Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, under the cover of a peace agreement in a country that has never known peace, Bill Clinton is about to commit 25,000 of our sons and daughters into Bosnia. Now, that is not just 25,000 troops into Bosnia. That really equates to a number much larger than that, because you have to have the support troops to support those 20,000 or 25,000 troops that we are going to put on the ground in Bosnia. Take a look very carefully at the situation in Bosnia. We have an absolute responsibility to question Bill Clinton about his intent to put these young people into that country. We need to assess the situation. Is the situation in Bosnia a security threat to this country? That answer is easy; no. Is it a security threat to any of our allies? The answer is easy; no. Is it an economic threat to the United States of America? The answer is no. Is it an economic threat to any of our allies? The answer is no. If we do not go into Bosnia, will it mean the collapse of NORAD? No, it will not. How can this President justify it? Because he has made a commitment to this? Take a look at what the cost of Bosnia will be. We know that there is a very high likelihood of loss of life, and it could be my son. I have a son who is 18 years old. It could be your daughter or your son. Think about it before we put these troops into Bosnia, before we let Bill Clinton put us into a situation that has no exit strategy. We need to ask Bill Clinton some pretty tough questions: One, what are the rules of engagement, Mr. Clinton? Number two, for what purposes and what reasons and where will our troops be assigned? Three, how do we get out of there? Four, how long are we going to be in there? Have you made any kind of strategy as to how we are going to get out or how long we are going to be there? I would venture to say that we are woefully short of the kind of answers we need before we even consider supporting this President sending American ground troops into the country of Bosnia. I think that it is imperative and incumbent upon us to demand from this President that he be forthright [[Page H 10696]] with the people of the United States of American and explain what that situation is. Right now he has got the cover of Medicare, he has got the cover of budget. While all this is going on, the Pentagon is buzzing away down there preparing to send these troops over to a country that is not a threat to this country. I think the test, the ultimate test that each and every one of us in these chambers should employ, is the test that came across to me when I sat at a graduation speech this last spring. An 18 year old young man just got his degree and walked by. The person next to me leaned over and said, ``We are very proud. That young man is going into the United States Marines.'' At that very instant I thought to myself, could I look at his parents if we lose this young man in Bosnia? Could I look at his parents eye- to-eye and tell them that the loss of their son was necessary for the national security of the United States of America? Could I look them in the eye and tell them that it was necessary to send their son over to Bosnia? Were we able to look them in the eye when we were over in Lebanon or Somalia? I venture to say before we give our support to this President to send those troops into Bosnia, we ought to consider what our response is going to be to those parents.

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

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Byron McKelvie of Cortez, CO, who recently retired after more than 30 years in the news business. As an acknowledgement of the many years of service Mr. McKelvie gave as an objective reporter and editor of the Cortez Sentinel and Montezuma Journal, those papers recently printed a wonderfully written farewell. I would like to insert that editorial into the Record, Mr. Speaker, and I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring Mr. McKelvie's devotion to his work, his community, and our country. [From the Cortez Sentinel, Sept. 9, 1995] There's an old joke about a little boy whose parents were very concerned that he could not talk. He seemed to function quite well in every other way, and the years went by until, lo and behold, one night at the supper table an amazing thing occurred. ``This roast beef is burnt,'' he said, quite clearly. His parents and siblings were amazed. ``Jimmy,'' they said, ``you can talk! Why have you never said anything before?'' ``You never burned the roast beef before,'' he said. That's the way the newspaper business works; until we publish something disagreeable, every one of our thousands of readers remain silent. Much of an editor's time is spent fielding complaints about not printing enough information, printing too much information, printing information too soon or too late, and occasionally but not nearly as often as one might think, printing incorrect information. Newspaper work is thankless, but the time has come to say thanks to a man who has spent much of his life contributing to the public exchange of information. Byron McKelvie retired this week, after 36 years in the news business, most of them at Cortez Newspapers. First as a reporter and columnist and then as editor, he has been responsible for shining a clear light on issues of great importance to Montezuma County. While covering topics too numerous to list, his primary area of expertise has been water issues. He reported the development of the Dolores project from the early 1960s until its fruition, and he accomplished the delicate balancing act required of an objective reporter who was also an ardent supporter. Writers are often remembered for the subjects about which they've written, but the true story of a newspaper man's career is the story of line after line of copy, year after year of deadlines, meeting after meeting to attend, newspaper after newspaper after newspaper to put out. That's why the profession is called journalism, because a newspaper done well is a journal of life in its community. A newspaper is not a collection of stories, but thousands of chapters in a single story. For 8 years as this newspaper's editor, ``Mac'' has been responsible for telling that story. His accuracy, fairness, persistence and dedication are appreciated by his readers and by those of us who follow in his footsteps. Thanks, Mac. Cortez and Montezuma County will miss you, and so will the Sentinel and the Journal, and myself.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like, during the brief few minutes that I have to address, to talk about Medicare. Obviously, that is the issue of the day. It is obviously the issue of the year. It is an issue that we need to become more acquainted with, if you are not already well acquainted with it. I would like to very briefly go over the history of Medicare, talk about the question of whether or not Medicare is in trouble, talk about why it is in trouble, talk about what we are doing as far as the solution and what is the best bipartisan solution to do something to solve the Medicare crisis that we have in this country. Medicare was created in 1965, and it is a product of the Democratic Party, and it was a good product when it was created. Today, if we can reform Medicare, it will return to being a good product. In 1965, when the Democrats created Medicare, the Republicans helped them. The Republicans voted for it. The Democrats controlled the House. Is Medicare in trouble today? It is clearly in trouble. There is a nonpartisan group of trustees which oversees Medicare. That group of trustees issued a report in April of this year. By the way, three of those trustees were appointed by President Clinton. That report said in April this year, ``If you do not do something about Medicare, this program will be bankrupt in 7 years. This program will cease to exist financially in 7 years. You cannot wait until tomorrow. You cannot wait until next year. You cannot wait until 3 years from now to save this program. You have got to take action today.'' Why is it in trouble? There are several reasons, four right off the top: First, people are living longer. In 1965, a 65-year-old gentleman or 65-year-old senior could expect to live 14.9 years more. In just a simple span of 30 years, a 65-year-old person now can expect to live 17.5 years longer. What is the second reason that Medicare is in trouble? The recipients, the people that benefit from Medicare, are getting more out of the system than they put into the system. On average, an average couple on Medicare draws about $111,000 more out of the system than they put into the system. We have more retirees than we do in proportion to workers. For example, when Medicare first came about, there were 5.6 workers for every retired person. Today there are only 3.3 workers for every retired person. This spells trouble. A fourth reason, we have got a lot of fraud in the system, and I can give you examples, and some of the people that are opposing changes in Medicare, if they are honest with you, will also give you examples. The system has grown so massive that fraud is abundant within the system. Inefficiency is abundant within the system. We learned in the last few days, and I think it is driven by politics, people that want to maintain the status quo, they want to make all the people of America believe that there is not trouble with Medicare, that we do not need to worry about Medicare, the solution that is being proposed, one is a Republican solution, and they do not talk about bipartisan solutions. It is a Republican solution, and it is going to throw the seniors out in the street. What a bunch of baloney. Tell those people to get real. Tell them to get their heads out of the sand. We need a solution. Let me quote from an article called ``Medicare Mistake.'' This is written by a Democrat. Last year he was a Democrat Congressman from Minnesota. Today Medicare is facing a financial crisis. Democrats are playing politics instead of coming up with constructive solutions. Democrats in the United States Congress have not only opposed Republican reform initiatives, they have also refused to embrace the savings identified in President Clinton's plans. Democrats moved from being the majority party to being the minority party. This change, however, does not mean that Democrats should also move from being a responsible party to a irresponsible party. Ladies and gentlemen, if you do not want to help us reform Medicare, you [[Page H 10032]] are, in my opinion, being irresponsible. This article was written by a Democratic Congressman from last year. What I urge all of us in this Chamber to do is join with us next week in this debate. Join with us to find a bipartisan solution, and if you do not have a solution, do not get in the way. Work with us, join with us, and let us save Medicare for every citizen of this generation and let us save Medicare for every citizen of the next generation.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. I thank the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, when will the gentlewoman recognize the fact that the Medicare Program is in very serious trouble? The President's trustees themselves have said that that program will be broke by the year 2002. Is it the theory of some of the people--mind you, not all of the Democrats are opposing this. We have some bipartisan support to save Medicare, to rescue Medicare, to preserve Medicare. But there are some people out there who, by the way, do not have a plan of their own, who, by the way, do not talk about solutions, all they talk about is how do we use scare tactics, how do we scare the Republicans, how do we win the elections in November? Why do they not put that selfishness aside and talk about the senior citizens in such a way to save the Medicare Program for them, to preserve the Medicare Program for them? Sure it is easy to criticize the first person out of the foxhole. We have been willing to take that leadership challenge. We are willing to be the first people out of the foxhole, because if somebody does not do it, Medicare is going to go bankrupt. There are a lot of my colleagues who did the same kind of yelling and pulled the same kind of tactics on the deficit, a deficit that accumulates at a rate of $35 million an hour. They hid their head in the sand, they told the American people, ``Ignore it, ignore it, it's not happening, it's not happening, it's not happening,'' and they became convinced that some of the American people were becoming convinced that the deficit was not a problem. Look where we are today. Look at the suffering that the American people have today because this Congress did not take the responsibility of running a balanced budget in the last 25 years. But to my colleagues on the House floor, we are going to face exactly the same kind of crisis with Medicare if we do not accept that responsibility. If you do not like the plan we have got, come out with a solution. Do not spend our fine time tonight addressing the people in this House, our colleagues, telling them criticism after criticism, quoting Webster's Dictionary. Go look up the word ``solution'' in Webster's Dictionary. That is where we ought to be working, Democrats, Republicans, unaffiliated. Let us all work for a solution. I think it can work. I want Medicare saved. I want it rescued. I want it kept safe. My dear colleague from the State of New Jersey, same kind of thing, same kind of rhetoric. Stand on this House floor, tell the American people that the seniors are going to go without health care, that they will not get to choose their doctors, mislead all you want, be inaccurate as you want, put in a scare tactic and ignore the true problem, that problem being that if we do not do something with Medicare, my colleagues, this thing is going to go belly up. It is not going to go belly up 20 years from now. It is going to go belly up while many of you are still serving in this House. It is our obligation, a fundamental responsibility of our duty to this country, to save that program, to save the senior citizens, to make sure that senior citizens of this country do have the medical attention that is necessary. When we are done with that, we have got a lot of other things that we need to address, the deficit. And we are trying to address it. I think we will get it done. I am optimistic we are going to be able to save Medicare. I am used to people criticizing and never joining the team. We have got a lot of people that like to ride the wagon and not pull it. If some of my colleagues preceding me speaking tonight would instead help pull the wagon instead of trying to get a ride on it or sitting on the side criticizing why we are not getting that wagon out of deep mud, we may not be able to get it out. If some of my colleagues who spoke earlier come up with some solutions, work with us in a bipartisan fashion, we can pull that wagon out of the mud, and we can save the program.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, shame on you, to my colleague from the fine State of Florida. What are you trying to do utilizing these scare tactics? You know they are inaccurate. You know they are false. I just went to the Webster's dictionary. You like to quote the Webster dictionary. Let us quote another word out of the Webster's dictionary, called ``save.'' Save means to rescue, save means to keep safe. Save means to preserve. Do you think this is going to go away if you put your head in the sand? Do you think if you tell American people enough times that we are going to throw seniors out in the streets, that people are going to go hungry, that there is not going to be medicine provided by this fine and great country of ours, that they are going to begin to ignore the crisis that we have in Medicare? When are you going to come to your sense that this thing is going broke? Your President, my President, has. He appointed trustees and they came out and said if we do not do something about this program by the year 2002---- announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I am inquiring is this a 1-minute? What is the period of time being granted to the gentleman?

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 223 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. House Resolution 223 is a straight-forward resolution. The proposed rule merely waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. This resolution was reported out of the Committee on Rules by voice vote. Mr. Speaker, the conference report on H.R. 1817, the legislation making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1996 is critical legislation. This conference report appropriates $11.2 billion in fiscal year 1996, the same as the House-passed bill, and $2.5 billion more than in fiscal year 1995. Additionally, 40 percent of the funds in the bill are appropriated for family housing. Furthermore, $3.9 billion, 35 percent of the total bill, is appropriated for base realignment and closure. I urge my colleagues to support the rule as well as the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 50 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am excited about the legislation. It is time to move on to the legislation in regards to that. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I commend the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], for coming to the Committee on Rules and asking for an open rule. Second of all, I do not think we can overstate the importance of this legislation. This Federal Government spends $600 million, over $600 million a day in acquisitions, $600 million a day. We have got to have a system that minimizes the waste and maximizes the efficiency of the system to acquire or to make those type of acquisitions. So I think that it is extremely important that we continue to support this kind of legislation, and I look forward to some of the amendments that we are going to debate. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\2/3\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis].

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the chairman of the committee, and I appreciate his involvement.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 219 is a noncontroversial resolution. The proposed rule is an open rule providing for 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. After general debate, the bill shall be considered as read for amendment under the 5 minutes rule. The resolution provides that the bill be considered by title rather than by section, and it provides that the first two sections and each title shall be considered as read. The rule waives points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with section 302(f) and 308(a). Additionally, points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute for the failure to comply with clause 5(a) of rule 21 or section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. The chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Mr. Clinger, was kind enough to provide the Committee on Rules with a explanation of the waivers that has been included in the Rules Committee report. The resolution allows the Chair to accord priority recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record, and the Chair may postpone votes in the Committee of the Whole and reduce votes to 5 minutes, if those votes follow a 15-minute vote. Furthermore, at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, Chairman Clinger, requested an open rule for this legislation. This open rule was reported out of the Committee on Rules by voice vote, without any opposition. Under the proposed rule, each Member has an opportunity to have their concerns addressed, debated, and ultimately voted up or down by this body. Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation, the Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995 is critical legislation. Each year the Federal Government spends about $200 billion on goods and services, ranging from weapons systems to cleaning supplies. The current system costs too much and is blanketed with redtape. The Secretary of Defense has found that, on average, the Government pays an additional 18 percent on what it buys solely because of requirements it imposes on its contractors. Additionally, the Government's own administrative costs are astronomical. The Government's contracting officials are often mandated to follow step-by-step prescriptions that increase staff and equipment needs. In today's tight budgetary climate we need to get the most for each dollar we spend. I believe this legislation is a step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support the rule as well as the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I sumbit for the Record the following material from the Committee on Rules.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 219 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, regular order.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, regular order.

Mr. McINNIS. Regular order.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, Members, I would like to talk to you tonight about the situation in Bosnia and as I see the situation in Bosnia. I have spent a great deal of time since a high school graduation a couple of months ago studying exactly what the issues are that we have on the conflict in Bosnia and let me tell you what inspired me to take a closer look at exactly what kind of commitment our President has made over there in that country, what objectives we have in that country, and what results we can expect as the result of our intervention in that country. Mr. Speaker, what inspired me to do it was when I was sitting on the platform of a graduation, having just spoken to the graduation class, and a young man, 18 years old, as he was walking across the stage to get his diploma, the person sitting next to me said, ``That young man is going into the Marine Corps, and he is proud.'' He is 18 years old and before long he could find himself committed to a country which he has never seen, probably never heard of, for a commitment that is unclear to me and unclear, I think, to many citizens in this country. If that young man lost his life in his military service in the country of Bosnia, would I be able to go to his family, go to his mother and his father, and tell them that their son's life, or in some cases their daughter's life, was necessitated for the national security interests of this country? The answer to that is ``no,'' and I think it is clearly ``no.'' That is what has driven me to spend a few moments with you tonight to talk to you about the situation in Bosnia. Of course, the President has led you to believe that there are several objectives that they hope to obtain in Bosnia. One is humanitarian aid. Clearly, that has been an absolute disaster. The humanitarian aid has been few and far between. It has been scarce. The winter months have kept it out. A lot of people over there are suffering, because that humanitarian aid does not make it there. Then the other purpose they come up with is an objective to moderate the war. United States involvement through the United Nations is not moderating that war. Take a look at the headlines in the last couple of days. [[Page H 7685]] The other one is to pursue a diplomatic settlement. It is not going to happen. Do you know that war in Bosnia has been going on for over a thousand years? It was going on before Columbus set sail for the New World. And never in the history of this country have we successfully intervened in a civil war, and that is exactly what is going on in Bosnia. We have never successfully intervened in the civil war of another country, and this will not be an exception. I think the elements we have to look at before we commit any further money or troops or time to Bosnia really is three- and fourfold: One, do we have a national security interest in Bosnia? The answer is no. Number two, do we have a clear objective? When we went to Kuwait, we had a clear objective. Iraq had invaded Kuwait. We had a border. We know that one party had gone over a border that they were not supposed to go over. Do we have that kind of objective in Bosnia? The answer is no. What is another objective? Are our allies facing a national security threat in Bosnia? The answer is no. Is there an economic threat to our country because of the civil war in Bosnia? The answer is no. My opinion is, there is no clear objective in Bosnia. I think we have to take a look at what kind of commitment the President is willing to make. First of all, the President relies on the United Nations. Mr. Speaker, take a look at this headline. And by the way, that number has gone up in the last couple of days. It says, ``United Nations, for the 78th Time, Condemns the Serbs.'' Folks, the United Nations is nothing more than a paper tiger. What is going to happen is, the United Nations is going to be put in there in a stronger and more forceful way and it is going be the United States of America carrying that burden. It is going to be our young sons or daughters or grandsons and granddaughters that are going to be in Bosnia fighting a war that cannot be won. What happens if we do find peace in Bosnia? The only way we can do it is to make a massive commitment of military ground troops, may be at least 100,000 troops. And the worst thing about it is, we are going to have to keep them there. What happens if we do get that peace? How are we going to keep it? The only way we can keep it is a long-term military commitment, and this country is not prepared to make that kind of commitment with military ground troops in the country of Bosnia. What do I suggest we do? I think it is fairly complicated, but rather simple on its face. One, lift the arms embargo on the Bosnian Moslems. Let them have a fair fight. What we have done is gotten engaged in a fight where we have tied the arms behind their back of one party in the fight and let the other one go at it. We need to pull out of Bosnia. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the time. I urge that we pull immediately out of Bosnia and lift the arms embargo.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 17, 1995, due to severe thunderstorms between Chicago and Washington, DC which delayed the scheduled arrival of my flight, I regrettably missed a series of rollcall votes which occurred as I was returning from the Third District of Colorado.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let us start out, the gentleman from Oregon states that the President's recommendation did not include construction. The gentleman is wrong on that. The President did include construction. The President supports this, Bruce Babbitt supports it, there are a lot of people in support for this, except for the Sierra Club. Why are they in support of it? It is because we have a treaty with the native Americans. Let me read a letter, one of the most moving letters I have read. This is from the Southern Ute Indian Tribal Council, from the chairman: After reading the article on the Animas-La Plata Projection the June 29, 1995, edition of The Washington Post, I knew how my ancestors must have felt when the United States government repeatedly broke treaties with the Colorado Ute Indians. First in 1863, then in 1868, 1873 and, finally, in 1880. With each treaty, the homelands of the Utes were reduced in size. Finally, in 1880, Congress confiscated all of the Ute lands in Colorado--over one-third of the state of Colorado. In the 1930's, a small remnant of our aboriginal homelands in Southwestern Colorado were restored to tribal ownership. Now, The Washington Post suggests that the United States government breach the agreement that was entered into in 1988. At that time, the Colorado Utes chose to negotiate rather than litigate and entered into another treaty, or contract, with America, in return for deferring the Colorado Utes' senior Winters water claims on the rivers in Southwestern Colorado that cross the reservation. Congress and then President Reagan said, ``We will build the Animas-La Plata Project. The Utes will have wet water--not paper water rights.'' Upon passage of the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act, the legislation was hailed as a model for all tribes to follow--negotiate, do not litigate. Since passage, the States of Colorado, New Mexico, the water districts, the municipalities, and the Indian tribes, have been strangled in a swamp of red tape and bureaucratic backpeddling. Now comes The Washington Post, not unlike the Indian givers of the last century. Do not honor our commitment to the Indians. Ignore the trust responsibility the United States government has under the Constitution of the United States. Sacrifice the Indian water claims on the alter of economics. It is too expensive to build the Animas-La Plata. Let's give he Indians ``wampum'' instead of water. My ancestors were all too familiar with the ``beads for Manhattan'' mentality of the early Indian traders. Colorado Ute Indian tribes honorably negotiated the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act, which mandates construction of the Animas-La Plata Project. In his inaugural message to the Congress, President Bush said ``great men, like great nations, must keep their promises. The Colorado Ute Indian tribes expect this great nation to keep is promise and construct the Animas-La Plata Project.'' [[Page H 6794]] Above everything else, the number one issue that we have to face as Members of the United States Congress and on this very amendment that is in front of us today is will we or will we not honor our treaty agreement with the native Americans. If you vote yes on this amendment, you once again walk away from the native Americans of this country. Vote ``no'' on DeFazio.

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