Joel Hefley

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. First, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Florida for seeking this clarification in section 304(a) of H.R. 961. This section as amended seeks only to bring a sense of place-based science to the development of criteria based biological monitoring to the Clean Water Act. Second, I would like to commend the chairman of the full committee for including these well crafted provisions on whole effluent criteria and use of biological monitoring in the committee bill. These provisions faithfully address those issues and provisions of my bill, the Publicly Owned Treatment Works Biological Monitoring Use Act, introduced this year as H.R. 634 with our colleague form Arizona, Congressman Pastor. As further explained in the committee report, this section would bring common sense and due process to the use of whole effluent toxicity tests by substituting enforceable response procedures for locating and reducing toxicity in place of fines and penalties for test failures. This is important to local governments particularly because of the unreliability of these tests and because sewage treatment plants are not designed to treat whole effluent toxicity as they are designed to treat specific chemicals. I thank the chairman and the committee for including section 304 and I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, Joe Dear, the head of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration recently testified before Congress that virtually all of the stories being told about prohibiting chewing gum on roofs, and fining employers for hazardous dishwashing detergents--are false. Having focused on OSHA issues for years I find, the only thing false about these stories is their distortion by people who support OSHA. Let us look at the facts. Specifically, Mr. Dear told the committee, ``OSHA does not require material data safety sheets for the normal use of consumer products like Joy.'' I have a $2,500 citation and notification of penalty from OSHA, issued just last year, which states, ``The company did not have a written hazard communication program. The primary chemicals used are used in the kitchen and bathroom areas. Chemicals used, but not limited to: automatic dishwashing detergent and bleach.'' This is not the first time OSHA has cited a small business for failing to have a MSDS sheet on ordinary household products. Contrary to Mr. Dear's assertion, it has happened more than once. OSHA has also issued citations for hazardous bricks, sand, gravel, chalk, et cetera. Mr. Dear went on to say that ``OSHA has not banned the tooth fairy; dentists can give children their extracted teeth.'' Although this statement may be true now, it was not always. When OSHA published its final bloodborne pathogen rule on December 6, 1991, the regulation provided no exceptions for baby teeth or any other body part defined as contaminated waste. All contaminated waste-- including baby teeth--was to be disposed of in the OSHA-defined proper manner. It was only after America's dentists raised concern and several newspapers lampooned the new OSHA regulation that OSHA clarified that it would not cite dentists for allowing children to keep their teeth. Last, we have the question of gum chewing on roof tops. Once again, Mr. Dear provided Congress with a half-truth. He said, ``OSHA does not prohibit workers from chewing gum, although we do restrict asbestos removal workers from ingesting food where a high level of asbestos is present, since ingestion of asbestos causes cancer and lung damage.'' Setting aside the question of how ingesting asbestos causes lung damage--breathing asbestos is linked to lung damage, ingesting asbestos is linked to gastrointestinal cancers--Mr. Dear is simply wrong. OSHA itself has admitted that it prohibited chewing gum in asbestos workplaces, including rooftops where roofers were using tiles containing small amounts of asbestos. In a memorandum to OSHA's regional administrators dated January 13, 1995, OSHA stated, ``OSHA prohibited eating, drinking, chewing tobacco or gum, where activities take place involving removal or repair of asbestos containing building materials, regardless of measured breathing zone exposure levels.'' The memorandum proceeds to admit that these regulations are excessive, will ``result in negligible reduction of exposure,'' and therefore OSHA should not issue citations for their violation. In other words, Joe Dear would have you believe that OSHA never prohibited chewing gum on rooftops when OSHA itself has not only admitted doing it, but issued a retraction as well. The battle over OSHA reform is not about whether OSHA does stupid things. With over hundreds of regulations governing every possible hazard, real and imagined, OSHA cannot help but do stupid things. By challenging the veracity of OSHA's more notorious missteps, OSHA defenders are wasting their time and hurting their own credibility. OSHA did fine people for failing to have material safety data sheets on common household products like Joy, its regulations--without clarification--did prohibit dentists from giving children back their baby teeth, and its regulations--once again, without clarification--did prohibit roofers from chewing gum. To suggest otherwise is to fib, obfuscate, and otherwise distort the truth. In his testimony, Mr. Dear stated, ``If these stories were true, I might be asking the same questions about the need for OSHA.'' Those stories are true, Mr. Dear. Start asking.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, this week the American people will have the opportunity to see another important difference between Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Democrats are for higher taxes, and last year, they went along with the Clinton administration and raised taxes on families, on middle- income workers, on senior citizens. Republicans are for lower taxes, and this week, we will cut the taxes Democrats raised last year. We will cut taxes on families, on middle-income workers, on senior citizens. All the Democrats' class warfare and economic warfare rhetoric cannot change the facts: They are for higher taxes; Republicans are for lower taxes. Democrats want Government to spend more. Republicans want working Americans and their families to have more to spend. Stay tuned, America; the Republicans are making your voices heard again this week as we pass the final item in our contract, a well- deserved tax cut for American families and a boost for the national economy.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, remember when Bill Clinton was asked if he had ever used drugs, he repeatedly told us that he had never violated the laws of the United States. Finally, he admitted he had smoked marijuana, but ``only'' in Britain and he did not ``inhale.'' In other words, Bill Clinton's earlier responses were legally accurate, but they did not contain much truth. This same technique is now being used by the Labor Department to defend OSHA. You have recently been told that OSHA does not prohibit roofers from chewing gum, cite employers for failing to have Material Data Safety Sheets for dishwashing detergent, nor prohibit dentists from giving children back their baby teeth. Technically speaking, the Labor officials are correct; OSHA does not do any of these things--anymore. It has, it did, and absent the criticism heaped on OSHA by industry and Congress, it probably still would. The next time an OSHA official tells you that OSHA does not cite employers for Joy dishwashing detergent, ask them when they stopped. These stories are not fiction--they are real. The fiction is OSHA's denial that its regulations are out of control.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 256, the bill just passed.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would comment in response to the comment of the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson], this has become like the cherry blossoms. It is a rite of springtime here in Washington. I hope this is the last time we have to look at this bill, and that we can get it passed and move on to other things. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 256) to withdraw and reserve certain public lands and minerals within the State of Colorado for military uses, and for other purposes.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I would like to thank my colleagues on the National Security Committee and the Resources Committee, particularly Chairman Spence, Chairman Young, and ranking minority members, Dellums and Miller, for their willingness to consider H.R. 256 early in this session. H.R. 256 would withdraw and reserve certain public lands and minerals within El Paso, Pueblo, Teller, and Las Animas Counties in Colorado for military purposes. The bill would withdraw 3,133 acres of public lands and minerals and another 11,415 acres of public domain mineral estate within the existing Fort Carson Military Reservation. The bill would also withdraw 2,517 acres of surface land and 130,139 acres of minerals at the associated Pinon Canyon maneuver site. Since the 1930's, the Army has used the lands on which Fort Carson was established, and the Pinon Canon maneuver site has been in use since the early 1980's. The legislation will help provide the space necessary to improve training for our Armed Forces. The principal uses of the withdrawn acreage will be for mechanized training at battalion and brigade levels with related maneuvering, training, and weapons firing. I want to note, however, that no weapons firing will be conducted at Pinon Canyon due to environmental constraints. The Department of the Army and the Department of the interior have renewed the withdrawal of mineral rights controlled by the Bureau of Land Management every 5 years. The previous withdrawal expired on June 23, 1993. The BLM has argued that these 5-year withdrawals are too short, since environmental assessment work leading up to the renewals take about 8 years. Thus, the bill before the House includes Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1986 and with earlier legislation which provided a 15-year withdrawal for Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. The Army would prefer a 25-year withdrawal period because of the substantial lead time required to comply with all statutory and administrative requirements to process military land withdrawals. However, the Army can support this compromise of a 15-year withdrawal period. I would note that the text of the bill you see before you is virtually identical to legislation which passed the House in the previous two Congresses. As I said, Fort Carson's immediate past mineral withdrawal expired on June 23, 1992. That withdrawal has been extended, both administratively and through a 1-year legislative extension in 1992. This is an important administrative matter, and I hope the other body will move quickly on this legislation so that we can send this measure to the White House for the President's signature. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, the welfare system has been called a waste, it has been called inefficient, it has been called a destroyer of families, and it has even been compared with slavery. I would argue that these criticisms are largely accurate. To those who would defend the current welfare system, I challenge them to go outside the Capitol Building and walk around the streets of the District of Columbia or almost any major city in America. Here one can see the results of the welfare culture. Crime, corruption, teenage pregnancy, children without fathers, poverty, unemployment, and on and on it goes. In other words, an almost complete breakdown of community. The problems that the District and other communities face are not because too little money is being spent on welfare. They exist because welfare creates a perverse set of incentives that suffocate the dignity of work and slowly destroy the will to persevere. Mr. Speaker, Republicans have promised to not only reform welfare, but to replace welfare. We are committed to the belief that people are more important than government and that strong children are better than strong bureaucracies.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, the Republican rescission package that we have been considering over the last couple of days includes emergency funding for earthquake disaster relief. To pay for this relief, the bill includes $17.2 billion in rescissions across the Federal Government. In light of the Democratic opposition to the bill, go with me for a moment to those thrilling days of yesteryear about 2 years ago. Bill Clinton was the newly elected President. He asked Congress to pass another emergency funding package. This time, however, the package was bigger. It was $16 billion in new spending. There were no offsets. The $16 billion went directly to the deficit. What national emergency was Bill Clinton confronting? He said we needed a national fish atlas, and to assess electronic fish habitat technology, and study the sickle fish chub populations. Mr. Speaker, Bill Clinton began his Federal diet by offering Uncle Sam $16 billion in pork. Today the new Republican majority is making real decisions and real cuts.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, in the last few weeks, the other side of the aisle has engaged in such heated and hysterical rhetoric that it has reached meltdown levels. Their leadership and their President can no longer be thought of as sober or rational, and their hysterical and pathetic claims reveal a total lack of reasoned analysis of the facts. They are slaves to a welfare state that insists on high taxes and bigger bureaucracies. They fail to see the disastrous consequences of welfare, and they are blind to the out-of-control spending that may yet put us all in the poor house. Last November, the American people short-circuited the tax-and-spend Democrats. They said no to deficit spending and yes to accountability and responsibility. Republicans will keep our promise to cut wasteful Federal spending and to let Americans families keep more of what they earn. It is only right that we gain control of our taxing and spending, so that future generations may enjoy a decent way of life. Surely the alternative is budgetary chaos.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, in the past, I have accused OSHA of being an agency out of control. Today, we have a good example of why that is true. How bad is the ergonomic regulation OSHA is drafting? You do the math. According to the compensation insurance industry, cumulative trauma disorders cost employers approximately $1 billion per year. On the other hand, OSHA's ergonomic regulations will easily be the most expensive they have ever promulgated--more expensive than their blood-born pathogen rule, more expensive than their asbestos standard, even more expensive than their proposed $8 billion indoor air regulation. Still, the regulation might be reasonable if the size of the problem matched the costs. Is that the case? No. percent of all work-related injuries and diseases that resulted in missed work. OK. What about the science? To reduce the cost to employers, will OSHA be able to draft tight regulations which give employers specific guidelines and references. No. Simply put, there is no scientific support for a national ergonomic standard. Everyone agrees that cumulative trauma disorders are a problem, but no one knows where the threshold between safety and injury lies--not medical doctors, not the Center for Disease Control, not even OSHA bureaucrats. But that does not deter OSHA. As in the past, they are determined to plow ahead where no reasonable agency would tread. The woman in charge of writing this new standard, Barbara Siverstein, told Forbes Magazine that despite the death of science, OSHA will ``take some sort of a performance based approach to reducing exposure to those things that we know increase your risk of musculoskeletal disorders.'' What Barbara says is true. It is possible to establish performance based standards to prevent repetitive motion traumas. I will establish one right now: Don't work, don't type, don't do any heavy lifting, never strain yourself, and try to avoid breaking out in a sweat. The solution is somewhere between having a work place where no one works and a work place where something gets done. Unfortunately, neither Barbara nor anyone else knows where that point lies. Mr. Chairman, the American people sent us to Washington to get the federal government off their backs and out of their lives. Support the DeLay amendment, rescind the $3.5 million from OSHA, and reign in an out-of-control agency.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to admit to ourselves that the grandiose welfare programs of the 1960's have failed. Welfare has been riddled with crime and abuse for years. At long last, it is time to fix the welfare system from just maintaining the poor to transforming the poor. Middle-income Americans no longer equate compassion with spending more money in Washington for programs that do not work. Money is not the answer. Change is the answer. And that is what we want to do-- change the welfare system so that it works for the people not against the people. The three principles of change are personal responsibility, work, and State control. Mr. Speaker, we are keeping our promises. Instead of defending the status quo, we will produce real change.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Speaker, French economist Jean-Baptiste Say is famous as the author of Say's Law, sometimes summarized as ``Supply creates its own demand.'' In economic circles, this law is still the subject of debate. Here in Washington, however, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has been proving Say's Law for the past 30 years. We keep increasing spending on public housing, and the problem just gets worse. Contrary to popular belief, housing assistance was not cut during the Reagan years. Discretionary Federal assisted housing outlays have grown from $165 million in 1962 to $5.5 billion in 1980 and $23.7 billion in 1994, resulting in 55 percent more families being assisted today than in 1980. Has this dramatic growth solved the problem? No. Today, after HUD's budget has grown by over 400 percent in 15 years, only 30 percent of the families eligible to receive housing assistance are doing so. And what kind of housing are they receiving? The 1992 report on severely distressed public housing found many public housing residents afraid to leave their own homes due to prevalent crime while others were living in decaying conditions that threatened their safety and health. According to HUD's own statement of principles issued January of this year, ``the rigidly bureaucratic, top-down, command-and-control public housing management system that has evolved over the years has left tens of thousands of people living in squalid conditions at a very high cost in wasted lives and Federal dollars.'' Three decades of HUD and homeownership is down, homelessness is up, and millions of low-income Americans are condemned to live in substandard housing which would be unacceptable if it were owned by anyone else. Say's Law indeed. Quite simply, HUD has failed its mission of providing decent, low- income housing to America's poor. On the other hand, it has done an excellent job of providing jobs to over 4,000 Washington bureaucrats who oversee the hundreds of programs within the Department. For these reasons, I have introduced legislation to abolish HUD by January 1, 1998, and consolidate its needed existing programs into block grants and vouchers. If it is truly the job of government to subsidize low-income housing, then let's do it without the middle man. Rent vouchers allow low-income people to choose their own home, rather than have some bureaucrat choose it for them. Block grants give money directly to the States and local governments--that much closer to the taxpayers who pay the bills. These reforms are in line with the recommendations recently outlined by HUD itself. The administration's own reform plan proposes eliminating all direct capital and operating subsidies to existing public housing authorities and converting these funds to rent certificates. For years, conservatives and liberals alike have been championing similar reforms, and it's good to see the current administration jumping onboard. On the other hand, the administration's effort falls short of the bottom line. Bill Clinton proposed to consolidate HUD's 60 public housing programs into three general funds. He then requested an increase in HUD's budget. Madam Speaker, America's poor do not just suffer from a surplus of bureaucrats telling them where to live and what to do. They also suffer from excess government that destroys jobs and opportunity. With $200 billion deficits projected into the next century, it isn't enough to just consolidate many little programs into a few big programs. We have to reduce the size of Government overall. We need to eliminate entire departments. We need to abolish HUD. It is time to admit that Uncle Sam makes a lousy landlord and end this 30-year experiment in socialist domestic policy. As Bill Clinton said in his State of the Union Address, ``The old way of governing around here actually seemed to reward failure.'' Let us stop rewarding HUD's failure by abolishing HUD and eliminating the unnecessary bureaucracy. The alternative is to continue investing in instant ghettos and Federal bureaucrats. That's a solution we have tried for 30 years, and it just has not worked.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, when President Jimmy Carter signed the original Regulatory Flexibility Act back in 1980, it was applauded as a new, strategic weapon in the war against excessive regulation. American businesses soon discovered that Reg Flex was less a strategic weapon and more a water pistol. Sure, you could aim it at excessive regulations and pull the trigger, but nothing much happened. Reg Flex lacked the striking power to challenge the bureaucrats. It failed even to drown out their laughter as they ignored the law. As a weapon for curbing regulatory abuses, Reg Flex was a dud. Today, we are giving punch to Reg Flex. By allowing America's businesses to challenge abusive regulations in the courts, we are finally forcing Federal bureaucrats to comply with the law. If they want to issue a new major rule, they first have to account for its impact on American business. Mr. Chairman, the Regulatory Reform and Relief Act is a major step forward in the battle for control of America's businesses. It's the strategic weapon we've been promising America's busineses all along, and I look forward to its passage.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, French economist Jean-Baptiste Say is famous as the author of Say's Law, sometimes summarized as ``Supply creates its own demand.'' In economic circles, this law is still the subject of debate. Here in Washington, however, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has been proving Say's Law for the past 30 years. We keep increasing spending on public housing, and the problem just gets worse. Contrary to popular belief, housing assistance was not cut during the Reagan years. Discretionary Federal assisted housing outlays have grown from $165 million in 1962 to $5.5 billion in 1980 and $23.7 billion in 1994, resulting in 55 percent more families being assisted today than in 1980. Has this dramatic growth solved the problem? No. Today, after HUD's budget has grown by over 400 percent in 15 years, only 30 percent of the families eligible to receive housing assistance are doing so. And what kind of housing are they receiving? The 1992 report on severely distressed public housing found many public housing residents afraid to leave their own homes due to prevalent crime while others were living in decaying conditions that threatened their safety and health. Three decades of HUD and homeownership is down, homelessness is up, and millions of low-income Americans are condemned to live in substandard housing which would be unacceptable if it were owned by anyone else. Quite simply, HUD has failed its mission of providing decent, low- income housing to America's poor. On the other hand, it has done an excellent job of providing jobs to over four thousand Washington bureaucrats who oversee the hundred of programs within the Department. For these reasons, today I am introducing legislation to abolish HUD by January 1, 1998 and consolidate its existing programs into block grants and vouchers. If it is truly the job of government to subsidize low-income housing, then let's do it without the middle-man. Rent vouchers allow low-income people to choose their own home, rather than have some bureaucrat choose it for them. Block grants give money directly to the States and local governments--that much closer to the taxpayers who pay the bills. It is time to admit that Uncle Sam makes a lousy landlord and end this 30-year experiment in socialist domestic policy. As Bill Clinton said in his State of the Union Address, ``The old way of governing around here actually seemed to reward failure.'' Let's stop rewarding HUD's failure by abolishing HUD and eliminating the unnecessary bureaucracy. The alternative is to continue investing in instant ghettos and Federal bureaucrats. That's a solution we've tried for 30 years, and it just hasn't worked.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I introduced legislation, H.R. 1026, to designate the U.S. Post Office building located at 201 East Pikes Peak Avenue in Colorado Springs, CO, the Winfield Scott Stratton Post Office. This designation will honor the memory of a man who contributed greatly to the community of Colorado Springs. Working as a carpenter and prospector for over 18 years, Winfield Scott Stratton was one of the many adventurers who came to Colorado looking for their fortune. In his case, the fortune was a rich deposit of gold in Cripple Creek, CO. Mr. Stratton's lifestyle changed little after his gold strike. He believed it was the duty of anyone who made a fortune to use his wealth in the development of his community. In keeping with that philosophy, Mr. Stratton dedicated the rest of his life to helping others less fortunate and to advancing the development of Colorado Springs and Colorado. He purchased and gave Colorado Springs the ground for its city hall; he helped finance a new courthouse; he purchased and upgraded the street railway system; he built the first privately funded building at the Colorado School of Mines; and he endowed the Myron Stratton Home, a foster home for children and impoverished elderly which is still serving the Colorado Springs community today. Thousands of Coloradans today are the direct beneficiaries of Mr. Stratton's generosity. Regarding H.R. 1026, it is noteworthy that Winfield Scott Stratton also purchased the property at 201 East Pikes Peak Avenue and sold it to the Federal Government for half its value on the condition that the Federal Government build the post office which stands there today. In view of Mr. Stratton's contribution to the existing post office and to Colorado as a whole, it is an entirely fitting and appropriate gesture to name this U.S. Post Office the Winfield Scott Stratton Post Office. He was a man who shared his riches with an entire State, and he left a legacy of love and care which continues today.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, a contractor in Kansas City was laying pipe for the Army Corps of Engineers when brackish, green water seeped into the cut. The corps tested the water and told the contractor that there was no health risk--get on with the job. Three months later, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration fined the contractor for failing to protect his employees. As the employer commented, ``You had one Government agency [telling us] the material was not hazardous and that we were to proceed, and another agency citing us for exposing workers to an alleged hazardous material.'' Mr. Speaker, it's time to end the heads-I-win, tails-you-lose regulatory policies of the past. Let us pass the regulatory moritorium bill, let us take a hard look at OSHA's abusive practices, and let us rationalize our regulation of America's workplaces. Mr. Speaker, we have had 50 days of changing America; now let us have 50 more.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. It is, indeed. In fact, I think the figure is about $80 million that they have for studies, and that kind of thing, in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. I am not sure what the total budget is.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, if I might respond to my friend, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery], as well, the Secretary of Defense does not want 10 or 12 guard armories every year either. Yet I know the gentleman feels strongly about that, as many of us do. We have an oversight responsibility. Now, whether or not we need the commission, the argument for the commission is there is some question because of what the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] said about the Bottom-Up Review and whether that really is a clear picture, and how do we get a clear picture? The answer in this bill is we get an independent kind of commission that can look.

Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just, in response, point out that if the Office of the Secretary of Defense has $5 million to buy Korean oil, they can certainly have the money to do this. I think the question which we will be debating in a few minutes of whether or not the commission is appropriate is a different question. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as we marked up this bill in the National Security Committee, I had concerns about spending additional money on a commission. I did not want an additional $1.5 million being taken away from our troops. The chairman of our committee, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], and his staff have worked diligently to calm my fears. My amendment would simply state that the commission shall be paid for by funds appropriated for the Office of Secretary of Defense. This is appropriate since the Office of the Secretary of Defense is the one that generally has money to do studies of various kinds. It is also appropriate because these funds will not be coming out of training or readiness accounts, and I think that is the real key, Mr. Chairman, is that we do not want this money coming out of the hides of our fighting forces as we prepare them to meet whatever contingency is out there. So we are asking that this come out of the Office of the Secretary of Defense. It is my understanding that the chairman is willing to accept this amendment, and I would ask support for the Hefley amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.