Michael Oxley

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I also am in support of this legislation. I also support the amendment en bloc and want to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln] for her good work on this and also the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns], a member of our committee. These amendments make a good deal of sense. They track the specifics of this bill very well. I also want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] for his work on this.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Pennsylvania is absolutely right. This is a status quo amendment. If you are happy with the existing status quo as far as regulations are concerned, then you want to support this amendment. But let me read the language of the Roemer amendment: ``Nothing in this act creates any right to judicial or administrative review, nor creates any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other person.'' Then it goes on to say, ``If any agency action is subject to judicial or administrative review under any other provision of law, the adequacy of any certification or other document prepared pursuant to this Act, and any alleged failure to comply with this Act, may not be used as grounds for affecting or invalidating such agency action * * *.'' It essentially means bureaucrats, keep on turning out those regulations, and we do not have any way if this amendment passes to have any accountability whatsoever. I think that is a travesty. We basically have rejected this argument last night in the Brown amendment, and I think that this is essentially part of the Brown substitute. It should be rejected just like the Brown substitute was last night, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply point out there is no difference between serving on a peer review panel and having expert witnesses in court. We have expert witnesses in court day after day in this country. Many of them are paid for their services, but they provide expert testimony. They are not going to foul the process by the fact they become expert witnesses. We have to understand in the peer review process, Mr. Chairman, that is what experts are for, to give their best information. Nothing is withheld from the public. They understand that they have to reveal their employment and whatever particular ax they may have to grind. But that I think is a cynical attempt on the part of the sponsors of the amendment to basically say anybody who has any interest in the issue is somehow going to take advantage of that and take advantage of the system. That is just an entirely unrealistic viewpoint of what this peer review process is all about. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. OXLEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, if I could take back my time, I guess essentially the gentleman says that he is satisfied with the status quo and what is going on in terms of what is happening out in the regulatory world. This bill is designed to limit and to get some common sense back in this regulatory process. If the gentleman would concede to me that he is willing to allow the existing regime to take place in all those statutes he has mentioned, I would say, fine, let us have an argument about that. But do not try to essentially gut this particular bill and say we are going to rely on the existing statutes, when in fact those existing statutes, particularly the regulations that have emanated from them, have been a tragedy, have gone far beyond even the necessity for what the bill called for, the original bill called for, and in my estimation your amendment really does damage the bill.

Mr. OXLEY. I am pleased to yield to my friend, the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. [[Page H2325]] Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I have great respect for the two gentlemen offering the amendment, but I have to say that, based on the debate we had last night, this is more of the same. This bill, not the amendment but the bill, is about accountability. It is about making the regulators accountable to somebody. The reason we are here today is because the regulators over these last 40 years have been essentially unanswerable to anybody when these regulations come pouring out of the Federal Register. So the bill is about trying to get some accountability in the process, and I fear, and I know, that this amendment basically strips away that accountability and allows those regulators to run roughshod over businesses and industry in this country that are trying to create jobs and trying to create products. My friend, the gentleman from Indiana, I think, is in error and totally misrepresents or misreads the bill or the provisions in the bill when he says that we are going to provide more than one bite of the apple. Let me refer the gentleman to the language in title IV under Judicial Review, the section he seeks to amend. I quote as follows from line 7: ``The court with jurisdiction to review final agency action under the statute granting the agency authority to act shall have jurisdiction to review.* * *'' Then it goes on in line 13 again to talk about final agency action, and that indeed is the target here that we are trying to emphasize. This is really a business-as-usual amendment for the bureaucrats, and I am sure that most of the Members have probably gotten some entreaties from the bureaucrats asking them to support this amendment. By the way, Mr. Chairman, this amendment was offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rush] in our committee. It was defeated on a bipartisan vote. I think this amendment, if it were to be adopted, would essentially gut this bill. It would make it unenforceable and would provide no particular accountability. There is no hammer for some kind of regulation unless we have judicial review. Judicial review is really at the heart of what we are talking about.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation. The Risk Assessment and Cost-benefit Act of 1995 achieves two fundamental objectives. First, the bill ensures that the system of assessing risks and communicating that information to decision makers in the public is objective, unbiased and informative. Second, it ensures that the Federal regulatory process has an enforceable system that considers the incremental costs and benefits of each significant option for every piece of major legislation. I think that makes good common sense in the sense of common sense legal reform that we are trying to bring about. Mr. Chairman, I had an opportunity to look at the Wall Street Journal just last week in which I found a very interesting column that was titled ``In Search of Zero Risk.'' It was written by a Kathryn Kelly, a principal of ERM--Environmental Toxicology International in Seattle, WA, who had some interesting points to make in terms of what we are looking at in our existing environmental standards. She says the ``acceptable risk'' criterion on which much of the current environmental regulation is premised has no basis in scientific fact, has received no serious review, and was in fact ``pulled out of a hat.'' At issue is the so-called ``one-in-a-million'' standard of acceptable risk for environmental contaminants. people that were involved in this risk assessment and how they came to this one-in-a-million risk. I think the Members will find it interesting. She says, ``What is the origin of this criterion which has cost society billions of dollars? In 1991 my firm set out to solve this mystery. We contacted officials from the Bush White House, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, and activist groups such as Greenpeace. The result, no one, not even the very Federal officials who currently use the one-in-a-million standard, knew what it was based on.'' A sample of the responses: ``My mind is a complete blank.'' ``My, what an interesting question.'' ``It is an economic criterion, whatever that means.'' ``It is based on the chance of being hit by lightning, which is one in a million.'' ``It was a purely political decision made by several of the major agencies behind closed doors in the 1970's. I doubt very much you will get anyone to talk to you about it.'' Our personal favorite: ``You really shouldn't be asking these questions.'' This from one of the Federal agencies. Now, I ask you, does the response from these so-called agencies make sense whatsoever in the real world? If you look at the statutes that we are dealing with, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the recent alar scare, the recent flap over asbestos in schools, you have to say to yourself, we have gone far too much in the wrong direction in trying to set these particular standards. It is unconscionable for a school district the size of mine in a town of 35,000 people to have to spend over $3 million removing asbestos from the school system that was found later to be perfectly safe, and was in fact safer had they left it alone than if they tried to get it out and put it back in the air. Or let us look at the Clean Air Act. You talk about a political decision. All of us remember, of course, the study that was commissioned where we spent over $600 million to study clean air, and particularly acid rain. I am glad to see my friend from California show up, because he was responsible for this mishmash that is the Clean Air Act. We had this NAPAP report. The NAPAP report supposedly was going to give us the information we needed to craft a good and effective clean air bill. What happened? In the tradition of the Congress, ready, fire, aim, the Congress actually passed a clean air bill before the NAPAP report came out. When the NAPAP report came out several months later, it was found that we were clearly killing a fly with a sledgehammer. That has meant in my home State of Ohio an increase already of 14 percent for my electric rates for my constituents and constituents of other Ohio Members. Now, I ask you, does that really make any sense? Can you stand here and make a legitimate argument that after the NAPAP report came out, that the clean air bill, particularly as it related to SO2 made any sense? This is a good bill, it is a fair bill, it is balanced, it makes sense for America, and let us get on with it. Mr. Chairman, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act of 1995 achieves two fundamental objectives. First, the bill ensures that the system of assessing risks and communicating that information to decisionmakers and the public is objective, unbiased and informative. Second, it ensures that the Federal regulatory process has an enforceable system that considers the incremental costs and benefits of each significant option for every piece of major regulation. The biggest problem faced in preparing this legislation is that so many early laws simply provide for, or even allow for, these rules of reason. The bill states that three rules of reason must be met notwithstanding prior law. The act requires Federal agencies to certify that: (1) risk assessments and cost analyses are objective and unbiased; (2) the incremental risk reduction or other benefits of a major rule will be likely to justify, and be reasonably related to, the incremental costs; and (3) that the regulation is either more cost-effective or provides more flexibility to State, local, or tribal governments or regulated entities than the other options considered. I believe these are sound and reasonable principles. The current costs of Federal regulatory programs are estimated between $430 and $700 billion and increasing every day. Yet, Congress has never in any significant way reformed a Federal regulatory program to consider sound risk assessments and incremental cost-benefit analysis. Real reform means you must supersede the inconsistent old requirements to the extent they are not reasonable. We know this is a novel concept in a legislative body that has only added more regulatory programs and to a Federal bureaucracy defending its own weak programs. Why should we preserve a system based on biased risk assessments? Why should we preserve a system where costs are unjustified or unreasonable? Why should we preserve a system where regulations are inflexible or not cost-effective? Simply put, if the bureaucrats can't justify their rules, we should not continue to add more and more regulations with major costs. The debate over the last number of years has revealed strong differences among some Members about the role of the Federal Government and risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. The view from outside the Washington beltway, from Governors, mayors, school boards and small and large businesses, is that there is a serious problem concerning the credibility and impact of Federal regulatory programs. A number of Members, however, believe that rules which increase annual costs between $25 and $100 million should not be subject to cost-benefit requirements. Many of these same Members advocate that risk and cost-benefit legislation should essentially be unenforceable. In my view, such an approach would shield the Federal bureaucracy from real accountability and effectively neuter the legislation. I am further reminded of how those who oppose judicial review for the Federal bureaucrats were eagerly prepared to impose penalties under the Toxic Substances Control Act on ordinary homeowners during real estate transactions. Last year I opposed Radon legislation which placed requirements on ordinary homesellers and even those who rented out rooms. Republicans argued that such an approach intruded on State law and would swamp the Federal courts with millions of violations during ordinary real estate transactions. We asked EPA to justify its support when the possible penalties were as high as $10,000 for failing to hand out a hazard information pamphlet. I offered an amendment to remove this provision, but the Administration and the Democratic leadership prevailed. Moreover, the League of Conservation Voters scored my amendment as an anti- environmental vote. I think I can guarantee that such an approach to expand the Federal regulatory octopus to ordinary homeowners will not occur this Congress. I am struck, however, by the double standard and the passionate defense of the Federal bureaucracy by the same Members so willing to impose Federal penalties and litigation on ordinary homeowners. Congress has simply added new regulatory program upon new regulatory program. America is long over due for real change. I strongly support H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act. The bill provides a strong, enforceable system of accountability, disclosure, peer review, and careful analysis of regulatory alternatives. This is a critical building block for Federal regulatory programs to ensure that our national resources reduce real risks and set realistic priorities.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule to accompany H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act of 1995. With the adoption of this rule, the House will take another important step toward implementing in the manner in which the Federal Government writes regulations to protect the public from certain health, safety, and environmental risks. I remind my colleagues that we have been working on this legislation for several years. In the previous Congress, we had a number of hearings on risk assessment and cost-benefit reforms. In 1993, the Senate passed risk assessment and cost-benefit language in the form of the so-called Johnson amendment by 90 votes. In early 1994, a bipartisan coalition of House Members defeated a restrictive rule that would not allow for consideration of similar amendments by a vote 227 to 191. Later in the year, the Walker amendment, which provided language requiring objective and unbiased risk assessments and comparisons, passed the House by a vote of 286 to 189. The criticism of the rule before us today is ironic when I remember how Superfund legislation was handled in the previous Congress. Last year, the Commerce Committee, with full administration support, passed a national risk protocol for Superfund and language requiring that the presentation of risk information be objective and unbiased. Those provisions created judicially reviewable and enforceable requirements. Yet that legislation went nowhere, because the Rules Committee would not issue a rule for fear that risk and cost-benefit amendments would be approved on the House floor. That is why I applaud the Rules Committee under Chairman Solomon's leadership for bringing forward this rule to allow open debate on risk assessment and cost-benefit legislation. I acknowledge that some differences remain today among Members of the House. There are differences on the threshold for regulations that should be subject to this legislation; there are differences on whether the requirements of this legislation should be judicially reviewable; and there are differences on whether the requirements of this bill should apply to existing regulations. The proposed rule provides sufficient time and opportunity to debate these differences and I urge my colleagues to support the rule.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Pennsylvania had it right, that is, it just did not get the job done. One hundred million dollars is not going to get the job done. There are a lot of people in my district and other districts around here who are very concerned about $100 million. They think $25 million makes a lot of sense and so do I.

Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am particularly concerned about providing a double standard, one for the regulators and another for everybody else. Let me read to you and the Members the language on compliance in the Brown squared substitute. It says: During a 3-year period beginning 1 year after the date of enactment of this act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall annually conduct a review to determine the extent of compliance by each covered Federal agency with the provision of this act and shall annually submit to Congress a report on such review. Essentially what we are saying is that the regulators can have their usual run at regulating with only apparently a drive-by windshield effort by the Comptroller to do that. That double standard, coupled with the lack of judicial review in the Brown squared substitute, would indicate that this is a very weak provision at best. Judicial review in the Brown substitute: Nothing in this act creates any right to judicial or administrative review or creates any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies employees or any other person. The adequacy of any document prepared pursuant to this act, and any alleged failure to comply with this act may not be used as grounds for affecting or invalidating such agency action. It is business as usual, folks, with all the regulators. They are just free and wild.

Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. OXLEY. I thank the gentleman for his comments, because that is exactly right, and it is the same old story, and the same old game, and the regulators will continue to regulate, and nobody is going to be able to check them unless we defeat this substitute. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have a list here of the Alliance for Reasonable Regulation, and I have a list of 35 organizations and companies throughout this country, everybody from Goodyear all the way down to small operations, and this includes the National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB. that supports our legislation and opposes any weakening efforts like the Brown substitute. I want to make certain that the Members understand that it is not just the major companies but small businesses throughout this country that are finally coming to realize that they are being put upon by these massive regulatory burdens that have cost us jobs and our competitiveness throughout the world, and that is really important to understand. I also want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that we want to maintain the $25 million threshold. We think that one of the major weaknesses in the Brown provision is to raise this threshold to $100 million. Now, I do not know about the Members on the other side of the aisle, but I know to a lot of people that we represent in small businesses and the like, $25 million is an awful lot of money, and while we may spill that much before breakfast around here in Washington, the fact is that is an important threshold that we want to maintain in the legislation that came out of our committee as well as came out of the committee of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the manufacturers and workers of Ohio on a noteworthy achievement. According to World Trade Magazine, the State of Ohio ranks No. 1 in the country in the number of businesses that export goods. Thanks in no small part to the policies of Governor Voinovich and the Ohio Department of Development, 67 percent of Ohio's manufacturing companies with over 100 employees exported products last year. Ohio has become a major player in the world economy. In the words of the magazine's editor-- This dispels the myth that Ohio is the capital of the Rust Belt. Ohio is one of the most progressive and forward thinking States in America in terms of export promotion. Mr. Speaker, I am a long-time supporter of free trade and international competition. I cannot tell you how gratifying it is to see Ohio leading the country in the global marketplace. This is proof positive that protrade policies at the State and national levels are benefiting Ohio's workers.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to first commend the Committee on the Judiciary for bringing this crime victims restitution bill to the floor today. It is not I think an accident that this is the first of several crime bills in which the new majority attempts to rewrite the crime bill of 1994. I applaud them for their efforts and for their foresight. Mr. Chairman, I obviously rise in support of H.R. 665, the Victim Restitution Act. This has been a long time coming for this Member. Five years ago, in the 101st Congress, I introduced the first mandatory victims' restitution bill into the Congress. Then minority leader, Bob Michel, and I offered an amendment to the 1990 crime bill on the floor of the House, and with Bob Michel's strong support, we passed that crime victims' restitution bill on a voice vote. Our good friend and colleague in the other body, Senator Don Nickles from Oklahoma, introduced a similar bill that was passed in the Senate, so we had a crime victims' restitution bill that had passed in the House, in the 101st Congress, passed in the Senate, and then somehow disappeared from the conference committee report. Lo and behold, that was to set the pattern for crime victims' restitution bills during the last 5 years. I think that is unfortunate, because this bill is essentially based on personal responsibility, saying to the bad guy, ``Look, not only do you have to that victim whole. That is, as a personal responsibility, you have violated not only the law of the land but you have violated some other individual or group of individuals and, therefore, you should have to be required to make that person whole.'' That is really what this provision is all about. So we fought and fought. Last year in the 1994 crime bill, same old stuff, introduced a bill, had 150 some cosponsors, bipartisan in nature. Went to the Committee on Rules and asked that the amendment be made in order. Guess what? The Committee on Rules, about midnight, essentially stiffed us one more time. We were not able to bring up crime victims' restitution, even though I had, again, the strong support of Bob Michel, and though he is no longer with us and has retired, I am sure that this is a proud day for him as we finally see this legislation on the floor and ultimately going to be enacted into law. This bill holds support for victims. It holds an offender accountable for his actions and strengthens some of his personal responsibilities, something that we have too little of today, society. I am just excited about the prospects for this bill. Let me say also to my friend from Florida, who has shown great leadership on this issue, that all of the crime victims' restitution organizations, the crime victims' groups that are all over the country, and I know he has some in his district, I have got some in my district, all of them for numerous years, at least 5 years since I have been involved in this project, have strongly endorsed mandatory crime victims' restitution. I think we owe it to those folks who have worked long and hard for this day to pass this legislation. I commend it to my colleagues.

Mr. OXLEY

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

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues another example of an unfunded mandate under the Clean Water Act which will cost my constituents millions of dollars. The issue is the proposed Great Lakes water quality rule from the U.S. EPA which is expected to be finalized in early March. The Great Lakes Critical Programs Act requires EPA to issue guidance concerning certain water quality regulatory procedures, and then requires the Great Lakes States to adopt requirements that are consistent with that guidance. However, when EPA issued its proposed guidance, that document was actually a binding regulatory mandate instead of the guidance that the act requires. If fact, EPA clearly indicated that it wants all of the State programs, to be identical to the Federal rule. EPA's intention to issue a binding regulation rather than guidance with respect to the Great Lakes is inconsistent with congressional intent. Also, by taking away any flexibility for a State to develop a program that is appropriate for its own situation, EPA would violate the basic federalism principles that are at the heart of the Clean Water Act. Again, the Federal Government would be imposing an unfunded mandate on the States. This mandate will result in unfunded compliance costs in excess of $2 billion per year and potential loss of 33,000 jobs without producing meaningful toxic reductions. Several cities in my district surveyed their own municipal water treatment operations and looked at the additional regulatory controls needed to control mercury under the proposed Great Lakes water quality rule. The survey, based upon mercury only, shows that it would cost Bucyrus, OH, population 14,000, $13.6 million to comply with the proposed rule. Mansfield, OH, population 50,000, would pay $29.1 million and Lima, OH, population 43,000, would pay $89 million. In terms of household taxes, the town of Lima has estimated an increase of $207 in taxes to pay for the costs of the water treatment program. In later years, as the rule is fully implemented, the town of Lima estimates that the household tax will increase to $1,147 per home per year. This is an incredible increase in local taxes for a federally mandated program from EPA. These costs are in addition to what Lima taxpayers already pay for safe drinking water controls and Clean Water Act controls on mercury. The Federal Government and EPA cannot expect towns like Lima to spend millions of additional dollars when the results will demonstrate little environmental improvement. EPA has simply gone too far. The 1986 reauthorization of the Clean Water Act did not ask EPA to propose a rule on these pollutants to improve the Great Lakes Basin. In fact, the act simply called for the EPA to issue guidance to the States surrounding the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes States want to fix the toxics problem, not just throw issued guidance which could be used in a flexible manner as the States choose. If we are to keep our promise we made with the people, we must not force the costs of the Great Lakes initiative on the cities and States. Including this initiative in the unfunded mandates reform would prevent if from being issued as a regulation. It is my hope that if we cannot resolve this matter today, Congress will move quickly to fix the Great Lakes water quality initiative. While well-intended, this proposal is an unproductive and expensive detour around the real environmental solutions.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] for this special order for Ed Madigan, and I have some prepared remarks, but I just would like to make a couple of personal comments. Ed was a long-time friend and mentor, and I know a lot of the members of the Ag Committee talked about his service on the Ag Committee, but he also had distinguished service for many years on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and I considered him one of my mentors when I came to the committee back in 1984. I found him to be truly the embodiment of what a public servant ought to be, one who did not take himself too seriously, but took his job very seriously, one who could spin a good story as well as anybody. I remember in one particular case we were asked to go to Camp David to be lobbied very heavily by the Reagan administration for the TEFRA bill. That was the bill that was going to try to restore some tax revenue after the big tax cut in 1981, and after we returned from Camp David that afternoon, the news media asked a lot of us there what was it all about, and they asked Ed Madigan. Particularly they said: ``We understand you're already in favor of TEFRA. Why did you go up to Camp David with all of these other folks who were allegedly undecided?'' And Ed, with that wry smile of his, said, ``I suspect I was a shill,'' and that was really the embodiment of his personality. I valued his friendship; I valued our service together on the committee. We will dearly miss Ed. Our best to Evelyn and the entire family. Our condolences, but with strong memories of Ed as a great personality here in this House who was well respected and well liked by everyone he served with. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the name of Ed Madigan's hometown can give you an idea of the type of leadership qualities and personal attributes he possessed. As a native of Lincoln, IL, Ed had become an influential member of the State in just 6 years. He made the move from the Illinois House of Representatives, where he had served since 1966, to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1972. Ed embodied all of the characteristics of an admirable Republican leader. His honesty and integrity made him a devoted public servant. His shrewdness and enthusiasm made him effective. His qualities are at the foundation of Republican ideals, and by using these attributes, Ed earned the trust of his colleagues as well as our respect. Ed was a great legislative strategist. His behind the scenes style of compromise earned him the position of U.S. Agriculture Secretary under President Bush. Prior to becoming secretary, Ed was selected to 10 terms in the U.S. House where he served in several leadership positions, including chief deputy minority whip and chairman of the House Republican Research Committee. Over the course of his political years, Ed used his influence to promote the vast interests of his Illinois constituents through service on the Youth and Families Committee and the Veterans' Affairs Committee. As the agriculture committee's ranking Republican, he was one of the few farm-state Republicans willing to apply free market principles to crops that grew in his district. Also, he was instrumental in many decisions concerning health and environmental issues, as well as transportation issues. When Ed began his life in the Nation's Capital, he said he had but one goal: ``I have the ambition to be an influential Member of Congress and to use that influence to bring credit to myself and to help people.'' I think we can all agree that his goal was achieved.