Matt Salmon

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, let me see if I get this right: If we vote for the alternative proposal being offered tonight, then we are basically admitting that we are willing to cut, or we are willing to meet the balanced budget? We just do not want to change our spending any? That is a joke. I think we all know that. I think the American people know that, that there really is only one way to balance the budget, and that is to reduce the rate of growth and to stop spending as past Congresses have done. Why are we doing this? We talked about poison pills. We have talked about a system, protecting a system. Well, let me tell you, you cannot go home and hug a system. I can go home and hug my four children. This is for them. This is for the future of our children. The balanced budget means the very lives and future of every one of those children just as it is for my children. Put up or shut up. Come on, you have got the opportunity to do so. Quit squawking, get the job done.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, we just had a townhall this weekend. I think it was our 30th since I was elected to serve in the 104th Congress. The folks back home are a lot smarter than I think the media gives them credit for. The answer that they gave to me resoundingly was stay the course, stick to your guns. You have started a revolution, but it is just the tip of the iceberg. We expect you to see through to the many promises that you made in the campaign. No. 1, that you would balance the Federal budget and quit financing failed social programs of yesterday on the backs of our children and our grandchildren. It is immoral, stop it. Get the job done. That is what we sent you there for. The other thing that I heard, I hear all this rhetoric from folks back here about folks back home not wanting to have tax cuts. As I talked to folks back home, especially those that feel the pinch, those that are trying to raise children in today's society and those that feel that maybe they just know a little bit better than the Federal bureaucrats here what might be best for their family and how their dollars might be spent, I heard again very clearly from them. We are sick and tired of money going back to Washington and going down a rathole. It costs $1.50 to produce 50 cents worth of services at the Federal level, and it has got to stop. We think we are a little bit better qualified to address our family's priorities than some nameless, faceless bureaucrat in Washington, DC. That is what I heard resoundingly, stick to your guns, stay the course and do what we sent you there to do. If you are going to be like Congresses of old and buckle and put a Band-Aid on problems like Medicare and not really save the program for future generations but put a Band-Aid on so you can get through the next election, if those are the things that you intend to do, you are no different than the Congresses we sent there in the past and we do not want you back.

Mr. SALMON. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Speaker, I have talked to some of my Democrat friends on the other side. I think they know full well that there is going to be a lot of rhetoric, there is going to a be a lot of theatrics from the White House, and ultimately he is going to have to do the right thing because the American people are demanding it. This is a President that constantly has his wet finger in the air, testing which way the wind is blowing. He knows that the winds of change, they run hard and they are pushing us toward balancing the budget. I would say to the gentleman from Arizona, this is not rocket science. Most folks understand that if they keep spending and spending and spending with their charge cards and their revolving debt and all those things that get us into trouble, that before too long there is a time that you have to pay the piper. When you have to pay the piper, you either decide that you are going to cut back on your spending in your family budget or you are going to find a new source of revenues. At the Federal level that new source of revenues is the cash cow. It is the taxpayer. That is where Congress has gone in past years, taxed basically out of oblivion. Last Friday I went and spoke to two senior classes, government classes, at Tempe High School. I looked into their eyes and I asked them if they understood the implications of a budget that would not be balanced; if they understood full well that right now we have a $5 trillion debt--and your eyes kind of glaze over when you hear $1 trillion, because nobody has ever held, smelled, or touched $1 trillion--and when we explain to them that the first 33 cents out of every tax dollar that they send to Washington goes just to pay the interest on the debt, and under the current budget scenario, with $200 billion deficits, in 5 years we reach another trillion. Then before too long it is $10 trillion. Do you know what happens when we reach $10 trillion. Everything, everything that we have right now in the form of revenues is consumed just to pay the interest on the debt. Everything. We have nothing left for programs unless we go back and raise taxes. I further went on to explain to them, those kids, most of them 17- and 18-year-old kids, when they reach my age, if we continue with the trends of yesteryear under the failed old tactics of the Democratic- controlled Congress, then they would be facing an 85- to 90-percent tax bracket. That means that $9 out of every $10 that you earn goes to Washington, DC. That is immoral. We cannot continue to do that. No family would do that. No family would put themselves so far into debt that they would leave to their children, instead of an inheritance, all the Master Card bills and Visa card bills to pay. Nobody would do that. It is laughable. Why then would we conglomerately as a country do that to our children? It is the same exact principle. Let me talk just for a minute about the tax cuts, too, because we hear so much from the other side that we are providing tax cuts for the rich. In my town hall meeting I asked this question: How many of you have children? Almost everybody raised their hand, I would say about 80 percent of the people in the town hall raised their hand. Then I asked, them ``Out of those of you who have children, how many of you paid at least $500 last year to the [[Page H 11818]] IRS?'' I ask those of you listening on C-Span to consider the same equation: How many have children, how many have paid at least $500? According to the liberals here in Congress, you are the rich. You are part of the problem. I think most of us understand that if you fall into those parameters, you are not a wealthy person. That is mainstream America. That is mom and pop America, who are trying so desperately to raise their children and trying to take care of their family's needs, but they are not able to because they are sucked up here in Washington. It is time we change, and it is time we realize that those people are not the wealthy, they are not the ones to be despised so we can rob the middle class to pay for failed social programs. It is time to make a difference. We came here to make a difference, and is it so unique? Is this so historic that we finally have a body that has the integrity to keep its word? That is what this is all about.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I would just like to comment also, we hear so many times from people as we look at, not cutting programs, because I do not think we are really cutting anything. In fact, I know we are not cutting anything. The Federal budget is still rising dramatically, as we all know. When we hear of cuts to Medicare, again, I think Mr. Gingrich probably put it best when he said it is really a problem with remedial math. The people really do not understand that when you go from $4,500 to $6,400 that that is an increase, that is not a cut. But we hear from folks, whether it is the arts or the humanities or you name it, all of these wonderful, wonderful things that the Federal Government has done, but is is a good program and it is good for society. I think back to when I was in college and I was a junior in college and I was married and we had our first child, and I remember a really high-pressure encyclopedia salesman came to our house. He made a good case and he made me feel guilty, he said how I really needed to think about my child's future and this was such a worthy program, like we hear so much in Washington, that this was something that was good. I ended up making the decision not to buy those encyclopedias. No. 1, they were very expensive, but No. 2, at that time I was working full-time, I was a full-time student, my wife was working full-time, and we were having a hard time making ends meet. We were having a hard time putting food on the table. We had priorities. Yes, it was a worthy program, but do I put food on the table for my daughter, for my family, or do I buy this worthy program? I think that is the kind of choices that we are faced with now.

Mr. SALMON. If the gentleman will yield, I would just like to follow up on that. I think maybe that is one thing that we do not talk about enough. The gentleman mentioned that there would be 6.1 million more new jobs. How does that occur? That occurs when you lower people's taxes. What do they do? They invest it in their businesses. And their businesses grow. When their businesses grow, there are more jobs for people. When the interest rates drop by 2 percent, once we balance the budget, they can expand their businesses, they can grow their businesses and jobs grow. And what happens when jobs grow? Have you seen the bumper sticker that says ``The Best Kind of Welfare Is [[Page H 11820]] a Job''? Truer words were never spoken, in many ways, because it helps that person preserve dignity and self-respect and feel like they are a contributing member of society. How many of our other social programs would turn around when people felt that they had that kind of dignity and empowerment to take charge of their own lives? What is going to happen to our society is we have less reliance on social programs, on failed social programs, I might add, because there will be jobs and we will be an opportunity society as we once were. America was great because our grandparents and our grandparents' parents that came to this land because it was the land of opportunity where you could become anything you wanted be. I think we have lost that vision but we are regaining it in this 104th Congress. That is the ball we have got to keep our eye on. That once that budget is balanced, we will be having an opportunity society again for everybody.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, shame on those Members on the other side who are flagrantly misrepresenting this bill. You know if you read the bill that it provides an exemption in the case of saving the life of the mother; and any American who requests this bill, wants to read it themselves, will see exactly what you are dishing out today, flagrant untruths. What this is about, this is not the traditional pro-life-pro-choice debate. This is about a procedure so heinous as to take the baby outside of the body and leave the head still inside the womb and murder the baby. How far are we from China where they are taking the baby girl, as soon as they are born, and snapping the spine and killing the baby once it has already been born? What is the difference? How far are we going to be from that? I would not be surprised to see some of those of you on the other side defend that procedure as well. If you can sit there with a straight face and defend this kind of barbaric procedure and misrepresent with a bold face what this does, as you done today, shame on you.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in strong support of the repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act. Davis-Bacon is over 60 years old, but has already lived out its usefulness by that long in dog years. This act is an example of the command and control economics practiced by the failed Soviet state. Instead of the free market determining the wages of workers employed by Federal construction contractors, we have a handful of bureaucrats in the Labor Department right here in Washington deciding how much their fair pay should be. That's right, the same Government that spent the American taxpayer's money to study the effects of cow flatulence on the ozone layer has decided to give electricians in Philadelphia a raise from the $15.76 market average to $37.97 per hour just for working on a Federal building. I would love for somebody to show me how the federally determined prevailing wage can be over twice as high as the city-wide average. From its creation in 1931, Davis-Bacon has been used to freeze lower- wage, nonunion workers out of Federal construction projects. That was its purpose then, and that is what is does now. By equating the prevailing wage with higher wages, the Department of Labor is still protecting unions from being undercut by their less costly nonunion competitors who are paying wages determined by the free market. That is why small business organizations like the NFIB and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce so strongly support the repeal of Davis-Bacon. By requiring firms to pay their employees the higher wage, small businesses are virtually frozen out of every phase of virtually every Davis-Bacon contract. We should be committed to expanding opportunities for small businesses, not continuing unsound policies that limit their participation in Government contracts. Davis-Bacon is also costly to the American people. The act has cost taxpayers billions of dollars over the years as the taxpayer has been forced to pay too much for construction work that could and should have been done for less. The CBO estimates that the act costs at least $1.5 billion per year. For this reason, the GAO has been arguing for its repeal since 1979. In these tough budgetary times, not repealing this act is simply irresponsible. This act also costs our States and localities in terms of added paperwork. Dallas TX, estimates that their officials spend 4,000 hours just to comply with the mandates of the act. That is 167 days, or almost 6 entire months! This is just time spent on compliance, not even the actual building Davis-Bacon projects--unless you consider the towers of paperwork a construction contract. It has also been estimated that Davis-Bacon adds 10 percent to the cost of inner-city construction nationwide. This is the equivalent of adding a full percentage point on an 8 percent, 30-year mortgage. How do you think our constituents would feel if they woke up paying another full percentage point on their home loans. Well, if you don't think they would like it, you had better not tell them about the Davis-Bacon Act. This act is a bureaucratic nightmare, it inflates costs for States, localities and for the American people, and it freezes small business out of Federal construction contracts. It does not ensure higher quality, or faster work for all the extra cost, it just protects higher-paying union shops from getting undercut by their more efficient nonunion competitors. It is counter-intuitive and antifree market. It is an idea whose time may never really have come, but clearly has gone. If we had a chance to put this law on the books today, I don't think that we would take it. We will soon have an opportunity to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. Let's reaffirm our commitment to the free market, to open and fair competition, and most of all, to the American taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the repeal of the Davis- Bacon Act.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, why is it so important that we come together and pass this bill today? Since 1969 the United States has focused its space program on the construction of a space station to serve as a laboratory for scientific experiments and extended habitation of humans in space. To this end, Americans will have spent billions of dollars, and in the process developed the space shuttle, a reusable launch transport system to service it. The knowledge we have gained in this process has been invaluable. Technology developed for the space shuttle is helping make airline flights safer and more efficient. Medical advances and equipment and the study of diseases is helping to save lives here on Earth. We can expect more progress in these areas from the international [[Page H 9566]] Space Station Alpha, as well as advances across a spectrum of emerging technologies. The money we spend on space station finds practical applications for daily life on Earth, and it is money well spent. Unlike other Government programs, every dollar spent on space programs returns at least $2 in direct and indirect benefits. Why is it important for us to pass a multiyear authorization? In order to achieve the best, most cost-effective space station to meet the operating goal of 1998, the program requires stability. Yearly budget balances just serve to distract NASA from its mission. Space Station Alpha is already under construction at Marshall Space Flight Center and other centers around the country. In order to meet the scheduled launch of the first module in December 1997, NASA is committed to delivering the space station on time and on budget. H.R. 1601 ensures this by requiring the administrator to certify these conditions are met. In addition, this bill sets up an annual authorizing cap through 2002, thus steering clear of cost overruns that have plagued the program in the past. We are taking responsibility by providing the proper level of oversight to avoid budgetary problems down the line. Our support is vital for the success of this program. The space shuttle will at last fulfill its envisioned mission as a primary vehicle for space station assembly, and a link between Earth and Alpha. We can only imagine the scientific advances developed on Alpha that will be an integral part of human life in the next century.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Would the gentleman from Indiana yield? That is the beauty, and as I have talked to the seniors in my district, in fact, my father, before I came back to Washington this last week, he said, ``Son, you better make sure when you get back there that you guys preserve those options that you have talked so much about, because I am looking forward to this. Right now, the current Medicare system just is not giving me these kinds of options, and I like the medical savings account option, personally, because it will incentive me to control my own costs. I think I can do a better job of controlling my costs than a nameless, faceless bureaucrat in Washington can do.'' Let us talk about the options. Number 1, I think it has been mentioned that they can stay on the current fee-for-services type program. They can move to an HMO or PPO type program. They can go to a medical savings account.

Mr. SALMON. And the difference between who decides what those options will be is that it will not be dictated by some bureaucrat. The choice is up to the individual.

Mr. SALMON. I believe so. In fact, most people out there will actually do better under this plan.

Mr. SALMON. I would say this to the American public. If you think that Washington has managed your dollars well in the past, then we have every reason to believe that the bureaucrat-laden system that we have got is the best thing. But if we believe that the American people out there can take control of these costs, and that they can look out for their needs better than a bureaucrat can, then this option is the best way to go.

Mr. SALMON. In fact, I think in most circumstances the individuals will save money and will do better under our plan, because there are more options and there is less interference between their relationship with their doctor.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, this debate is probably the most crucial thing we have debated since we began this Congress in January. It is important for a lot of reasons. It is important because, as I have done my town halls back home and I have talked to the senior citizens in my district, they have very, very clearly given me the understanding that they want to change Medicare so that it lasts beyond the next 7 years. I give the seniors that have come to my town halls, that have called my office, that have come in to visit with me personally, a lot of credit. They are not individuals who are shortsighted, who are not concerned about the future of this program. No. 1, most of them hope to live beyond the next 7 years, at least the ones that I have talked to. No. 2, they realize that this is an important program that needs to be around for their children and their children's children. I have sensed a lot of support. In fact, the town hall that the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] was referring to, we had about 700 to 800 people show up. I was so pleased to see the kind of can-do attitude that Americans have always had, that we will fix this system, that we will preserve and protect the Medicare system, because it is too important to politicize. As we talked about options, I think very clearly they gave me a message. That is, ``When you go back there to fix this problem, make sure that you preserve our dignity and that you do not interfere with our relationship with our doctor, and that you do not take away our choices, but you enhance our choices so we can take the direction for our own medical care and take it away from the bureaucrats, [[Page H 9358]] give us more decisions. If the problem is waste and fraud, involve us in the solutions. Let us shop around so we can get the best deal.'' That is why I am so thrilled with the prospect of the medical savings accounts, which puts the power back in the hands of the individual, not bureaucrats who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of this individual's health care, but it gives seniors the ability to barter, to choose the doctor of their choice, to stop the mumbo-jumbo that is created here in Washington, and to take control of their own lives. I am just really pleased that we have come up with a plan that incorporates so many choices, and will help seniors again to take control of their own destiny.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, today we will be voting on the future of $3\1/2\ trillion in private pension money that will finance the retirement of millions of working Americans. Pension funds have been protected from politics and pet projects since 1974 when fund managers were bound by law to look only at the economic return on their clients' investments. However, Secretary Reich and the Clinton administration now have other plans for this money. The Clinton administration believes that it has found a way to divert a chunk of pension money into social projects that the American people would not support or fund with taxpayer dollars. They are doing this by allowing and encouraging fund managers to put their investor dollars into economically targeted investments--investments that are targeted solely for their social agenda. Aside from being liberal social engineering, this scheme might sound reasonable, right? Well, what Secretary Reich is not telling the American people who depend on pensions, is that these ETI's are far riskier than traditional investments, and that the administration policy is a clear violation of the spirit of the laws set up to protect America's private pension system. Pork-barrel spending on liberal social projects is bad enough in today's tough budgetary times. But, to do it behind the backs of the American people, with the money they have saved for their own future is just plain wrong. We have an opportunity today to stop this raid of private pension funds, and to protect the retirement future of our Nation's workers. I commend the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] for his leadership on this issue, I strongly support H.R. 1594, and urge passage of this important bill.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning in strong support of the B-2 stealth bomber, and in strong opposition to the Dellums/Kasich amendment to be offered later today to eliminate funding for future bombers. In today's uncertain world, we will be lucky to have a day's warning before a conflict erupts. With our forward presence constantly shrinking, the B-2 provides us with the ability to rapidly project power deep within well-protected enemy territory. Further, while the premium on surprise and quick strike ability is increasing, the premium placed on the lives of our service men and women remains paramount. With stealth and precision-guided munitions, one B-2 with a crew of two is as effective as 75 conventional aircraft which place 132 air crew at risk. And the B-2 can do this without being staged on the dangerous front lines of a conflict. The options that the B-2 provides are vital to the future of our Nation's power projection capabilities. It is currently the only bomber in production, and the only one planned. If the Dellums/Kasich amendment passes later today, we will lose these capabilities along with the ability to rapidly produce them in the future. If this amendment passes, by the year 2030, we will be sending our pilots into combat in 70 year old B-52's. This would be the same as sending our fighter pilots into Desert Storm in wooden and cloth biplanes. And, the B-2 fits under the budget cap that was approved in the House earlier this year. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Dellums-Kasich amendment when it is offered later today. Please join me in voting to maintain our nation's critical power projection capabilities.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, there are no easy answers in Bosnia, no quick fixes. But I believe we must lift the embargo--now. The Bosnians want to defend themselves against rape, murder, and ethnic cleansing. But let's face it: the fundamental right of self- defense is meaningless without the opportunity to procure weapons. The Bosnians deserve the same chance to defend themselves that the people of Afghanistan had in their fight against Soviet terror. The current policy of the United States is to be an active accomplice in the strangulation of the Bosnian people. And we are doing great damage to the vitality of NATO and the credibility of the United States. The debacle of Bosnia sends a clear message to the tyrants around the world--the United States can be bullied, and will not even stand up against genocide. No tyrant will ever negotiate a settlement when he can get everything he wants by force. If we continue to be paralyzed by weakness, countless American troops may be needed in the future to counter the aggressive actions of tyrants who conclude that America's weakness in Bosnia is the post- gulf-war reality of the United States. Let us do what is right, and begin the restoration of America's foreign policy. Lift the embargo.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, 23,000 acres in the Scottsdale, AZ area were ravaged by terrible brush fires. The damage could have been much worse if not for a partnership between NASA and the city of Scottsdale. Testing the applications of a new technology, called remote sensing, NASA jets flying over the blaze beamed images of the fire's hot spots via satellite to the ground. Firefighters were then able to use their limited resources more effectively and contain the blaze days sooner than they had thought possible, thus saving property, money, and lives. Mr. Speaker, we will vote today to continue the excellent scientific research that is being conducted at NASA, and to streamline the agency by moving mature technologies toward privatization. The way Scottsdale and NASA worked together is a wonderful example of space technology being used to improve the lives of those of us here on Earth.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, the Market Promotion Program is the ultimate corporate welfare--giving millions of taxpayer dollars away to many of our largest corporations. It is good business to advertise overseas, and corporations would, and do, do it on their own. Our Nation's businesses are the best in the world. They know how to advertise effectively both at home and abroad. This amendment will not put people in the unemployment lines as its opponents say, but it will help to get people off of welfare. People like Ronald McDonald, the Keebler Elves, the Dancing Raisins, and the Pillsbury Doughboy, to name a few. In fact, in 1993, the GAO reported that they could find no correlation between the amount spent on the MPP, and the levels of U.S. agricultural exports. We are taking great steps forward toward shrinking the Federal Government and balancing our budget. Continuing the MPP flies in the face of all that we are trying to do. We are making tough choices and setting tough priorities so that we will not burden our children with a debt that they had no part in creating. Providing seed money for multibillion-dollar corporations to advertise beer, nuts, fruit, or any other product overseas is not one of these important priorities. In tight budgetary times, this program should not have even survived--but it was increased by 30 percent. The MPP has already cost taxpayers $1.2 billion. Let us end this corporate welfare program. Without the MPP, the raisins will still dance, the doughboy will still giggle, and Ronald McDonald will still smile. The difference is that Mr. and Mrs. America will not be picking up the tab. Vote ``yes'' on the Zimmer-Schumer amendment.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 2058. I believe it is a big bold step in the right direction. I am really pleased that the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] has taken this initiative. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to talk a little bit about my experience. I served a mission for my church in Taiwan from 1977 to 1979. Most of the people that I became friends with over there were people that lived in mainland China and escaped the oppression of China under Mao Tse-tung. At that time they watched their families, many of them being killed, murdered before their very eyes. Many of them watched their parents be severely punished, sometimes beaten, sometimes even killed, for praying in public. As China engaged the Western world, I was heartened, I was encouraged, by her desire to become more open politically, economically and socially. But as with many Americans, much of that optimism was extinguished by Tiananmen Square, and part of me died that day. Since that day China has steadily marched backward, stifling freedom, flouting human rights, and demonstrating disregard. I do support doing business with China. I think it is a step in the right direction, but we need to make sure they understand we will be watching and the people that do business over there need to not be accepting, but step forward and do the right thing.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, Harry Wu, an American citizen, a tireless crusader for human rights, and my friend, is being unjustly detained in the People's Republic of China. Harry Wu survived nineteen years of torture, starvation, and solitary confinement after he was imprisoned for merely criticizing the government. Since then has devoted himself to exposing the horrors of the Chinese gulag. China, immediately release American citizen Harry Wu and allow his return to the United States. He has committed no crimes and is being detained illegally. This is a gross abuse of his rights and seriously damages U.S.-China relations. Free this innocent man. To Chinese officials I say this in Chinese: ``Mr. Wu is an American. Mr. Wu is my friend. If you hurt him we will not forget. If you do not free him we will not forget. Be careful.''

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I see some great progress being made here. I understand it started at 110 million then it was at 50, then at 40, now at 30. I think we are almost there. But I would like to say this: I have heard the evidence on both sides of the equation, and other than the side that wants to preserve funding saying, ``Trust me, I am from the Government, I am here to help you,'' I have not found any compelling reasons to support this boondoggle. I support the efforts of an impressive list of people and groups that support the amendment put forth by the majority whip and the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg]. These include Grover Norquist's group, Americans for Tax Reform, the Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and a host of other responsible groups. The GEF is a global giveaway that cannot be justified, particularly given our Nation's fiscal crisis, and it has even failed its stated goal, improving the environment. The GEF should RIP.

Mr. SALMON. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. SALMON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.