreement, and I am just absolutely thrilled that for the first time in recent history the President of the United States and the Congress has agreed to balance the budget and balance the budget in 7 years. This is historic, it is phenomenal, and I am just so excited about it and looking forward to the negotiations over the next few weeks. But I want to get into the language because, make no mistake about it, unfortunately the national media has not picked up on it yet. What we have here is an agreement, not a goal, not a maybe, an agreement to balance the budget in 7 years using honest numbers, and here is the language, and it does not say we are going to achieve a goal of a balanced budget, or we are going to achieve a maybe balanced budget. The language that will be in law when the President signs it is the 104th Congress is to achieve a balanced budget not later than the fiscal year 2002 as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. Very real. Very meaningful. And I want to just touch on the rest of the language because the President seems to be saying he has now saved Medicare, Medicaid and all these other programs he has been fighting for so long on. Mr. Speaker, the language says that, protect future generations to ensure Medicare solvency. We have done that in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. Reform welfare; we have done that in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. And provide adequate funding for Medicaid, education, agriculture, national defense, veterans and the environment; we have done that in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. So I think the President, once we pass the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 this afternoon, and we send it, the President ought to sign it. He will get both. He will get the 7-year balanced budget and all the things that are in this language. He ought to sign it, but let me warn my colleagues that, if the President does not believe in this, it will be law when he signs it, and if the President goes to the American people and says, ``Oh, by the way, no, I didn't really mean 7 years, I really meant 8 years,'' as his Chief of Staff has already said, then the President of the United States should not sign this CR. He should not sign it because he is promising the American people a balanced budget, and he is promising-- Mr. Speaker, I just finish with this. The President, when he signs this CR, is promising the American people a balanced budget using honest numbers. There is no equivocation, that is what this CR says, and, if he does not honor that, then he will not only be misleading the American people, but he will be breaking the law.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, is it within the rules of the House to make a statement when we are making a unanimous-consent request? Is it regular order of the House?

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object.

Mr. DeLAY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Am I allowed to ask for regular order on unanimous consent requests?

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House allow the gentleman to speak for the rest of the day.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. I thank the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefly] for bringing this resolution to the floor. Mr. Speaker, no matter how nicely we try to tell him, President Clinton still has not gotten the message that the American people have strong reservations about sending our young men and women into an extremely dangerous situation in Bosnia when our national interests are not directly threatened. I would like to just read a quote from Philip Merrill, former Assistant Secretary-General of NATO, which appeared this week in the Wall Street Journal: Our future policy seems to be to simultaneously threaten Serbs from the air, act as peacekeepers on the ground, train the Croation army, arm the Bosnian military, conduct peace negotiations, and indict Bosnian war criminals. Any one of these policies is defensible; taken together, they're incoherent. As flare-ups occur, these inherently conflicting policies will leave us powerless to act effectively. This is not a situation into which I could justify sending our young Americans. If a peace agreement is reached, and I truly hope that one is, the United States has the responsibility to help implement it, but not with ground troops. It is neither in the President's nor the country's best interests to forge ahead with a plan to send United States troops to Bosnia without the full support of the American people through their representatives. H.R. 2606 sends a clear message to the President that he has not sufficiently made his case and that he is going to have to work with Congress if he wants to follow this path. I support the Hefley legislation and I urge my colleagues to support it. Congress has a duty to exercise its power of the purse when it feels the President is making a grave mistake.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I hope the American people are watching this vital debate, and if they are they will understand why we are so frustrated and have been so frustrated over all these years. The American people have heard from the other side of the aisle, the President and his party, stand before them time and time again, all day long, claiming that they are for a balanced budget. Yet for 40 years, the 40 years that they have been in control, they have yet to balance the budget. Mr. Speaker, they are not for balancing the budget, and Americans will hear what they are saying. They are for more spending. They are against what we are doing because they want more spending. They want to be able to raid the bank accounts of American families to pay for their agenda. That is what this is all about. That is what this debate is all about. This conference report signals a new era for the Federal Government, an era of fiscal responsibility, of lower taxes, and of healthier economic growth. As a Nation, we are poised to enter a new century. The choice the Congress makes today is very simple. We can enter the 21st century with a more efficient Federal Government, with a secure Medicare system, with a reformed welfare system, and with a Tax Code that actually favors families; or we can enter the 21st century with a government hobbled by waste and fraud, a Medicare system on the verge of bankruptcy, a welfare system in a state of moral decay, and a tax system that hits families the hardest. Mr. Speaker, by the year 2002, we can have a Federal Government with a balanced budget; or we can continue down the present path towards total fiscal catastrophe. Mr. Speaker, the President has chosen to shut the Government down rather than negotiate with us about a real 7-year balanced budget. That is an unfortunate choice, because even the President recognizes the virtue of fiscal responsibility. But in shutting down the Government, the President has unwittingly helped the American people understand what this fight is all about. According to the Office of Management and Budget, much of the Federal bureaucracy is not essential; 99 percent of the HUD Department, 96 percent of the EPA, 89 percent of the Department of Education and 99 percent of the National Archives have been declared nonessential. Many taxpayers across the country wonder: ``If these folks are not essential, why do we have to pay them?'' Frankly, that is the question we have been grappling with in our efforts to balance the budget. If the administration itself agrees that most of the bureaucrats it hires are not essential to making the Government run, why shouldn't we make some efforts to cut Government spending? The President can say no to cuts all he wants, but to get to a balanced budget, cutting nonessential Federal spending must be part of the equation. Let me address the most important aspect of this legislation; the tax cuts. The Democratic coalition's budget does not have tax cuts in it. I wonder if the American people know why? Because they want to spend more money. They want to spend more money and take it away from the American people and the American family. Much has been said about our tax relief for families, but little of it has been true. Here are the facts. Seventy-three percent of our tax cuts are aimed at families. These tax cuts include a $500-per-child tax credit. They include a $5,000-per-child credit for families that seek to adopt. They also include a $1,000 deduction for families who care for their ill parents at home. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, clearly, despite the rhetoric, this is tax relief for middle-class families. Many people ask why do we need these tax cuts? Well, my answer is very simple. If we are to rely on the family to be the backbone of our civilization, we cannot continue to tax it out of existence. The American family deserves a break today. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues for their hard work on this historic balanced budget. When our children and our grandchildren look back on this day, they will salute us for making their debt load lighter, their standard of living higher, and their future brighter. I just urge my colleagues to vote for the balanced budget so we can keep our promises for America's families, for America's children and for America's future. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues for their hard work on this historic balanced budget. When our children and grandchildren look back on this day, they will salute you for making their debt load lighter, their standard of living higher and their future brighter. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, so we can keep our promises for America's families, for America's children, for America's future.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Burton substitute and in favor of full disclosure. The time has come that the American people know exactly what their Representatives are doing here in Washington. Are they feeding at the public trough, taking lobbyist paid vacations, getting wined and dined by special interest groups? Or are they working hard to represent their constituents? The people, the American people, have a right to know. Only the Burton substitute will let the American people decide what is appropriate activity and what is inappropriate activity for their Representatives. Let us not kid ourselves here today. We are beating ourselves on the heads to prove we are pure enough to deserve the people's trust. Some Members are so distrustful of themselves and their colleagues, that they would rather we talk with no one in a casual setting, that we set up an artificial wall between us and the public. I say the best disinfectant is full disclosure, not complete isolation. We serve our constituents poorly if we believe that all Representatives are on the take and need to be taken away from the public, and we serve no one if we set up an ethics minefield that will only bring further dishonor to this House, for activities that most Americans do every day. Should it be unethical for a Member of Congress to eat dinner with a constituent? Why do we not let the people decide what is right and what is wrong? Why do we not just tell the people what gifts we get, through full disclosure, and stop this ridiculous charade of public virtue at the expense of common sense. The American people sent us here to represent them, not to hide every time they call to join them for dinner. Support full disclosure. Support the integrity of the House. Support the Burton substitute.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I do not know that I could improve on that last speech. Mr. Speaker, I do urge my colleagues to vote for this continuing resolution which is a giant step toward certifying a balanced budget. I just wanted to say to my good friend from Maryland, who spoke earlier, that said 15 pages of this bill are important and mean something and the 16th page means nothing. My answer to the gentleman from Maryland, if it means nothing, he has voted for a 7- year balanced budget. He ought to be able to vote for this continuing resolution. Two-thirds of this House came here to balance the budget. I know some of my colleagues would rather not send this CR to the President. Some of my friends would rather keep the heat on the President and let him keep the government closed. And let me say to my colleagues, that choice does hold a little appeal to me. It would be nice to have the President come to the negotiating table rather than just make speeches that are misleading at best. But I think we have an opportunity to clarify where President Clinton stands on a balanced budget. And that is worth its weight in gold. After all, President Clinton has more stands than the Houston Astrodome when it comes to the balanced budget. The question today is simple: Will the President support a real, certified 7-year balanced budget or will he continue to evade and confuse this issue that is so important to the American people? Yesterday President Clinton said, let us say yes to a balanced budget and no to the cuts. The President really means yes to a balanced budget but only if it happens by magic. Well, the President needs to know that a balanced budget only happens through hard work, hard choices and very real cuts in spending. So I say to my colleagues that the country wins if we pass this CR, no matter what the President does. Because if he votes this CR, the American people finally know that President Clinton oppose a real balanced budget. But if he signs the bill, we have the real numbers from which we can negotiate a real agreement. I just urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put President Clinton on the spot. Vote for this CR and let us clarify where the President really stands on a balanced budget.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Whitfield amendment for many reasons. I just ask the Members to listen, because labor issues sometimes can be very, very complicated and in some other cases can be misrepresented. But, they all have effects on the ability for railroads to run effectively and efficiently and provide jobs for railroad workers. That is what we are talking about here, to provide more jobs for more workers. If we put these kinds of labor protection measures on this bill, we are going to cost people their jobs, because there will be some railroad lines abandoned because they cannot afford these kinds of labor protections. Our Members particularly need to understand that this is not an easy labor vote; that they can just throw labor. This is a very interesting application to an age-old problem that we, as part of the new revolution, are trying to throw off so that we can have an economy that runs efficiently and provides the most number of jobs and not just single out one group of people and protect one group of people. Mr. Chairman, these kinds of labor protections are more. Members talk about fairness to the workers. This is more fairness than any other union workers in any other kind of union get to enjoy. When we are talking about 6 years of full wages and benefits that have been removed by bringing this bill to the floor, and now the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield] is trying to offer an amendment to this bill that preserves that mandate in whole or in part, depending on the size of the transaction, we are talking about restoring a labor protection that goes way beyond even the most wide definition of common sense; way beyond what is normal in labor protection for other unions and other kinds of contracts. Let me just address one of perhaps the most egregious misrepresentations being made by some of the proponents of the Whitfield amendment. That is that the bill somehow abrogates collective bargaining agreements. In fact, the bill retains exactly the same standard that has been the merger statute for decades: That agency approval of a merger displaces any other laws to the extent necessary to implement the merger. Mr. Chairman, this does not abrogate contracts, but the Whitfield amendment does alter this law. It gives labor the power to halt the implementation of approved mergers involving the smaller railroads. This amendment forbids, forbids work reassignments and shift of work from a union workforce. This directly contravenes existing law. So, the Whitfield amendment goes way beyond what existing law is. [[Page H 12306]] Mr. Chairman, I just think if we are going to develop an economy that is efficient and moves efficiently and creates jobs, we cannot afford to pass the Whitfield amendment. This bill eliminates one of the oldest and most costly mandates in the books today. And because these railroads cannot afford to operate under this provision, they simply will go out of business, and both consumers who need rail service and labor will lose. Since the Reagan-Bush exemption policy was put into place, over 330 new railroads have purchased 30,000 miles of line that was headed for abandonment. Those lines today employ 10,000 people that were headed for unemployment. This amendment would result in the abandonment of most light-density railroad lines in rural America and everybody loses. Mr. Chairman, this is a very, very important amendment that affects this bill, and I hope my colleagues, particularly on this side of the aisle, will think very seriously before they would vote for this amendment. I urge that they vote against the Whitfield amendment and vote for the bill.