Ted Strickland

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we do represent common areas of our Nation, areas where there has been strong manufacturing in the past and where people are now losing their jobs and where there is great distress. Sometimes I wonder how long the American people are going to be willing to put up with us as they watch what is happening. It seems that the decisions that we make in this Chamber so often favor other countries and other peoples rather than our own country and our own people. It really bothers me that we would make decisions in this Chamber that would put the American worker at a disadvantage to workers elsewhere in this world. That really troubles me, and I am wondering how long the American people are going to put up with it. Now, we are going to be facing a decision rather soon and the pressure is building here in Washington, D.C., the lobbying is taking place, the administration is sending people up here to try to twist arms and to convince people that they need to support this Fast Track authority. And we are going to be making a decision, and it is my hope that as the American people observe what is happening, that they will let their voices be heard. And how can they do that? Well, the old-fashioned way. They can call their representatives. They can send e-mails. They can send letters. They may arrive 2 or 3 weeks late, given the current circumstances. They can call their Representatives and their Senators and ask for a personal meeting in their offices, in their States, in their districts, because unless the American people express themselves, I am afraid this will be pushed through this House and through this Congress, and that once again the American people will be placed at a great disadvantage. I am the son of a steelworker. I grew up in a family of nine kids. My dad had a fifth-grade education, but he worked in a steel mill and he was able to support us. That steel mill is closed today. There is not a single man or woman or family that is being supported by that steel mill, because it does not exist. Even today as we met in our Steel Caucus, we heard the fact that if something is not done, over the next 12 months the American steel industry will be decimated, will cease to be a major industry in this country. Yet we are on the verge of being forced to take a position that will extend this, what I would call obscene trade policy that we currently have in place. When are we going to stop and say what is best for the American worker, the American family? When are we going to do that? When are we going to have an administration that is willing to put Americans first when it comes to these kinds of issues? We go to a union hall and it is very common in my district when I go to a union hall to have union members stand and pledge allegiance to the flag. We are urging American school children across this Nation to be loyal to our Nation and to express that loyalty by pledging allegiance to the flag. Sometimes I think we should request that these corporate board members who belong to these multinational organizations, who have no particular loyalty to a country or a set of democratic principles or a political philosophy, maybe they should be asked to pledge allegiance to the flag as well. I am just really getting increasingly concerned about the fact that over the years, in an incremental manner, we are more and more giving up the power that we have within this Chamber to protect our constituents, to make sure that when we cast a vote, when we make a decision, it is in the best interests of the people of southern Ohio or northern Ohio or the upper peninsula of Michigan. We cannot give up this authority. We ought not to. I believe it is a violation of our constitutional responsibilities and our oath of office to just relinquish this responsibility to an administration. And I am not just being critical of this administration because, quite frankly, I think we were critical of the past administration when it came to trade policies and the willingness to stand up for the American worker. We have got a responsibility as elected representatives to do the right thing, but I am afraid we will not do the right thing if the American people do not make their voices heard. It is my hope that in the next few hours and days, that the American people will call and write and request visits with their Congresspersons and their Senators so that we can stop this and we can once again start reasserting ourselves as the legitimate spokespersons for the people who send us here to represent them. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for his attention on this issue for many, many years, and he is very knowledgeable about it, as is my Congress friend from the great State of Michigan. I live in a district where the steel mill is already gone. Some of my colleagues live in districts where there is still hope to maintain the jobs, and we will not be able to do it if this Fast Track legislation passes. We will see more and more jobs going to other countries where those functions are performed by people who earn little more than slave labor salaries, where children are abused, where the environment is raped, where there are no protections in terms of worker rights. How can we do that and say that we are representing the United States of America? I do view this as a patriotic issue and one that calls upon me to oppose this effort to take away and to strip from us our legitimate right as representatives of the people to stand up for them. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for this time and for giving me a chance to express myself.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I want to say quickly that I think the American consumer deserves information. When they go to the grocery store, as a consumer they deserve the right to know where that food has come from. I was talking with one of my constituents over the weekend; and he said to me, you know, I would pay a little more for a television set that was made in America by American workers if I could find one. It is just unconscionable that we have reached this place. But in terms of country-of-origin labeling, that is so basic. And if we cannot give this kind of information to the American consumer, then we will have failed them.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, after September 11 many Americans were absolutely shocked to learn when they got on an airplane, the bags were not screened for explosive devices. We have debated that issue in this House, and we came to a bipartisan agreement that I think we can all be proud of. It was something that we agreed to and voted on. We sent it to the President. He signed it into law. It is the law of our land today. I was stunned, quite frankly, a few hours ago when our Secretary of Transportation announced that he could not meet the requirements of this law. As I understand the law, it is not an option. It is a requirement that within 60 days this government have some procedure in place to make sure that every bag is screened for explosives. All Members want that. The American people want it. All we are trying to do with this rather simple amendment is to provide an additional $250 million to the already $1 billion so that if the Secretary of Transportation does not have enough employees, he can acquire them. If there are not enough drug-sniffing dogs, we can have them trained. We can do, in fact, for the American people what we have said we will do for the American people. There is no need for acrimony. Mr. Chairman, I think we can all agree on this. We can all claim victory and say we have done the right thing and we can get the job done. With that I urge my colleagues to feel good about this amendment, and I congratulate my Republican colleagues for having indicated that they will accept it.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as the son of a steelworker in support of the gentleman from Indiana's amendment. I want to commend the gentleman for his tireless efforts within the Steel Caucus to ensure that the Federal Government is utilizing every means possible to protect our domestic steel industry and those Americans it employs. The goal of the steel industry legacy relief program will not only provide assistance to the steel producers in meeting retiree health care costs, but it also gives comfort to the nearly 2 million Americans who currently receive pensions and health care from current and former steel companies. This assistance is especially important for those who are eligible for retiree health insurance at the time a steel company ceases its operations. It is no secret that our domestic steel industry is in jeopardy. This is an industry we rely on for our transportation, electric, oil and, most importantly, our national security needs. The domestic steel industry has been devastated by a flood of imported foreign steel, resulting in plunging steel prices and the closing of multiple steel producing companies. For example, LTV in Cleveland, like other steel companies, is now on the brink of shutting down, leaving thousands to be unemployed. It is imperative that we make meaningful and effective reforms that will ensure the long-term viability of this vital industry. The steel industry legacy relief program is just one way to assist American steelworkers who are negatively affected by widespread plant closings and bankruptcies. I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana. He is a soldier in this fight to protect this vital industry. I urge my colleagues to support his amendment.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2983, the Price-Anderson Reauthorization Act. I would like to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the ranking members, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), as well as other sponsors of this legislation; and also the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), especially for her work in bringing this legislation to the floor. I appreciate that. This is an important piece of work, and she has done great service. I also would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) for their hard work to amend the bill and strengthen the safety of our nuclear industry and increase the accountability of our Department of Defense contractors. Although this legislation does not come to the floor without some controversy, I think it represents a good bipartisan effort to move important legislation forward. The Price-Anderson Act establishes a method to provide for timely compensation to citizens who are injured in the event of a nuclear incident or accident at a nuclear reactor or at a DOE facility where nuclear activities are performed. It is our hope that such an accident will never happen, but I would not want injured citizens to be denied compensation should such an unfortunate accident occur. This legislation provides assurances that the public will be compensated appropriately. I am particularly pleased that an amendment that I offered in the Committee on Energy and Commerce is included in this legislation. Again, I would like to express my thanks to the chairman and to the ranking member for their support of this provision. My amendment orders DOE to issue industrial and construction health and safety rules that are as protective as OSHA rules already in place at private industrial and construction sites. DOE's Office of Environment, Safety, and Health will enforce these safety standards by issuing fines and penalties for any violations, just as it currently does for nuclear safety. Section 13 of this bill strives to create industrial and construction safety rules which are substantially equivalent or identical to those regulations enforced by OSHA. In my opinion, there is no reason that the enforcement of industrial safety standards at our DOE facilities should differ from the enforcement of standards at commercial sites. I thank those who worked on this bill.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. I want to thank my friend from Washington State. You know, oftentimes when we stand in this chamber, we find that we are being critical of each other. But I would like to begin my statement by just pointing out that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) has been really wonderful on this issue. I am a Democrat, you are a Republican. But I have observed you during the course of your tenure in this House, and not only on this issue, but on the Patients' Bill of Rights and on many other issues. The gentleman has been such a worthy Member and has fought for really good causes. I thank you for your great efforts on this legislation. I also want to thank my friend from Washington State (Mr. Inslee). I really believe that the emphasis on screening all of the baggage that goes into the belly of our airplanes, which has been included in this compromise, I believe that provision perhaps would not have been included had it not been for your efforts. So I suppose this is an evening when we stand on this floor and, instead of being critical or talking about the things that we wish would happen, we in a sense celebrate the fact that, after weeks of work, that we have been able to reach a compromise. But it is not a compromise on safety, it is a compromise on strategy and process. I think what we have done is come up with a bill that will make the American traveling public much safer. That is something that both sides of this chamber should feel good about. I do not think either side, Democrat or Republican, can claim total victory in terms of getting their particular point of view put forth in this compromise, but I do think this is an example of how the process can work and should work. It has worked with this issue, and it is my hope that in the remaining days of this session of our Congress, that this kind of process could work to get a Patients' Bill of Rights brought before us, to get an education bill brought before us. We still have some time remaining before we have to draw this session to a close, and the fact is that we will get nowhere as long as we are unbending and uncompromising. But if we work together for the good of the country, I think we can accomplish a great deal of good. So I feel some relief tonight. I stood last week where the gentleman is standing, and I said that if the American people will just simply allow their voices to be heard, if they will communicate their strong desire for an airline security bill to the Members of the House and the Senate, that we can get this done before we leave here. I believe over the last several days the American people have expressed themselves very clearly and very strongly. They want to feel that it is safe to get on an American airliner and fly. They want to know if they put their families on that airliner, that everything that can be done has been done to see that their family members are going to be safe. They want this chamber to work together cooperatively to do the people's business. So, as we found out throughout the course of this day, we have been able to accomplish that, and tomorrow I think we are going to have a very strong vote on this bill, the President will sign it, and we can say to the American people and to our individual constituencies that we have done our part to make sure that they are safe when they fly. Is it perfect? No, it is not. Will it solve all the problems? No, it will not. There will be no perfect solution to the problem of airline security. One of the things that I continue to be concerned about, as I know my friend from Washington State is concerned about, is whether or not we are moving as expeditiously, as rapidly as we should, to make sure that all the luggage that is placed on our airlines, all of that luggage is screened for explosive devices. But this is a major step forward, and I believe we eventually will get to the point where people can say that my government has done all that it can do to make sure that I am safe when I get on an airliner.

Mr. STRICKLAND. If I could just say another word, I mentioned earlier the tenacious fight of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) for a strong Patients' Bill of Rights. Perhaps the American people can do for a Patients' Bill of Rights what they have done for airline security legislation if they just simply let their Member of Congress or they let their Senator know how important this is. I stood on this floor a few weeks ago and I talked about one of my constituents, a young woman, 41 years of age, whose name was Patsy Haines. She had leukemia, and she needed a transplant, a bone marrow transplant. She had a brother who was a perfect match. The insurance company was saying to her they were not going to pay for it. I went to the James Cancer Center in Columbus, Ohio, a wonderful institution where they do great research. I talked with cancer specialists. They talked with my constituent, these wonderful well- trained doctors and researchers. They talked with my constituent, they talked with her personal physician, and they concurred that she needed this transplant, and, if she received it, she quite possibly would be cured of her condition and live a long life, and the chances were if she did not receive this treatment, that she almost certainly at some point in the future would lose her life. I went to Secretary Thompson and talked with him about it, and he was wonderfully sympathetic. In fact, I wrote the Secretary a letter today thanking him for his concern for Patsy Haines. But the fact is that the only way she got this surgery, and, by the way she got her surgery last week and we are staying in touch on a daily basis to see how she is doing, but the way she got her surgery was for Uncle Sam to come along and provide it. The Medicare system provided this surgery. Her insurance company never relented. So here Uncle Sam comes to the rescue. But when I think of Patsy Haines and her critical condition tonight, and our great hope that she is going to recover and continue to be a wife and a mother to her child, I am reminded that there are many people in this country who face similar circumstances and who need the protection that this House of Representatives can give them. So I just hope that the people in this country, as they did with the airline security bill, will contact Senators and Congress Members and say get this bill passed so that we can know that we are being protected in terms of our health care.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, November 11-17 is National Osteopathic Medicine Week, a week when we recognize the more than 47,000 osteopathic physicians (D.O.s) across the country for their contributions to the American healthcare system. This year, we celebrate D.O.s commitment to preventative medicine and end-of-life care. During National Osteopathic Medicine (NOM) Week, D.O.s and patients celebrate the benefits of preventative health care by looking at the simple things that can be done to live healthier lives. As physicians who focus on treating the whole person and not just their symptoms, the nation's osteopathic physicians are dedicated to helping maintain health through a whole-person patient-centered approach to healthcare. And, within that principle, they recognize death as the legitimate endpoint to the human lifecycle and respect the dignity and special needs of both patients and caregivers. During NOM Week, D.O.s everywhere will explore multidisciplinary perspectives on end-of-life care, the ethical debate of pain management and ways to remove communications barriers in the physician-patient relationship at end of life. Activities also educate Americans about end-of-life care and related topics, such as advances in pain management, cultural sensitivities toward final stages of life, organ donation, advance directives, and end-of-life care options and financing. For more than a century, D.O.s have made a difference in the lives and health of my fellow citizens in southeast Ohio and all Americans. Overall, more than 100 million patient visits are made each year to D.O.s. As fully licensed physicians, D.O.s are committed to serving the needs of rural and underserved communities. That is why D.O.s make up 15 percent of the total physician population in towns of 10,000 or less. Osteopathic physicians are certified in nearly 60 specialties and 33 subspecialties. They complete similar requirements set for M.D.s, and must complete and pass: four years of medical education at one of 19 osteopathic medical schools; a one-year internship; a multi-year residency; and a state medical board exam. Throughout this education, D.O.s are trained to understand how the musculoskeletal system influences the condition of all other body systems. Many patients want this extra education as a part of their health care. Individuals may call (866) 346-3236 to find a D.O. in their community. In recognition of NOM Week, I congratulate the over 3,300 D.O.s in Ohio, the 416 students at Ohio University College of Osteopathic Medicine (located in my district), and the 47,000 D.O.s represented by the American Osteopathic Association for their contributions to the good health of the American people.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, it is of interest that the gentlewoman mentioned three critical issues: campaign finance reform, a Patient's Bill of Rights, which has passed the Senate, and now airline security. These three huge issues that are of such great importance to the American people could become law if we could just get the leadership in this Chamber to take the stranglehold off this Chamber and let it work its will. We are near the end of our time together. I am wondering if the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) would just take a moment and reiterate the process that we are facing here. We have had the House and Senate bill. What is likely to happen? How can this bill become law by the end of this week? What needs to happen?

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California and the gentleman from Washington State and the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Colorado for joining us this evening.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, this is the situation: A relatively small number of Members of the House of Representatives and a relatively small number of Senators will make up this conference committee, and they will get together and try to resolve the differences, and then they will bring back a final version to this House to be voted upon and to the Senate to be voted upon. So it is still possible, is it not, that that conference committee could decide to federalize this security apparatus?

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman has just reminded me of the fact that the gentleman and I sent a letter to the Speaker and to the majority leader asking that this House of Representatives not adjourn, that we stay in session throughout this year and attend to the important business of the American people. One of the items we need to be attending to is the campaign finance issue. The campaign finance bill passed the Senate. All we need to do is pass it here in the House. The President has indicated, I believe, that he would sign the bill if the House were to pass it. If we did that, it would be a wonderful holiday gift to the American people, because the American people could then have confidence that regardless of what decision we made in this Chamber regarding airline security and a whole host of other things, that we were doing it out of the right motive, and that we were not doing it because we were trying to please some large contributor. That would be an amazing, wonderful gift for the American people. That is why I do not think we should adjourn this House. We should not adjourn this House in time of war, we should not adjourn this House until the people's business has been attended to. That is one of the critical items that we need to address. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, that is a very good point. It is amazing to me that a company responsible for the security of the traveling public could violate procedures, hire felons, give false statements, be fined $1 million and continue to be allowed to provide, quote, ``security to our traveling public.''

Mr. STRICKLAND. I thank the gentleman for joining us. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. STRICKLAND. It absolutely could be done. But once again, there is a story in the newspaper today saying the airlines are opposed to this, because they say it would cost too much and it would slow down the process. We cannot put a price tag on public safety. There are reasonable things we can do. It may add somewhat to our inconvenience. But as that woman in Columbus, Ohio, said to me, this woman who had gotten through security with a pair of large scissors, she said, I would not mind the inconvenience if it kept me safe. But people do not feel like what is currently happening is going to keep them safe. Quite frankly, I do not think that will be the case until we federalize this effort.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I would like to share an anecdote regarding the wonderful Denver Airport. I know my friend is rightly proud of that great airport; but there is a problem there, and I would share this true story with the gentleman. About a month ago some friends of mine in Denver, a young man with his wife and very young child, were going to fly to Columbus, Ohio, to visit this young man's mother. So they went to the Denver Airport, they had their tickets, they checked their luggage. As they sat there waiting to get on the plane, they noticed someone who appeared to be nervous to them, and maybe they were allowing their imaginations to run wild, I do not know if they had a right to be concerned or not. But as they observed individuals boarding the plane that they were to fly, they saw this individual get on their plane, and so they were frightened so they chose to not fly on that airplane, but to drive from Denver to Columbus, which is a long distance. But, guess what? Their luggage stayed on that plane. In the past we have thought, well, if a person checked luggage and flew on the plane, they would be unlikely to try to explode that plane because they would lose their own lives. But in this incident the traveling persons did not even bother to take the flight, and yet their luggage remained on that airplane. That is another problem. We do not match passengers with luggage.

Mr. STRICKLAND. My friend understands that last week we spent a good deal of time talking about the fact that much of the baggage that is placed in an airliner is not screened for explosive devices. It is estimated that perhaps 5 percent is. But even the 5 percent that is being screened at Dulles International Airport, if I could just share a personal incident, this happened to me three times. I have flown out of Dulles now five times in the last few weeks, and three times I have been selected to have my luggage screened for explosive devices. Now, I am not sure what kind of profile I fit. Sometimes I think that maybe I am being screened because I am a Member of Congress and they want to convince me that the system is working. But here is how they have asked me to have my bags screened. I have gone up to the ticket counter, I have given them my ticket, I have received my seat assignment. Then the person behind the ticket counter says to me, sir, we would like for you to take your bag and walk down this corridor until you come to the first crossover, turn to your left, go to the next main corridor, turn to your left, and you will see the machine, one of these CTX machines, $1 million machines, you will see one of those machines over on your right, and they will screen your bag for you. Now, that is absolutely absurd. Any person who was devious enough to have an explosive in a bag would not voluntarily, without being observed or without being escorted, carry that bag around and ask someone standing on the other side of the wall to screen that bag for an explosive device. It is just simply absurd. This Argenbright Company, I assume, is involved in that kind of process. It is so ridiculous, it is almost unbelievable. I am almost embarrassed to share that, because I know it is hard for people to believe that we would have a $1 million machine, we would have a process in place that would be so absurd and call it security. I see my friend from California has stood.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I would share a thought with my friend from Colorado, that I think it may not happen, what we are talking about here, it really may not happen until the American people become so determined that it has to happen. By that I mean only perhaps after the American people start calling and writing and making demands upon their elected Representatives and upon their Senators. I would just share one additional thought from the USA Today editorial. It says: ``This week a House-Senate conference is charged with reconciling the competing bills, giving Congress one more shot at putting security wholly in the hands of the Federal Government, where it belongs.'' So we can still do this, as the House and Senate meets. We just passed a resolution here, or a motion to instruct, asking that this be accomplished by this Friday, so there is still time this week for the American people to let their will be known, to make phone calls or to write letters or to send e-messages or to visit their Representatives and express their opinions.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I do not think the gentleman was here a few moments ago when I pointed out an issue that had been brought to me regarding the fact that some of the larger private firms that provide security at our airports are foreign-owned firms, and, consequently, the CEOs of those companies would be literally unable to achieve a high level of security clearance that would enable them to have access to classified information which may be essential as the FBI and CIA and other law enforcement agencies gain access to information, for example, about a terrorist threat. On the other hand, if this was a Federal function, it would be quite easy for these Federal law enforcement agencies to work collaboratively, to share information, to make plans, to develop strategies together. It seems to me that is a glaring problem that I have not heard addressed as we have discussed this bill.

Mr. STRICKLAND. It has been brought up in this Chamber on multiple occasions that we are protected here at the Capitol of the United States by police officers. They work for Uncle Sam. Some have taken offense when we have suggested that it is not fair for those of us who live and work in this Capitol to be protected by these well-trained professional individuals, who are adequately paid, adequately trained, adequately supervised, while we would be willing to let the American traveling public expose themselves to unnecessary danger. And when we pointed out the unfairness of that, some have taken offense. But I think it is absolutely fair. Why should you as a Congresswoman or why should I as a Congressman have a different level of protection than other Americans who may be in vulnerable positions and threatened by terrorists? I think we should not. We should not have any less or any more protection. I think what we have now is a system that leaves the traveling public, when they go to our airports, vulnerable. I know there are those who do not want us to say that, because they want the American people to go back and live a normal life. They know our economy needs our airlines to be successful and the public to feel like they can travel safely. The public can travel safely if we do the right thing in this Chamber. It is in our hands. I see that our friend from the great State of Colorado (Mr. Udall) has joined us. Welcome.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I do not want to put words in the gentleman's mouth, but as I listened to you, I am starting to feel some anger. I said earlier I felt frustration and puzzlement, but what you are saying, it seems to me, is that you believe that there is a system in place here that would allow special interest money, special interest contributions, to be so influential over the actions of this House that we could take action or fail to take action which would literally put the lives of Americans at risk. Is that an overstatement in your judgment or do you think it is a fair statement?

Mr. STRICKLAND. Is it not true that this same company has already been fined over $1 million?

Mr. STRICKLAND. So we could enter the Thanksgiving holiday season without a security bill? And people who go to the airports to get on airliners would do so knowing that this House, this Congress, had failed to take action to protect them. That would be truly a sad set of circumstances.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I would like to ask my friend a question. Perhaps you cannot give me a definitive answer, but I am puzzled. Why is it that when the American people overwhelmingly want to federalize this function, when newspapers like the Columbus Dispatch in Ohio and the New York Times, the Portsmouth Daily Times, newspapers all across this country are editorializing in favor of federalizing this security function, and the Senate passed a bill that would do that 100 to nothing, is it puzzling to you that this House just would not get on board, do the right thing, pass the Senate version which could go directly to the President for his signature? And although the President has indicated he is not crazy about the bill, his spokespersons have said that he would be willing to sign it. We could have such a law in effect now, today. Do you have any theory as to why this House would be so intractable in its approach to this issue?

Mr. STRICKLAND. I think I hear you saying that the private companies, the private security companies, have the primary motive of making a profit, and a government law enforcement system would have the primary motive of protecting the public. Is that a fair way of phrasing that comment that you just made?