Gene Green

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 450, as written, currently the regulations implementing the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, were caught under the net cast by this bill. As my colleagues have noted earlier in the debate, this bill makes no attempt to distinguish between good and bad regulations. My amendment would exempt these regulations currently under consideration for clarification of the Family and Medical Leave Act. For those who may have forgotten, the Family and Medical Leave Act entitles employees of up to 12 weeks of unpaid job-protected leave in a 12-month period for specified family medical reasons. The Family and Medical Leave Act was passed in the 103d Congress, actually passed and effective on August of 1993, so about 18 months ago. I cosponsored the bill and supported it on its final passage, and it passed overwhelmingly, 265 to 163 with 40 Members of the now-majority supporting it. Thirty-four of those still continue to serve in this body. The aim of of the act so that both employers and employees would understand both their rights and their responsibilities. Many businesses are affected by this regulation and would be unable to plan appropriately because the uncertainty surrounding the moratorium. Again it has been 18 months since the act was passed, and by adding another 6 months causes even more confusion, not only to employees, but also to businesses, and it is a step process that we go through, the department is going through, and when the final process--and again it would benefit those businesses. Accordingly, the Labor Department in the final rules were based on suggestions for more that 900 public comments received by the department during their 6-month public comment period, so part of that time delay in these regulations, because of the 6-month public comment that none of us want to see shortened. We want adequate time for the public, whether they are in business or individuals, to comment. Mr. Chairman, it is extremely important that these commonsense and clarifying rules go through. Businesses have been attempting to comply with the requirements of the act, and the Department of Labor has been trying to work with them. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Chicago Land Chamber of Commerce, and Nation's Bank are among those businesses and associations who provided input during this comment period. The regulations under consideration would be employee benefit plans, health insurance, maternal and child health, among other things. Among the commonsense clarifications, the definition of serious health condition has been changed to clarify the circumstances under which a leave may be taken, and again this is something for the benefit of a manager of a business who needs that. As a result, the employees with chronic conditions or are pregnant are not required to see a health care provider during every absence every time a mother may be ill. She should not have to bring a doctor's excuse when it is obvious that she may be just experiencing short-term sickness. Unlike the regulations that are alleged to be full of red-tape, this regulation will reduce the confusion for those who need to comply with it. I hope we have no interest in reopening the act just as we are beginning to see some real regulation to interpret it for its final implementation, and I would urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I will be glad to debate the nutrition program.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me say I think the gentleman has pointed out the correct concern. Again, we are not in the business of making blame; we are in the business of trying to make sure America works. I think by adopting this amendment we may end up very well having two sets of regulations, and that stack of regulations over there could actually get doubled because we would have some for 6 months and some for after 6 months. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to close. Let me say that what the amendment would do is put off for small business 6 months of regulation, so a business may be able to be in business another 6 months. But that is what we would be allowing them. Let me say again I came out of small business, 23 years both working and helping manage it. Our job here in Washington is not only to try to remove the impediments of small business, but also to come up with regulations that small business can understand that it is important to. And let me give you some examples. For example, the FCC does not issue one set of regulations for the TV station in New York City and another set for a smaller business in Texas with less than 100 employees. Food safety regulations, do we differentiate between a meat and poultry processor with 99 employees compared to one with 101? I think we are adding more confusion to small business. The small business that exists would sometimes be denied opportunities under this amendment. For example, the FCC spectrum allocation rules to be issued would deny employers with less than 100 employees the opportunity to bid on some of these FCC licenses. Again, I understand the concern of the gentleman, and I philosophically support him, but with his amendment I think he may be causing more problems. Like a lot of things we see in the first 100 days, we are causing more problems for small business and people trying to create jobs than people trying to help him.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to close with what time I have left.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to some of the speakers. Again, I am very sympathetic to small business, because that is where for many years I earned my living. But a couple of the speakers just recently talked about President Clinton and big government. The examples that I was using during the 1980's, it was not President Clinton's big government, it was the EPA under the Reagan and Bush administrations that was the one. I do not think President Clinton has any claim on big government. Big government did not start in 1992 and did not end November 8, 1994. It has been a problem for a number of years. To foist this off on President Clinton I think is wrong and even mean spirited. Let me talk about the gentlewoman who talked about the young man that cleaned the store. In Houston, TX, a person cleaned the store of a small business. He was also locked in that store overnight because they did not trust him with a key. So obviously that was in violation of the Occupational Safety Act and also hopefully human decency. That person also died in a fire because they could not get out. So there are reasons why we are concerned about this amendment, one, causing more confusion to small businesses, but also recognizing that those Federal regulations are sometimes there for a purpose. Even though it is a small businessman, I want them to be explained to me and I want them to be reasonable. But, again, putting a 6-month extension on it may help on a momentary basis, but hopefully we are not promising the moon and the stars when all we are giving them is 6 months' reprieve. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of the time.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Members, in response to the last 1 minute, let me talk about what the school lunch and breakfast program really does. We heard, and we are in markup in the Committee on Education and Economic Opportunity, we heard there are not cuts. Let me tell you what I have from the State of Texas Department of Education agency, but also from Houston Independent School District. That shows that the Republican majority is cutting the school lunch and breakfast program. The President is right and we need to be honest with the American people. We need to reform welfare, but we do not need to take it out of the mouths of the children and their breakfast or lunch program. The Republican majority here in the House and the talking heads I see on TV say they are actually providing more funds. But in the State of Texas we would see a 4-percent cut in the school lunch and breakfast program, and that is one we grow every year. So we are cutting 4 percent right now. Again, we should reform welfare, but not out of the mouths of our children and not out of America's future. Texas Education Agency Proposed impact of school-based nutrition block grant amendment on Texas' Child Nutrition Program Fiscal Year 1996 Projected by 1996 national funding for school-based child Nutrition Programs (per USDA)....................................$6,897,000,000 Proposed funding under block grant amendment.............$6,626,000,000

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I voted for this bill in committee, and this amendment corrects one of the oversights that I noticed in the bill that we lost on it in committee. I support the amendment offered by my distinguished ranking member, the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins]. As currently written, the bill will overturn a 1990 Supreme Court decision that assures workers of their right to know about hazards in the workplace. In the Dole versus U.S. Steelworkers case the Supreme Court said that the OMB had no authority to block another agency's decision that businesses disclose information on health and safety to their employees or the public. The specific matter in the Dole case was an OSHA regulation that required employers to make sure that their employees were told of potential hazards posed by chemicals in the workplace. Justice William Brennan wrote: Because Congress expressed concern only for the burden imposed by requirements to provide information to a federal agency, and not for any burden imposed by requirements to provide information to a third party, OMB review of disclosure rules would not further this congressional aim. By a 7-2 margin the Court upheld the agency's right of action in this case. Among those supporting the decision were Justices Scalia, O'Connor, and Kennedy. Supporters of this provision will argue that the existence of questionable regulations prove that the right-to-know is an outmoded concept. I do not believe that protecting the safety of workers in the refineries in my district is an outmoded concept. I do not believe that protecting the safety of the workers and the retirees in my district is an outmoded concept. These employees and these workers have a right to know, and I would hope that in--to sacrifice them in this bill in the reduction of paperwork that we could really have both ways. We can protect those workers with the right to know and still have the effect to reduce paperwork. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I take the floor to continue the discussion about the Personal Responsibility Act. The Goodling substitute of the Personal Responsibility Act which will be taken up in the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee tomorrow will cut funding for child care in the State of Texas from fiscal year 1996 through 2000 over $485 million. The Personal Responsibility Act will repeal all Federal programs that deal with nutrition, including the school breakfast and lunch programs, and restrict nutrition programs under the Older Americans Act. I am happy that the Republicans realized that being ``penny wise and pound foolish'' with the cuts in senior nutrition programs was not good policy and were simply unworkable. However, senior nutrition programs are not the only programs which should be taken out of the Personal Responsibility Act. I suggest that all nutrition programs be withdrawn from the Personal Responsibility Act and discussed in the context of the people participating in the programs. For example, school breakfast and lunch programs should be discussed in education or health reform along with nutrition programs for women, infants, and children. Not simply in terms of reforming welfare. School nutrition programs provide food assistance in a school setting, such as the Port Houston Elementary School with Principal Maria Sierra, Recently, I had a town hall meeting at Port Houston Elementary. Feeding hungry children is not welfare when it is at school and providing a nutrition meal to start the day. Studies show that hungry children cannot learn. We are endangering our future by not providing nutrition to children. We should be using nutrition programs to encourage children to learn. Again, I suggest to my colleagues on the other side that all nutrition programs which do not go directly to individuals should be taken out of this act. Finally, under summaries provided by the Republicans of the Goodling substitute, several references are made to the funds being increased. However, estimates provided to my office by the State of Texas show the states' school nutrition programs taking a 6.5 percent cut in funding. This is when we have more children every year needing food. I leave on this last note. Do we wish to be the Congress which cuts funds to feed even one hungry child? This may be reform but at what cost. Are we hard hearted enough to deny food to children?

Mr. GENE GREEN

Mr. GENE GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from New York, for yielding me this 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Community policing works. It works in Houston, TX. It works first in my State house district, my State senate district, and now in my congressional district. We have at least two substations. One is not too far away from my district office on West 19th Street, and there is one on Nordling, where people meet every month. We get 100 people to meet with our law enforcement officers every month. We are getting these citizens concerned with professional law enforcement officers to lower the crime rate, and it works. The crime bill we passed last year helped us in our local effort. There was opposition to the crime bill last year, and I was part of it, but I ended up voting for it. The opposition was because of the gun issue. Let us be honest with our constituents and say, sure, the gun issue was controversial, but let us not take cops off the street. This is prevention for our young people, more border patrol, and prison construction. Let us stop this smoke screen and get back to what the issue is. If it is guns, let us fight it out, but let us not hurt our crime fighting that is working in Harris County, in Houston, and in Pasadena, TX.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise again tonight and take the floor again tonight to continue the discussion of the Personal Responsibility Act. The Personal Responsibility Act is the Republican majority's welfare reform act. I wish us to take a closer look at the Personal Responsibility Act and how it affects all of us in the United States but particularly the State of Texas. As I have stated on several occasions before, the Personal Responsibility Act would cut Federal funding in Texas over $1 billion in fiscal year 1996 alone, representing a cut of 30 percent. There are unsubstantiated rumors running through the Capitol that the senior nutrition program has been pulled from the Personal Responsibility Act. If this is true, I congratulate the Republican majority in their recognition of the absurdity that is included in the Republicans' Contract With America, reducing funding for meals-on-wheels and other senior programs. It just does not make sense. Under the original Personal Responsibility Act, the Houston Harris County Area Agency on Aging provided preliminary numbers last week from which we estimated how many seniors would be denied meals per day in Houston. After a closer calculation, the Area Agency on Aging has provided me with a letter that says 320 seniors would be denied a meal each day, 80,000, more than 80,000 meals a year if the Personal Responsibility Act passed in its present form. I insert that letter in the Record at this point, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the opportunity to do that. The letter referred to is as follows: City of Houston, Health and Human Services Department, Houston, TX, February 2, 1995 Mr. Gene Green, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Congressman Green: Per the request from your office regarding the impact of 30% reduction in our USDA Award, the following information is provided: The 30% reduction in our USDA Award would translate to 80,357 less meals available to our nutrition participants. When further analyzed on a daily basis, this would mean 320 seniors per day would not be served a congregate or home delivered meal. The Area Agency on Aging serves seniors who are 60 years and older. A dependent child of an eligible senior would also be eligible for our services. If additional information is required, please contact Charlene Hunter James, MPH, Director, Houston/Harris County Area Agency on Aging at (713)794-9001. Sincerely, M. desVignes-Kendrick, MD, MPH, Director. On the front page of today's Washington Post, Mr. Speaker, I saw a headline that said, ``Republican officials agree on repealing welfare entitlements.'' That is like two hyenas fighting over a deer with the grandparents and children seeing what is left for them. Unfortunately over a hundred thousand seniors in Harris County had no voice in that agreement, who may or may not get a hot meal, if these rumors are not correct. The American people, they want results. How can we have the results left out of the process between the Republican Governors and the Republican majority? In that article in the Washington Post, Mr. Speaker, Vermont Governor Dean describes the situation very clearly. He states the agreement is only a deal between the Republicans. Political partisanship must not take precedent over the lives for seniors or, for that matter, children or mothers. Allow me to remind my colleagues that school breakfast and lunch programs are not included in the rumors that were talked about, removing senior citizens food programs. Thousands of school children are still under this budget ax when school nutrition programs are subject to a 30-percent cut through this personal responsibility, and tonight we still do not know if our senior citizen nutrition programs are exempt. Congress should end the welfare as it is currently operating, but the Personal Responsibility Act should not include nutrition programs, whether they be for our seniors or for our youngest children in this country.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I take the floor to discuss again the possible effects of the Personal Responsibility Act, the PRA, on the State of Texas. This measure reforms welfare in many ways. Unfortunately, it also repeals a number of nutrition programs such as the school nutrition program and also the senior citizens lunches which, for Texas, would be disastrous. A recent USDA study says this PRA reveals Texas would lose over a billion dollars in fiscal year 1996 alone. The reduction in funding for Texas represents a 30-percent reduction in funding for school lunches and senior citizens lunches. Under the block grant arrangement, Federal funds would first be awarded to the State and then allocated to the programs throughout the State. However, many nutrition programs, such as the school lunch, already go directly to the school districts. Adding an additional bureaucracy to funnel funds appears contradictory to the premise of the block grants, when everyone agrees we need to cut the layer of bureaucracy not increase, but this Personal Responsibility Act is another layer to take away funding directly to the school children and seniors. Local school districts could take deep cuts in funding. The Aldine Independent School District, where my children went to school, will have their food budget reduced by over $2 million and require a lunch costing $1.35 now to be increased to $1.75 and maybe even more. This could mean thousands of students in the Aldine area might not to be able to afford a nutritious lunch. The Pasadena School District in Harris County that I also represent part of, 50 percent of their meals are served this year by a free or reduced price of lunches. The number of free meals have tripled in the past 6 years. The Houston Independent School District provides 118,797 free or reduced meals every year, and they would be reduced. Tufts University Center for Hunger states that iron deficiency anemia affects nearly 25 percent of the poor children in the United States and impairs their cognitive development. The Tufts study further states that the longer a child's nutritional and emotional and educational needs go unmet there is a greater overall cognitive deficit. While I think we can all agree that reforming welfare is needed, the needs of the school children are of paramount importance. This may not be how the people of Texas thought how welfare reform would begin, but it currently is written into this Personal Responsibility Act and will increase the hunger for Texas children and senior citizens. I would like to paraphrase a letter from the Aldine Independent School District from our executive director of Food Services that says, ``We are proud of what we do. Last year we received $7,900,000 from the Federal Government for reimbursement for free and reduced, prepaid mails and food commodity programs.'' They serve an average of 12,000 breakfasts a day and 24,000 lunches a day to Aldine children. They are proud of what they do, and many students in Aldine get their nutrition from the school cafeteria which enables them to perform better academically in the classroom. The food served at the schools goes directly to that child. It does not go to their parent. It goes to that child, and a hungry child cannot learn. These children are already here, so we need to nurture them and educate them so they can become healthy and productive members of society. We do not need to turn our backs on society's most least fortunate, our children, our senior citizens. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the House change this Personal Responsibility Act to reflect the needs that are reflected in our children. February 8, 1995. The Hon. Gene Green, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Green: Aldine ISD provides an excellent education to children in middle to lower income families. There are 46,000 students enrolled in Aldine ISD. The Aldine Food Service department received $7,947,557.71 from the federal government in reimbursements for free, reduced-price, and paid meals and food commodity value in the 1993-94 school year. We serve an average of 12,000 breakfasts a day, and 24,000 lunches a day to Aldine children. If the block grant proposal is passed as is, with a 30% reduction in the funds provided to Texas, impact on the Aldine Food Service department would be a loss of $2,384,267.30. This reduction in funds would mean a large increase in breakfast and lunch prices, reduction in labor, and reduction in spending to businesses in this area. Many children in Aldine would not be able to afford the increase in price for lunch and breakfast. Our department has always operated in the black with all excess funds being reinvested into the Child Nutrition Program to benefit students. These cuts would most likely throw us into the red. We are proud of what we do. Many of the students in Aldine get their best nutrition in the school cafeteria which enables them to perform their best academically in the classroom. The food served at schools goes directly to the child, not through a parent or guardian. A hungry child cannot learn! These children are already here, so we need to nurture and educate them so that they become healthy, productive members of society. Your support in our endeavor will benefit us all. Thank you! Sincerely, Joyce H. Lyons, Executive Director of Food Services Aldine ISD. Melanie B. Konarik, Assistant Director of Food Services Aldine ISD.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the minimum wage was increased 4 years ago. However, the purchasing power of that same $4.25 has declined 40 percent due to inflation. A recent study shows that in 1968 the minimum wage had a purchasing power in 1995 dollars of $6.49. There are arguments on both sides of this issue but allowing working Americans to work for a living wage is the best method to reform welfare. If a worker puts in 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, their gross wage is just over $8,800. For an average family in the 29th Congressional District of Texas which I represent they will be over $3,500 below the poverty line. Add the maximum earned income tax credit and that family will be $400 under the poverty line and eligible for welfare under many programs. However, this same family, with a minimum wage increase to $5.15 and their maximum earned income tax credit, will now be above the poverty level and will no longer have to be on welfare. If the Members on the other side wish to save on welfare, and wish people to work, increase the minimum wage so full-time workers will not be eligible for welfare. The myth that the minimum wage is only paid to teenagers does not fit with the fact that over half of the minimum wage earners are 26 or older. Congress must act and allow working Americans to earn a living wage. My Republican colleagues talk about ``me-too-ism'' from the White House on Republican proposals. My Republican colleagues should develop me-too-ism on reducing welfare by paying an increase in the minimum wage--me-too-ism is bipartisanship working. Let us see it work for working Americans.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker. I rise again tonight to discuss some of the effects of the Personal Responsibility Act on the nutrition programs, specifically the senior citizens nutrition programs. Yesterday, during a hearing on the Personal Responsibility Act in the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, of which I am a member, there were six witnesses, five representing local community groups, and all were against title V of the bill which deals with all our Federal nutrition programs. Title V repeals every Federal nutrition program and then block-grants the funds after severe cuts. Under this repeal of our nutrition programs, the State of Texas would lose over $1 billion in 1996 alone. One member of the committee questioned the constitutional basis for providing nutrition and actually said it is not a Federal responsibility, and he quoted the Constitution. Well, we all may need to reread our Constitution because where I see it in the Preamble, it says to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare, and that is included in nutrition. If the Republicans are holding the defense budget sacred and even increasing it because it is protected under the Constitution, at the very minimum nutrition programs should also be protected from these draconian budget cuts. After November 8 of last year, many people called for Congress to become result-oriented. The PRA, or the Personal Responsibility Act, will result in 800 seniors going hungry every day in the city of Houston. I hope and I pray that the PRA, the Personal Responsibility Act, was not designed to deny senior citizens their Meals on Wheels but that will surely be the result. Let me repeat. If the PRA is passed in its current form, there will be over 800 hungry seniors in or around the district that I represent in Houston, TX. Not only will seniors go hungry, but on page 74 of the PRA, it requires seniors under the age of 63 and not disabled to work for their food. The Older Americans Act allows any senior over 60 years of age and their spouse, regardless of age, to receive one meal a day. Would this Personal Responsibility Act repeal that law? I believe so. What we will see, and I will show this sign, is that we will have seniors saying I will work for food, and that sign will be traded in every day with an affidavit from that senior to the State swearing that they will work at least 32 hours a week for that one hot meal. This is ludicrous. I would hope that the committees, and I serve on one of the committees, will have better judgment than to pass this bill, particularly title V. Stalin may have done this to the Soviet seniors, but not us. This would mean at least 35 people would be barred from a hot meal at the Magnolia Multi-Purpose Center in Houston, Texas. And simply on the work requirement alone. So between 60 and 63, they have 35 people who today enjoy a hot meal that would have to either carry this sign or turn it in with an affidavit saying they will work. Should there be budget responsibilities? Of course, yes. Should there be administrative reduction? Yes. Should there be lonely, hungry seniors in the breadbasket of the world? No. We must take a look at this title V in the Personal Responsibility Act contained in this Contract With America to see that it is a contract on our seniors to remove the nutrition programs.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Maybe next week we can continue this dialog.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I agree this is why we are here and to talk about the issues. I had not had an opportunity to read the Personal Responsibility Act or deal with it until we had the hearings yesterday. We had 6 witnesses, 5 of them called by the majority side and 1 of them called by the minority side. Of those 5, and that is what I said, that of those 6 witnesses, 5 of them asked that that be Act that deals with senior citizens nutrition. They also asked for the school lunch program and breakfast program to be changed because the witnesses even called by the majority side said that that is wrong that we are cutting off food to children and some of the programs that have been developed over both Democrat and Republican administrations. But we used the testimony from the hearing yesterday and I called some senior citizens sites in my district and said, okay, just one provision of it that says that if you are under the age of 63, how many people are served in the Magnolia Multi-Purpose Center in Houston that are under the age of 63 and not disabled. They told us, they said that this is the number we serve. They actually serve 35 people who are not classified as disabled and under the age of 63. The gentleman can look at the bill itself. It states if you are under 63, not disabled, you have to agree to work, or sign an affidavit to say you are working.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, sometimes this aisle gets to be a wall instead of a way we can cross. I am glad the gentleman spoke today and talked about this. We could set up other programs just like this if we wanted to, but this bill needs to be as pure as we can have it. I agree, though, that we might need to look at an amendment later to make it a majority of the House instead of two-thirds, because I do not know if you could get two-thirds of the House to override a Presidential line-item veto. We might look at a majority on a later amendment.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman and I have served many years together in the state house, and I am glad to see we agree today on this issue.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, obviously, I disagree with the germaneness because it is talking about the line-item veto and setting up a different program. Now, if we want to set up a different sacred cow, so to speak, or protect a different program than we are going to protect from the line-item veto, I think it is germane to the bill. There may be a question about the amendment, but then we could run with a separate amendment. But to save the time of Congress you may want to consider it just as an amendment to the amendment.