Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Supplemental Appropriations Act. Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro and I would have offered an amendment to reclassify the hospitals in Connecticut's Fairfield and New Haven Counties into the New York City Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Unfortunately, we were not able to offer this amendment, but I hope in the future we will be able to address this issue. Fairfield County borders the New York state line and is only 30 miles from Manhattan. There are six hospitals in the county, four of which have been periodically reclassified on a temporary basis into the New York MSA. Despite paying wages which are only 10 percent less than the wages paid by hospitals in the New York MSA, Fairfield County's wage index is 17 percent less than the New York MSA. The Fairfield County hospitals need to be on a level playing field with the New York hospitals to be able to attract and retain highlyskilled clinical staff. Fairfield County is widely recognized as being part of the New York Metropolitan Area geographically, economically and socially. In fact, the Census Bureau counts Fairfield County in the same Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA) as New York City. This determination is based on population figures, commuting patterns, employment data, and the overall economic and social integration of the surrounding areas with the City. In fact, fully 11 percent of Stamford Hospital's labor pool resides in New York. In addition, the Federal Reserve Bank, the Department of Labor, and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics all include Fairfield County with New York City for statistical purposes. A letter from Rae Rosen of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York states, ``A significant portion of Fairfield County commutes to New York City where a significant portion of the county's income is earned.'' The National Association of Realtors groups Fairfield County housing prices with other New York metropolitan area housing prices because the markets are similar in many ways and provide the housing for the greater New York metropolitan area labor market. Mr. Chairman, by not reclassifying these hospitals, they are being penalized for efficiency. They have gone to great lengths to control costs, especially personnel costs by revamping their labor skill mix. However, rather than be rewarded for these cost-containment measures, Stamford, Norwalk and Bridgeport are penalized by the Medicare reclassification thresholds. The six hospitals in Fairfield County are the type of hospital that Congress intended to help when it created the geographic reclassification process. Mr. Chairman, I support this legislation and I would urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, three men were arrested in Easton, Connecticut after being seen videotaping a water reservoir and filtration plant. The good news: A vigilant employee alerted local police. City and state emergency response teams were mobilized, the FBI was brought in, and the water was tested and found to be safe. The bad news: Before being seen, those three men got past security fences and ``No Trespassing'' signs, and could have destroyed or contaminated facilities supplying drinking water to 238,000 people in southeastern Connecticut. It appears to have been an innocent mistake, a misguided desire to capture Connecticut's beautiful scenery from the wrong vantage point. But the incident demonstrates the vulnerability of critical water systems to biological terrorism. This conference report begins to address protection of water supplies by directing updated threat assessments, vulnerability assessments and incorporation of both into current emergency response plans. The current frustratingly vague string of alerts about potential terrorist acts cannot obscure one hard truth evident even before September 11: It is not a question of whether but only when, where and at what magnitude the United States will be attacked using biological, chemical, radiological or even nuclear weapons. To meet that threat, pharmaceutical stockpiles need to be augmented, disease surveillance should be strengthened, and public health capacities far better integrated into emergency response plans. This bill is costly. More will be needed in the years to come. But the costs of an uncoordinated, ineffective response to bioterrorism will be paid in human lives, civil disorder, loss of civil liberties and economic disruption that could undermine both national security and national sovereignty. If there is a ray of hope in the threat of bioterrorism it lies in this irony: improving the public health infrastructure against a man- made biological assault today better prepares us to face natural disease outbreaks every day. Just as biotechnologies can be used to produce both life-saving therapies and deadly pathogens, publics health capabilities are likewise ``dual use,'' enhancing our protection against smallpox attack by a terrorist and an influenza pandemic produced by Mother Nature.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Weekly Reader, the nation's oldest and most widely- circulated periodical for school children. The Weekly Reader dates to 1902, when Charles Palmer Davis visited his daughter's one-room schoolhouse and found only two students who knew William McKinley was the President of the United States. After this experience, Charles Davis decided to create a children's newspaper. Beginning with the first publication of Current Events on May 20, 1902, Weekly Reader has brought world and national news into classrooms in ways young people can understand. It has helped children learn to read and understand how events affect their lives and define their role in society. I have a particular affection for Weekly Reader because my third grade teacher, Mrs. Kapella, encouraged me to become a member of the Weekly Reader Book Club. Over the course of the school year, I became the proud owner of seven books of my very own. This set me on a wonderful course of loving to read and sparked a lifelong interest in American history, how we became a nation, how we settled the West and how we became a world power. The Weekly Reader's accessible style has helped students appreciate many of the important events that have shaped our world during the past century, including World War I, the Great Depression, World War II, the Civil Rights Movement, the first Moon landing, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tragic events of September 11, 2001. Present in 90 percent of school districts in the United States, Weekly Reader is read by nearly 11 million students each week. Weekly Reader does more than report the news; it teaches tolerance and encourages children to speak their minds about important topics. I applaud Weekly Reader for connecting our children to the world, encouraging them to become critical and imaginative thinkers and helping them grow into the leaders of tomorrow. The longevity and popularity of Weekly Reader speaks volumes about its importance as a learning tool, and I join with others who cherish the publication in congratulating them on their centennial anniversary.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 4187, Presidential Records Act amendments.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4737, the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act. The 1996 welfare law was the most significant change in American social policy in a generation. By liking benefits to work, the law introduced economic rewards to families isolated in a cycle of dependence and despair. Welfare reform has changed many lives in dramatic ways, but there is still more to do. Despite the emphasis on work, nearly 58 percent of adult welfare recipients today are not working. Far too many individuals still do not know the satisfaction of a job well-done and the dignity of a steady paycheck. This legislation sets a more challenging standard on work, one that is tough but achievable. H.R. 4737 requires states to engage at least 70 percent of their welfare recipients in 24 hours of direct work each week, and the other 16 hours in job-related activities like education, training, or counseling. This will allow individuals to work 3 days and go to school 2 days each week. Meaningful work requirements blended with education and training will lead to greater self-sufficiency. As we set a higher standard of work and require welfare recipients to be active participants in improving their lives, Congress must give families the support necessary to make this transition. A combination of work and social services will provide a more effective approach to fighting welfare dependency and poverty than an approach that relies primarily on government handouts. We also must remain responsive to people with multiple barriers to employment. As the reauthorization process moves forward, I am hopeful there will be a focus on allowing older individuals to take the time necessary to get a GED, as well as a greater emphasis on helping those who need intensive drug rehabilitation. I applaud the decision to provide an additional $2 billion in child care funds. Safe, affordable, high-quality child care is an important part of the support network needed to move people from welfare to work. Additional child care funds will allow parents to hold jobs. I am also pleased this bill helps states address the unique challenges faced by their populations. H.R. 4737 enables states to conduct innovative demonstration projects and coordinate a range of problems in order to improve services. It gives states the freedom to better meet the needs of welfare recipients as they work toward independence. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, we have done a tremendous job fixing our system of social welfare, and the reforms have been a tremendous success in my district and across the nation. We did the heavy lifting in 1996 and we will reauthorize those reforms later this year. I find it extremely troubling that our Nation's agricultural policies seem to follow a philosophy completely opposite that of our social policies: a hand out, not a hand up. At the same time we're preparing to strengthen our social welfare reforms, we're completely repealing any semblance of agricultural reform. This Farm Bill will bring our total agricultural spending to $208 billion over 10 years. It not only perpetuates crop subsidy programs, it virtually doubles them. It represents business-as-usual for our nation's heavily-subsidized agriculture community. Our Nation's agriculture policy is possibly the most disgraceful aspect of the entire federal government. If I had my way, I would scrap the wasteful, bureaucratic Department of Agriculture and all its programs, and start from scratch! The Department has an astonishing 99,000 full-time employees. By comparison, the Department of Education has just 5,000 employees. We need to come to grips with the fact that our farms are growing too many crops, which has led commodity prices to plummet. Yet, in the face of such convincing evidence, we refuse to take any market-oriented approach. Instead, we will be exacerbating the problem by providing even more subsidies, thereby encouraging marginal farmers to continue to overproduce and send prices further downward. Why is agriculture immune to basic economics? Because, I suspect, America has a romance with the family farm. Farming represents all that is good and pure in America. This motion is recommit will make two extremely modest improvements to our farm policies. First, it will limit annual farm payments to $275,000 for a married couple per year. Second, it will shift the money saved by these limits to conservation programs. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this Farm Bill because it continues our failed, wasteful, anti-competitive agriculture policies. I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to recommit and against the underlying bill.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank. Exports are an extremely vital part of our nation's economic well- being. The Export-Import Bank is a relatively modest investment that promotes U.S. businesses abroad and creates jobs back home. With financing moving across borders faster and faster and more frequently than at any time in history, and with every corner of the world touched by globalization, Ex-Im helps U.S. businesses stay connected to emerging markets they would otherwise have difficulty reaching. For a variety of reasons, from currency devaluation to political instability, U.S. firms find it difficult to secure financing for these markets. Private-sector lenders, perceiving a risk, are oftentimes reluctant to provide long-term financing to emerging markets and to support small business exports. This is unfortunate because nearly 90 percent of the world's population is in these countries, and this is where the greatest increase in economic growth will occur. That's where the Ex-Im Bank steps in. The agency acts as a ``lender of last resort,'' allowing U.S. goods to access hard-to-reach markets. It places an emphasis on small business exports, and today's legislation raises the statutory requirement for small business financing from a minimum of 10 percent of Ex-Im's activities to 20 percent. Mr. Chairman, last year, Ex-Im Bank authorized $9.2 billion in loans, guarantees and export credit insurance, supporting $12.5 billion of U.S. exports. I urge my colleagues to support this reauthorization bill, so we can continue to expand U.S. exports and promote economic growth.

Mr. SHAYS

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

Mr. SHAYS. Very briefly, I would love to just say, Mr. Speaker, that this basketball team and the teams that Lew Perkins has put together, the athletic director, have brought Connecticut together. I represent a part of Connecticut closer to New York City, and sometimes my constituents think they vote for the Governor of New York instead of Connecticut. But this basketball team has done an amazing job of making all of us so proud and feel so much a part of Connecticut. I would say one other thing. When we watch this team, we are not going to see their names on the back of their Jerseys because Geno points out that they are all a team, and no one is better than the other. Their names are not there. They are the team, the UConn Huskies. They do a great job.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. Speaker. This is going to be kind of an echo of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). We are going to say the same things, but every time we say it, we like it even more. My constituents and all of Connecticut congratulate the University of Connecticut Lady Huskies for winning the 2002 NCAA Women's Basketball Championship. These Huskies truly deserve the title ``Best in Show.'' In my expert opinion, this is the greatest team, the greatest team in the history of women's college basketball, and who knows if it will ever be repeated. How good were the Huskies? Consider that in posting their 39 and O record, they never once trailed in the second half all season. Their average margin of victory was a remarkable 35 points. During the NCAA tournament, they won their six games by an average margin of 27 points. At 87.5 points per game, they were the highest-scoring team in the Nation, and with an average of 51.4 points allowed, they had the second stingiest defense. Mr. Speaker, this team is characterized by its quick passes, ferocious rebounding, intense defense, and precision shooting, all of which were a cut above the rest of the competition, a big cut above. But most of all, what strikes me about the Lady Huskies is their emphasis on teamwork, their awesome teamwork: 831 assists. What a pleasure to watch them. On their way to their second championship in three years, the Lady Huskies were led by the unselfish play of four sensational seniors and a super sophomore: National Player of the Year and All-American Sue Bird, Final Four Most Outstanding Player and an all-American, Swin Cash, and All-Americans Asjha Jones, Tamika Williams, and Diana Taurasi. The Lady Huskies were also a team feared for their depth. I want to take a moment to recognize Maria Conlon, Stacey Marron, and two sisters, Morgan and Ashley Valley. NCAA Coach of the Year, Geno Auriemma, put together an unbelievable team with his coaching staff. These UConn Huskies are the new measure that all teams have to meet. They were really a joy to watch, and I congratulate them on all they have achieved. I also want to congratulate them for being such extraordinary role models for Americans young and old.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Chairman Mike Oxley and Chairman Richard Baker for their work on the legislation we are debating. The reforms contained in this accounting bill represent a balanced approach between industry and government oversight and I am pleased to support it. The Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, and Transparency Act meets the tests for reform put forward by President Bush. It prohibits accounting firms from offering certain controversial consulting services to companies they're also auditing. And it establishes a new, public regulatory board to certify any accountant wishing to audit the financial statement required from public issuers of stock. This board will have enforcement powers and will be under the direction of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Under CAARTA, all publicly-traded companies will be responsible for ensuring that their accounting firms are in good standing and for having their financial statement certified by the regulatory board. Well, maybe I shouldn't be so quick to say ``all'' publicly-traded companies. You see, there are two giant private corporations that enjoy a very special privilege from the federal government: they are completely exempt from our federal securities laws. Mr. Chairman, these companies are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and all the important improvements this legislation makes won't apply one iota to them. After studying the collapse of Enron and Global Crossing, the Financial Services Committee determined that a number of reforms were necessary to restore confidence in corporate America. These reforms build on the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the two landmark securities laws to which all publicly-traded companies, except Fannie and Freddie, must adhere. The reforms contained in this legislation will strengthen securities laws and accounting standards--except when it comes to Fannie and Freddie. This legislation improves transparency in our capital markets and protects investors--unless they're investing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac securities. What this legislation highlights is that we have two separate rules in corporate America: those that apply to Fannie and Freddie, and those that apply to every other publicly-traded company. The Financial Services Committee has had a number of hearings on the unfair advantages these two secondary mortgage companies have over the rest of the mortgage industry. With Chairman Oxley's support, I hope we can continue to ask Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac why they can't play by the same rules as all other companies and why they continue to seek exemptions from federal laws designed to protect investors.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion. This Congress has consistently, and in a bipartisan manner, supported easing our failed trade embargo on Cuba. A few years ago, we had a breakthrough and enacted legislation that allows the export of food, medicine, and humanitarian aid to the island nation. Unfortunately, that landmark legislation placed restrictions on these sales, the most onerous of which was the prohibition on U.S. financing. For the life of me I've never understood why we are allowing United States farmers access to the Cuban market, but prohibiting our banks from financing these sales. This type of inconsistency doesn't just harm our financial institutions, it ultimately harms the very farmers we are tying to help. The continued restrictions are also hurting the Cuban people. I don't think endangering the health and nutrition of the Cuban people is a proper response to our political disagreements with Fidel Castro. United States policy must focus on promoting a peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba. As Castro grows older, it is more important than ever for the United States to open the Cuban embargo to some trade and make efforts to develop a meaningful relationship with the people of Cuba. Mr. Speaker, changing United States policy toward Cuba is long overdue. Unfortunately, the current restrictions on trade show there is still a cold war mentality, when it comes to our Nation's Cuba policy. Yet, I find it difficult to understand how a small island nation of 11 million people--without the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact to protect it--could threaten the world's last remaining superpower. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this motion which will clear away legal restrictions on the sale of food and medicine to Cuba. Besides benefiting the people of Cuba, passage of this motion will benefit United States trade interests, strengthen our economy, and create jobs.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. One of the problems when a bill has a name after you, it personalizes the debate and it disguises really what is at issue. I think that the one thing that unites opponents and proponents of campaign finance reform is disclosure. We all said we were for it. There is duplicative filing that needs to be addressed. But I really believe that the 527 provision that is put in this bill, substantially similar, defined by the States, is a loophole. It is not the camel's head under the tent, something that can be a bigger problem in the future. It will be a problem immediately. The one thing we know with our campaign finance reform bill is 527s are going to proliferate. We know that. Special interests will have a greater say. We know that. That is what people on both sides of the aisle argued for: Let the Americans have their say. But if you do not disclose it, you have got a gigantic problem. And if you allow the States to define ``substantially similar,'' you have a loophole. What will happen is people will go to the State that has the biggest loophole to disguise their expenditures and their contributions. I really regret that this is in a good bill. But this provision is deadly, I think, to disclosure. Therefore, we have no choice but to oppose the bill and hopefully if it is defeated, it will be brought out without this provision and then we can get a provision that will work.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on March 19, I was in Florida participating in my close friend Ted Winpenny's wedding as his best man and therefore, missed four recorded votes. I take my voting responsibility very seriously and would like the Congressional Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have voted yes on recorded vote number 65, yes on recorded vote number 66, yes on recorded vote number 67, and yes on recorded vote 68.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend my constituent and good friend, Malcolm S. Pray, Jr. on being named ``Citizen of the Year'' by the Greenwich, Connecticut Rotary Club. I truly cannot think of an individual more deserving of this award. Over the years, Malcolm's love of his town and dedication to serving the community have been exemplary. His civic activity in greater- Greenwich has truly run the gamut--ranging from the Boy Scouts, to the Boys and Girls Club, to the Greenwich Symphony, to the Garden Club and the Greenwich Red Cross. As a prominent automobile dealer, Malcolm has served as president of state, national, and international automobile dealers trade associations. Whether chairing the Soap Box Derby or showing his impressive personal automobile collection to aficionados, Malcolm is equally at home and willing to share his passion for automobiles with others. Greenwich is truly a better place to live and work thanks to Malcolm Pray, and it is an honor for me to join the Greenwich Rotary and his larger community in taking the opportunity to recognize his outstanding commitment by naming him ``Citizen of the Year.''

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say this bill does have a purpose: it allows people to honor their pledge, but then kill campaign finance reform. This bill is not a bill that can pass the Senate. It is a bill that is not going to go anywhere. It is a bill that would force a conference committee, and in the conference committee we know what is going to happen. So this is why this bill has finally come forward. There will be a few people that say I want a pure bill. They can say I lived up to my pledge and helped kill campaign finance reform in the process.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), an extraordinary leader and a very courageous person.

Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am getting a little concerned because some people are getting a little cocky here, and we have two amendments to go, and I cannot tell my colleagues the outcome. But I can tell my colleagues this: In 1974, the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1974 provided an exemption to allow political parties to raise soft money to purchase or construct a building. It has existed since 1974. In fact, that was the way soft money kind of entered its way in. It was to build buildings; it was not really for campaigns, it was ultimately to get out the vote. It was not for races. What this provision does in our bill is say that if a party has any soft money left on November 6, they can only use it to build or purchase a building. Our bill makes it very clear that they cannot raise any more soft money for this or any purpose after November 6. Now, my logic was, if Terry McAuliffe and the Democratic side of the aisle wants to use soft money to build a building and not use it to run against candidates, I am happy to have them do it. That was my simple logic. I am curious as to why our side of the aisle wants him to use this money only to run against us. So that is the way my simple mind is working, I guess, at 1 o'clock in the morning. I am hoping this amendment is defeated. I hope Terry McAuliffe and anybody else he can convince will build buildings instead of running races.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have looked at the latest FEC report and what we have down in the building fund for the RNC is $1.8 million and the DNC is $3.2 million. Now, I will acknowledge to my colleague, again, the gentleman from Arizona, he has asked, well, there is this talk of $40 million. I am trying to nail down where $40 million comes from, but I look at the FEC report and this is what I see. So then what they would have to be doing is they would have to be raising money right now for soft money for a building instead of spending it on a campaign. Now, I do not know if there is some $40 million that does not show up in the FEC. I stand ready to comment on it, but that is what we have got. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to say honestly to this Chamber that I believe that the comments made by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) were correct. I am going to be voting against this amendment, but I do believe his point that my colleagues can raise them from the FHA and others is an accurate point and makes it easier to raise that soft money for those purposes.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have three amendments, and that is it, and I cannot predict the outcome of any of the three. But we have really two issues that are in play right now. One of them is the issue of the delay to the start of the next campaign season, November 6, and the other is soft money. In regards to the issue of delay, we thought that after 16 months already into this, whether we can blame one side or the other, we are here now and not in July or January of last year. We are 16 months into a 24-month election cycle, and by the time this bill becomes law, if it does become law, it is 2 or 3 or 4 months from now, and then we only have 4 months. So I was asked, and others, does it make sense to have this bill take effect now, and the answer was it really does not. And I have spoken to some Members here who say the same thing. They know it. People on my own side of the aisle know it does not make sense to have it take effect today unless we want to kill the bill. Now, on the issue of the soft money, I have been in pain all day, because the one thing that I do not want is there to be any ambiguity for any Member about any question of this bill. And the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) was the final straw. He was the final straw. I believe he believes so strongly about this, and I believe he has influence over other Members, and so the motion to recommit is going to make it clear that there cannot be any soft money used for hard money expenses. Now, the question my side of the aisle will have to answer is are they going to vote for a motion on the other side to take care of a problem they want to take care of? And that is going to be real curious. Are my colleagues going to do it, or is it all rhetoric? We are going to solve the problem about this issue in a motion to recommit, and I hope my colleagues will support it because it will take care of the problem of the feeling of ambiguity. In my sense there is not a problem with it, but we want to make sure there is no doubt. And the other reason we want to make sure there is no doubt is the President has expressed concern about this, and we need to make sure there is no doubt in the mind of the President. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I had fainted unless I believed to see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living, and I see this goodness in this House, and I see a little anger, and I see little charges. My wife and I got to serve in the Peace Corps. It was the best 2 years of our lives, serving in another country and learning another culture. George Bush gets it. He would oppose this amendment. He knows we live in a pluralistic society, and he knows our party is not pluralistic. Look at us. We are good people, but we do not look like that, and some day my hope, some day my hope is that we will look like that, but amendments like this make it very difficult for people of other cultures to want to be a part of our party. This amendment passed in the past because we confused foreign nationals and the soft money they gave to legal permanent residents who were giving legal contributions, and we got caught up in all of that soft money given by foreign nationals. This is not about foreign nationals. It is about legal permanent residents being allowed to participate in our government.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have a lot of respect for the gentleman from Arizona, but I totally disagree with his analysis. The reason why we are opposing this amendment is because we do not believe that the amendment is needed because we know that first amendment rights are not threatened. One of the curious things here is that this does not just involve veterans, it involves senior citizens. Senior citizens. AARP supports and has asked for this amendment, asked for our bill, our substitute, because they think their voice is being drowned out by large corporate interests and large union dues interests, as do some veterans. Some veterans think their voice has been drowned out by the voice of large corporations. My party for some reason has given the impression that this is doomsday if this bill passes. The thing that they are really saying is that they cannot exist unless they have large corporate contributions. I do not believe it, and I do not think it is true. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.