Earl Pomeroy

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to correct some absolute misstatements by the preceding speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania. The administration has proposed nothing that involves the use of pension in any high risk venture. Nothing has been proposed in that respect.

Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, I will explain it to you, so listen. No investment may be used unless it is equal in return and risk to any other investment to be made by a prudent investor. That is the only standard of consideration by the Treasury Department. Let me proceed with what has been proposed in the budget that every member of the majority, with a few exceptions, voted for: a raid on pension plans that has been estimated to bring in 40, that has been estimated to allow $40 billion in pension fund assets to fly out of pension funds. During the 1980's we saw pension funds being used to finance hostile takeovers of corporations. It was the money of the pensioners that was used to finance these pensions. On three different occasions Congress enacted safeguards so this could never happen again. Without a hearing, Ways and Means removes all of those safeguards for a windfall window for corporations to make a pension grab up until July 1, 1996, and a 6.5-percent penalty thereafter. What will happen is one of three scenarios: Hostile takeovers kick in again, they raid the corporations, they use the workers' pension funds to finance the takeover; second scenario, a corporation wanting to fend off a hostile takeover, caring about their workers but wanting to fend off a hostile takeover, has to take out of the pension funds to remove themselves as a target; or, third, a corporation that is in financial trouble begins to dip in the cookie jar, the pension funds reserved for the workers. I know about this. I for 8 years regulated the solvency of insurance companies. I am the only Member of this body that has spent 8 years regulating solvency. This is a solvency protection issue. It goes at the heart of the pension security of millions of working men and women across this country. When this came before the floor of the Senate, in their budget debate, they rejected this ill-thought-out proposal by a vote of 95 to 4. We urge this body to approve this and yield to the Senate position, restore worker pension security.

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

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POMEROY. Your facts are not correct.

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

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, this portion of the budget represents the deepest cuts and most drastic changes proposed in agriculture in decades. You would have thought that the Freedom to Farm Act might have warranted very thorough consideration. In fact, it did not have a single hearing in the Committee on Agriculture. Basically, House leaders told rural America, this is what we are going to do, now sit down, shut up, and take it. But we did not take it in the House Committee on Agriculture. We defeated the proposal. However, House leaders had the audacity to move this into the budget in spite of the House Committee on Agriculture rejection. Shame on all of you who have participated in such a vicious charade for rural America. I am not surprised that for most of this debate there is not a single Republican House Committee on Agriculture member here to defend what has been done.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] for yielding this time to me. The budget before us is truly historic in its dimensions, and perhaps that is the only thing we will all agree about in the course of this debate today. As I see it, the debate between us is not about whether we ought to balance the budget. I think there is broad agreement we ought to move towards that goal. The debate is how we do it, and here is where the conflicting priorities of the parties become very clear. This budget plan is built on a fundamentally flawed premise, that we can balance the budget while financing a tax cut primarily benefiting the most privileged among us. This makes as much sense as a family resolving to get their household's finances in order just as soon as they spend the weekend in Paris once more on that old MasterCard. The consequences of the Republican tax plan are enormous. The wealthiest people in this country get a windfall while working and middle-income Americans lose ground. The tax cut reflects that the driving priority in this budget is to assist the wealthy in becoming even wealthier, and to this end, they have sacrificed health programs for seniors, nutrition programs for kids, the safety net for family farmers, pension security for millions and millions of Americans. In order to accommodate the agenda of the privileged this budget makes devastating tradeoffs that pull support from those who need it and opportunity and hope from millions and millions of middle-class Americans. Make no mistake about it. The bottom line on this budget is more wealth for the richest, less help for the neediest, and reduced hope and opportunity for middle-income families. This bill is more than an historic budget, it is an historic and tragic mistake, on which if enacted will change the character of our great country.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was not present for Rollcall No. 717, the Farr fish habitat amendment. At the time of the vote, I was meeting with Gen. Ronald Fogelman, Chief of Staff for the U.S. Air Force, at the Pentagon regarding the Minot Air Force Base. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we are in a period of reevaluating that which the Federal Government ought to do and that which it no longer should do. I do not think at a time when weekly we see reports of damage or even loss of life due to severe weather, the American people believe the United States ought to get out of the business of helping Americans understand what is coming at them in light of dangerous or threatening weather. We are in a period of moving toward greater cost efficiency in weather forecasting. As various communities leave their old systems and move to new systems, they are entitled to the assurance that the quality of weather forecasting in their area will not be jeopardized, will not be diminished, and that is what the certification is all about. Let me give you a for instance, because I represent an area that has this problem before it right today: Williston, ND. Williston, ND, is scheduled to have its forecasting station come out. Five employees and one meteorologist will be moved. When this is accomplished, it will be the largest nonobstructed geographic area without radar coverage in the country, and in Williston, ND, let me [[Page H 9935]] tell you we have very, very severe weather conditions to deal with. We have been told that an automatic surface observing system is going to take care of our needs. We have been told that a system with radar 120 miles away in Glasgow, MT, and 130 miles away in Minot, ND, are going to cover the needs for the people living in the Williston area. We have been given this assurance notwithstanding the fact that 95 percent of all tornadoes, perhaps the very most dangerous life threatening circumstance we have to face, will be grossly underdetected by a radar system 130 miles away. A consulting radar meteorologist for Williston has found that radars over 100 miles away would be grossly inadequate for detection of winter snowstorms, tornado vortex signatures, microbursts, and gust fronts, all of which we have and all of which threaten life. Good, reliable weather forecasting is critical to everyone. When you live in a rural area that has the types of weather swings and the severity of weather conditions that we experience in North Dakota, it can literally be a matter of life and death. Do you come in from the farm to the city? Do the school buses run? We need reliable weather systems. If you are going to take from areas like Williston their weather forecasting station, then, by golly, you better be prepared to certify that we are not going to have a degradation of service. That is why I rise in strong support of the amendment before us and urge its adoption.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the so-called TEAM Act. Proponents of the TEAM Act claim that employer-employee cooperation is the objective of their legislation. But as even the supporters of the bill state, 80 percent of America's largest corporations already utilize employer-employee teams to improve workplace productivity. That fact is, current law allows the creation of employee involvement programs to explore issues of quality, productivity, and efficiency. So if teamwork is the goal, then this legislation is simply redundant. Unfortunately, the details of this legislation reveal that its effects are much more serious. The TEAM Act would fundamentally undermine the rights of workers by allowing companies to hand-pick employee representatives of their workers. The problem with such a situation is obvious to anyone who has ever held a job. All of us have known coworkers whose sole mission in life is to ingratiate themselves with the boss. In North Dakota, we call them brown-nosers. Whatever you call them, these people are the obvious choice of employers to represent the workers. Why? Because they are beholden to and serve the interests of the boss. I do not know of a workplace in America that would freely elect a patsy of the employer to represent their economic interests. [[Page H 9532]] So I urge my colleagues to vote for the Sawyer amendment, which clarifies the legitimate function of employee involvement programs to improve quality, productivity, and efficiency. But vote against this bill and preserve the right of workers to freely assemble, elect their own leaders, and promote their own economic interests.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this bill to designate the National Highway System [NHS]. When Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA], it directed the Federal Highway Administration to develop a national highway system prioritize our Nation's roadways. In these times of shrinking Federal budgets, our Nation must focus highway funds on our most heavily traveled roads. This bill to designate the NHS fulfills that objective. Mr. Speaker, by improving the Nation's most important transportation routes through the designation of the NHS, we can sharpen our competitive edge in international markets. In North Dakota, our farmers rely on high quality transportation routes to remain the most competitive producers in the world. To preserve and improve our competitive edge in agriculture, we must designate commodity transportation routes as national priorities. Again, the NHS bill accomplishes that goal. In addition to designating the NHS, this bill returns to the States important decisionmaking authority over transportation policy. An example, is the provision in the bill to repeal the Federal speed limit. I am an original cosponsor of legislation to repeal the Federal speed limit, and I am pleased it has been included in H.R. 2274. I believe that the individual States are in the best position to establish safe and appropriate speed limits based on local driving conditions. In North Dakota, we certainly enjoy more than [[Page H 9272]] our share of wide open spaces. A speed limit that may be appropriate for the congested Northeast corridor is not at all suitable for the Great Plains. A simple and proper remedy is to allow the States to decide. Today, Representative Lowey will offer an amendment which would require States to enact zero tolerance, laws that would make it illegal for underage drivers to drive with a blood-alcohol content of .02 or higher. Under the Lowey amendment, failure to enact a zero-tolerance law would result in the Federal Government withholding 5 percent of highway funds in 1999 and 10 percent thereafter. While I understand and support the intent of the Lowey amendment, I strongly object the imposition of a heavyhanded Federal sanction to achieve that end. I would certainly join with Representative Lowey in encouraging States to adopt tough, strict drunk-driving laws. However, I do not believe that the Federal Government should dictate legislation to the States under threat of Federal sanction. The Lowey amendment is inconsistent with the bill before us today which repeals Federal sanctions and returns power and decisionmaking authority to the States. Therefore, I reluctantly, yet strongly, urge my colleagues to oppose the Lowey amendment and support this bill to designate the National Highway System.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, as a Member of this body, all too often, I have seen debates involve pressing problems and yet no real solutions, no meaningful answers. I am dumbfounded at this debate today, because we are dealing with no meaningful problem, and certainly just a sham of a solution. Mr. Chairman, I have 3 minutes left, and I would yield to any Member of the [[Page H 8745]] majority side in support of this bill that can show me in the interpretive bulletin where the language is that would diminish in any way, in any way, once scintilla, one little bit, the standards of risk or standards of return that would jeopardize the pension funds in the way that have been outlined.

Mr. POMEROY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, I want to respond to the gentleman before my time lapses. I respect you and your work in ERISA, but I believe your answer is dead wrong. First, the standards of risk and return; the prudent person standards must be met before any other collateral considerations can be considered. And far from being a new standard, the interpretive bulletin is merely an attempt to codify what had been individually granted advisory opinions over the past 15 years tracking administrations of both parties. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] cannot show where in the text of the interpretive bulletin the standards have been relaxed. I used to serve on an investment board for the State of North Dakota. This is material I have worked with and that is why I resent so strongly the misinterpretations and mischaracter- izations of the investment bulletin. I will vote with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle this afternoon, as I sit here and listen to the debate, if they can show me where in the text we are doing anything relative to the prudent person standards, the guardians of risk and return, that has been pointed out. It cannot be done. This is nothing but legislation regarding a made-up problem.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues a letter written to me from the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States regarding the Voice of Democrary broadcast scriptwriting contest. Jennifer Schuler, a senior at Devils Lake High School from North Dakota, has been named a national winner in the 1995 Voice of Democracy Program for her essay entitled ``My Vision For America'' which emphasizes remembering the positive things in this world. I have included Jennifer's essay for the benefit of my colleagues. Bullets flagged down thirty protesters in front of the capitol. . . .(click) Four B-52 bombers flew over Kwait today. . .(click) A 7.1 earthquake struck southern California. . .(click) The mid-west estimates flood damage to have reached. . .(click) The World Trade Center was a evacuated today after a bomb blast. . . (click) Its hard to watch the news at night and come away with a positive outlook on what the future holds. I, like many other people, get caught up in the media's negative portrayal of the world. If we are so wrapped up in the negative, it closes us off to so many opportunities to see the good that is around us. A perfect example is Susan Smith; the woman who confessed to murdering her two children. The nation, perhaps even the world, was struck to the soul by this story. A shadow fell over the United States filling us with helplessness and now hinders us from seeing the good that so many people are giving. My vision is that people stop and take the time to see what is actually being accomplished for the better good of this nation. Look for the people who haven't given up on our country. Look at our teachers. Everytime that a teacher helps just one student understand, is another step forward. Look at the organizations dedicated to helping citizens of our own United States and the world. Consider for example, Mothers against Drunk Driving, or students against drunk driving. Everytime their message touches a parent or a child, chances are that someone will be spared from an alcohol related accident. What about UNICEF. Does anyone know what UNICEF stands for anymore? The Jerry Lewis Telethon or the March of Dimes. These organizations, too, are fighting for the people. The people of the United States. It's not just organizations who are making the world a better place. Individuals who donate organs, give up a half an hour of their time to tutor someone, or organize a program like Just Say No are all contributing to the positive side of America. Certainly our world is not a perfect place. It does have its share of problems. But rather than making these problems so large that they seem impossible or insurmountable, doesn't it make much sense to look at what has already been accomplished. There are many people who have not let the negativism of our country to pull them down. Would African American's have their rights and freedom if Martin Luther King, Jr. hadn't had the courage to bring his dream to life? Would women have won the right to vote if Susan B. Anthony had not held fast to her vision? The Wright Brothers may have not have even attempted to design or construct a plane if they had let the negativism and ridicule of their peers influence their vision that flight was possible. Without these visions, if people had not blocked out the negative, America would not be a safe haven for refugees and immigrants. Without a vision, America would international relations be possible? Take for example Space Station Alpha. Would this be an all-American project with closed doors to the world if someone had not had a vision? In reality, the U.S., Europe, Canada, Japan, and Russia have all bonded together to create Space Station Alpha. This station is a vision to our future. We all have visions of what we want America to accomplish. Some examples are world peace, hunger relief, a cure for Aids, or even a unified nation. But my vision is simple. All I ask is that we remember the good, while we're dealing with the bad.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, delay it; study it; review it: How many times has Congress dragged its heel and sidetracked legislation that the people of this country want, but well-placed inside lobbyists are desperately trying to stop? That is what the Coburn amendment represents, because the people of this country want more control over what is coming into their living rooms, but the Hollywood lobbyists are desperately trying to sidetrack the Markey amendment. The Coburn amendment is a diversion, political cover for those who otherwise would not have any good reason to tell the parents that they represent here in Congress why they voted against giving them the tool to keep pornography, to keep violence, to keep sex, off of the TV and the television programming coming into their living room. I have a little girl. There is so much I will not be able to protect her about, bad drivers, getting taunted in school. I can protect with the V-chip the television programming in my living room. Vote down the Coburn amendment, vote for the Markey amendment.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I find almost amusing the suggestion that this is somehow an antilobbying bill. As I walk down the halls coming over to the floor of the House, just like everyone else, I pass lobbyists, lots of lobbyists, but they are not lobbyists representing the homeless associations and nonprofit groups across the country. They are not lobbyists representing the nonprofit battered spouse shelters. They are lobbyists from the defense contractors. They are lobbyists from the highway contractors. They are lobbyists from the space station contractors. We have written them out of this exclusion. We do not deal with them at all. That is where the lobbying is coming from. I asked myself why in the world would we draw a distinction like that. Is there something about a space station lobbyist whose company makes their entire revenues from space station contracting that makes their advice on Federal legislation more valuable than coming from an advocate for a battered spouse who happens to donate her time helping victims of domestic violence? Why in the world would we draw a distinction like that? Shelters do not have a lot of PAC money. They do not support political action committees, but in fact the contractors do, the space station contractors do, the defense contractors do, the highway contractors do. That is why this mean-spirited amendment has been drawn to choke out the voices of those who cannot be heard and leaving unchecked the raw lobbying clout of some of the most mighty contractors in this country.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, in the history of this Chamber there have undoubtedly been some unbelievably hypocritical statements made from this well, but I do not think there are any more hypocritical statements ever made than those coming to the microphone professing to care about children, while supporting a bill that makes the mean- spirited, targeted cuts at programs essential for kids that this budget, this appropriations bill represents. Take for example the Healthy Start Program a program geared at reducing infant mortality. This country of ours ranks 20th in the world for infant mortality, and in different places in the country, places like the Native American reservations in North Dakota, we even rank behind the countries of Bulgaria, Cuba, and Jamaica, for God's sake, with infant mortality. Mr. Chairman, we have reduced infant mortality with Healthy Start by programs that have allowed little fellows like E.J. Chantell, to survive when he otherwise would not have made it. He came into this world with water on his brain and serious stomach disorders, but with Healthy Start, and his fighting spirit, E.J. is alive. He is going to make it. In fact we have taken 4 percent off of our infant mortality rates in the reservations in just 4 years. Why in the world would someone come to a mike professing to care about kids, while arguing for a program that cuts Healthy Start by 50 percent? Tomorrow's E.J. might die because of this cut, and no more hypocritical statement would be made to say that you are for kids while you take away the very programs that let them live.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues a letter written to me regarding the Conservation Reserve Program [CRP] by Rachel Heiser. Rachel Heiser participated in the seventh annual RespecTeen Speak for Yourself Program, and she was selected to represent North Dakota at the 1995 RespecTeen National Youth Forum in Washington, DC. She just completed the eighth grade at Simle Middle School in Bismarck, ND, and her letter emphasizes the benefits and importance of CRP. I have included Rachel's letter for the benefit of my colleagues. The Conservation Reserve Program (started in 1985) pays farmers not to farm highly erodible land for 10 years and convert it to perennial vegetation. CRP has been successful because farmers, taxpayers, wildlife and the environment all benefit. The Great Plains has been characterized as one of the most endangered ecosystems in North America. Populations of grassland-nesting birds have been declining faster than any other bird group. Now, because of CRP, many species of birds are making a great comeback. Ring-necked pheasant populations have more than doubled in several states. Increased pheasant populations in South Dakota attracted 48,000 non-resident and 80,000 resident hunters in 1993, spending $50 million. Grasshopper sparrows, lark buntings, and Eastern meadowlarks are increasing in areas with high CRP enrollment. Elk, Mule deer, white-tailed deer, and antelope have responded surprisingly well to CRP. In Idaho, Colombian sharp-tailed grouse, a candidate species for federal listing, is making a dramatic recovery on CRP lands. Three million additional ducks were produced in 1994 in the Dakotas and Montana because of CRP. CRP will provide up to $11.2 billion in overall environmental benefits during the life of the program. As you can see, CRP is a very important program when it comes to saving soil and providing grassland habitat. However, beginning this year, most of the grassland habitat created by CRP will be converted back to cropland without reauthorization of CRP. When all CRP contracts are terminated, commodity prices are expected to drop due to increased crop production leading to a significant reduction in farm income. CRP pays for itself by reducing surplus crops and thus support prices to producers. CRP is the only program that has restored many wildlife populations while saving taxpayers a bundle. Please help to reauthorize the CRP program.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, today I am supporting passage of the VA, HUD, Independent Agencies appropriations for fiscal year 1996. But I do so with reservation. Affordable, safe, clean housing is a basic need which eludes many low-income families and elderly individuals. We should not be making extreme cuts to housing programs as our elderly population increases and personal income erodes for the working poor. It is ironic that as we push more people into the at-risk population for becoming homeless, we cut homeless programs by almost half. I hope that my colleagues on the conference committee will be amenable to any increases suggested by their Senate counterparts. Additionally, I supported the Stokes-Boehlert amendment to the VA- HUD-Independent Agencies appropriations bill, which eliminated legislative language that would gut portions of the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Community Right-to-Know Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. If the amendment had been approved it would have protected both public health and the legislative process. Under the Stokes-Boehlert amendment the legislative process, to which we have grown accustomed in this country, would have been preserved. No matter what Members think about the details of the riders that would have been eliminated by the amendment, all should agree that the appropriations process is not the place to have a full and informed discussion of environmental policy. This appropriations process has robbed the public and this body of its chance to have a full and informed discussion of environmental policy.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me. I hate to my core the tragedy that is occurring in Bosnia. Twenty-two years ago I was an exchange student in Yugoslavia. It was a country coping reasonably well with its incredibly diverse culture and backgrounds. This god-awful tragedy did not have to happen. Those responsible for sending this country into a fratricidal state of unimaginable cruelty, murder, and rape should be condemned for all eternity. This tragedy on our planet is a blow for all mankind. But let me make one thing very, very clear. It is not America's fault. It is not America's fight. As I wrestled with the decision before us, a constituent asked me two questions that I think get to the core of the difficult issues before us. Why are these people killing each other, and why should we place American lives on the line to stop it? I did not have an answer to either question posed by my constituent, and without these answers I cannot vote on a proposal which is an inevitable first step to Americanizing this tragedy. As deeply as I hate what is occurring, I will not support this country taking a ``Go It Alone'' approach and exposing us in this fashion to deeper U.S. Involvement in this tragic conflict.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in very reluctant opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Foglietta]. I am troubled by the deep cut this bill makes in mass transit operating assistance. However, I am unable to support the Foglietta amendment to restore $135 million for mass transit because the amendment is paid for with funds taken from the Airport and Airway Trust. The Airport and Airway Trust Fund is a dedicated trust fund supported by the flying public for investment in our aviation infrastructure. I am a cosponsor of legislation to take the aviation and other transportation trust funds off-budget to ensure that they are used for their intended purpose. I cannot support an amendment that would divert aviation trust funds for non-aviation use. However, I remain sincerely committed to restoring funds for mass transit operating assistance. I am hopeful that the Senate will support the President's budget request for mass transit, and I will work to sustain a higher level of funding in conference. In addition, I intend to work with the authorizing committee to seek greater flexibility in the use of mass transit grants--allowing smaller cities and towns to use a greater proportion of their transit funding for operating expenses. I reluctantly urge my colleagues to oppose the Foglietta amendment.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, picture yourself as a homeowner who has just entered a contract for some home repairs. What would you do if the contractor showed up, not with a pickup and some tools on the back but, rather, driving a crane with a huge wrecking ball swinging from the turret? You would say, ``Wait a minute. You don't do home repair with a wrecking ball.'' Well, that is precisely what the Republicans are proposing to do to Medicare. They are saying, ``We're here to fix it.'' But they have a $270 billion cut they intend to inflict on this program. That is like trying to fix a home with a wrecking ball. It won't work. It will inevitably mean higher costs for seniors and restricted choice of physician. If you were the homeowner, you would say, ``Well, wait a minute. Show me the plan on how you're going to fix my home with that wrecking ball.'' We in Congress and the seniors of this country should say, ``Wait a minute. Show us the plan in terms of how you're going to fix Medicare with that $270 billion cut.'' They have no plan. They have not shown the plan. We deserve no less.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, we are conducting this debate at a time when our trade deficits are running at a historic high. Our trading partners must be looking at us in absolute amazement. Agriculture is one facet of our economy where we actually sell more than we buy, and the old ``hurt America first'' crowd now comes after agriculture. When will you be satisfied? When we import more agriculture, too? In fact, in the post-GATT world, we are in a vicious competition for new markets, and the Europeans know exactly what that is all about. They have committed many times the amount of support for their export products than the United States of America. The MPP program is a buy America program. It benefits farmers, ranchers, American workers that process and handle the product, and shippers. In fact, there are 20,000 American jobs that flow from $1 billion worth of agriculture exports. The MPP program is a critical link. Do not pull the pin on our export program.