[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 11 (Friday, January 19, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H769-H772]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
(Mr. BLUNT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the majority leader,
Mr. Hoyer, for the purpose of inquiring about next week's schedule.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
We are going to meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour on Monday and at
2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills under
suspension of the rules, including, and every Member ought to pay
attention closely to this announcement, to the important bill, I think
frankly it is going to pass with every Member's vote; we will consider
several bills under suspension, but including legislation regarding
Members' pension accountability.
I think everybody in this House believes that we ought to have
legislation, we have had it; when the minority was the majority they
pushed for this legislation, we agreed with them, we are pushing it as
well. We think there will be agreement on making sure that if you
commit a crime while a Member of Congress that is contrary to your
duties that you are going to lose your pension. We think the American
public believes that is fair.
On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 for morning hour and noon
for legislative business. We will consider additional bills under
suspension of the rules. A complete list of those suspension bills, as
is the practice, will be available by the end of today.
On Tuesday, obviously we will receive the President for the delivery
of the State of the Union message. So we will vacate the Chamber about
5 o'clock to give the opportunity for the security forces to make sure
the Chamber is secure.
On Wednesday, we will meet at 10. We will consider a resolution to
restore to the Delegates and Resident Commissioner their ability to
cast votes in the Committee of the Whole. This rule was in place prior
to January 1995, and we believe it is a good rule and will try to adopt
that amendment to the rules. We will finish business in time--I have
discussed with Mr. Boehner and Mr. Blunt--we are trying to accommodate
our schedule so that the minority is able to leave in a timely fashion
to go to their meeting in Cambridge.
Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend. I have several questions. On the last
issue that you just raised, that is the first notice that I have had,
maybe our staff has had notice, right before coming to the floor on
changing the rules for the Committee of the Whole to where Delegates
could vote. I would ask my friend, is that only in the Committee of the
Whole? Is that what that rule change would be?
Mr. HOYER. This is exactly the same rule that was put in place by the
Democrats when we were in the majority to give to our five Delegates
the opportunity to come to the floor to express their opinion in the
Committee of the Whole. That rule, however, provides that in the event
that the votes of the Delegates make a difference in the outcome, that
immediately the Committee would rise, go into the House, and it would
be revoted in the full House without the ability of the Delegates to
vote.
The reason I articulate that, Mr. Whip, is to point out that, as you
know, that was taken to court to see whether or not that was
appropriate under the Constitution. The Court ruled that it was
appropriate under the Constitution, with that caveat that I have just
referenced. I have discussed this with all five Delegates. They are all
supportive of this rule.
We believed, as you know, when you adopted your rules in January of
1995 and dropped the Delegates, we believed that that was unfortunate,
because we have five people here sent by their constituents to the
House but do not have an opportunity to express their view in a public
way, their position in a public way on behalf of their constituents.
This will do that, although under the Constitution we are constrained
to write it as we did, which has been confirmed by the court. And I
thank the gentleman for that question.
Mr. BLUNT. Now, I believe there are seven Delegates, and we might get
our numbers straight on that. Also, I think I am right in that this has
only happened in one Congress.
Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLUNT. Yes, I would.
Mr. HOYER. There are five, believe me. There are obviously the
representative of the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, Guam, and Puerto Rico.
Mr. BLUNT. Okay.
This only happened in one Congress, which was the Congress in 1993
and 1994. I wasn't in Congress at the time, but I recall it was very
controversial, I believe the gentleman suggested so controversial that
there was a court case that determined that these votes, if they had
impact on the outcome, immediately would have to be decided by the full
House. And I am wondering, is that to give a deceptively large margin
in the Committee of the Whole? The majority is in the majority. Four of
these five Delegates are on the majority side. Every time it doesn't
matter in terms of passage, I guess that means it appears that there
are four more votes or maybe five more votes than there would otherwise
be.
What is the purpose of this? If it made a difference, it would
immediately have to go to a vote that they could not participate in.
I yield for an answer.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The purpose is to honor democracy. We are fighting in Iraq to honor
democracy and allowing people to vote. I thought it was unfortunate,
personally, that we did not continue the rule in place that we adopted
in 1993 in the rules package. And this rule will of course extend to
the Republican delegate, Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, as
well as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia. I personally
believe very strongly she ought to have a full vote in this House. She
represents 680,000, thereabouts, Americans who, if they moved across
the river to Virginia or across the line to Maryland, would have a full
vote. I think it is inappropriate, wrong, and frankly inconsistent with
our commitment to democracy that she does not have a full vote on the
floor of the House.
But I say to the gentleman the purpose is to give to these elected
representatives of constituent parts of this country, not States, but
constituent parts of this country the ability to express their views on
this floor. Under the Constitution, obviously, if they make a
difference, there would be a constitutional question; make a difference
in the sense that the margin is so close that they would make the
difference between winning and losing a proposition. So we provided
then and are providing now what the Court has sanctioned as the way to
give to the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, a Republican, as
well as the four Democrats who represent those four areas of our
country that I indicated, the District of Columbia, clearly a part of
our country, and the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam, the
ability to come to this floor and express their opinion. We believe
that is consistent with the democratic principles of this country, and
that is why we are doing it.
Mr. BLUNT. Reclaiming my time, it seems to me that the courts must
not think it is consistent, or they wouldn't have ruled and determined
that if these votes made a difference you have to vote again with a
body that doesn't include the votes from those five individuals.
[[Page H770]]
I would also suggest that while the gentleman makes the point that
the Delegate from the District of Columbia represents essentially the
same number of people that everybody else on this floor does, that the
Delegate from Guam, for instance, represents about a fourth of that
number, about 160,000, 165,000 people. So their vote will be tallied in
the Committee in a way that appears that the Committee vote has a
substantially different margin than the same issue taken to the floor
would have, and I am sure this will be a matter of some concern. It was
controversial when it was done. It only lasted for one Congress. And as
the gentleman would make the point, appropriately, that when my side
became the majority side in 1995, that 2-year period where this
existed, that rule was changed back.
A little more notice on that would have been helpful, but we have
been given notice. We now know that this issue will come up on
Wednesday. And in my own mind, I am still unclear why it is so
significant for the work of the Committee to be disproportionate in its
appearance to the work of the full House. They have maybe four or five
extra votes that if they made a difference in essence don't count. But
if they don't make a difference, it looks like the margin that the
majority has created is bigger than in reality it would be if that was
the margin that made the difference in whether an issue passed or not.
I would be glad to hear a response to that.
{time} 1130
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. Of course, we
are not very worried about that, we have been getting so many
Republicans to vote with our propositions, 124 on one of our bills, 82
on another one of our bills, our margins are so big that is not a big
concern to us at this point in time, I tell my friend.
Frankly, Guam is in no different position than some of our States.
Some of our States have one Member, and they are guaranteed a Member no
matter what their size is. So Wyoming, Montana and other States who
have either more or less, Montana now represents more than most of us,
Wyoming less than most of us. I am not sure what the population of
Alaska is. But to that extent, Guam, American Samoa are not in any
different position than a State that is guaranteed a vote.
Now under the Constitution, and I will say again to my friend that it
wasn't the courts that imposed this, in our efforts in 1992 and 1993
when we adopted the rule to extend to our colleagues who vote in every
committee in this House, they vote in the Ways and Means Committee if
they are there, I don't know that there is a Delegate member, but they
vote in the Natural Resources Committee, the Science Committee, other
committees on which they are members they vote. They are in line to
chair or not chair subcommittees, depending upon their seniority. It is
only in the Committee of the Whole that they cannot vote. So they
cannot express their views for their constituents on an issue.
The Constitution is such, which is why we drafted the rule, you are
correct, to have them make a difference would be, we believed,
inconsistent with the Constitution. We need a constitutional amendment
to do that. We are not offering a constitutional amendment. We don't
think that is necessary.
But I want to tell my friend honestly, I have been the chief
proponent of this and feel strongly about it, I believe passionately
that Ms. Norton ought to have a full vote, number one.
Number two, I believe the four Delegates, whether they be from Puerto
Rico, whether from Guam, American Samoa or the Virgin Islands, ought to
have the opportunity to come to this floor and express their views. So
we are offering that rule. We thought it was a good rule.
You are right, in the final analysis it is not going to skew the
difference between the minority and the majority parties because
ultimately if they make a difference, it is not that their vote will
not count, their vote will count. Their constituents will see their
vote up and other Americans will see their vote up, and they are going
to say the gentlelady from Guam or the gentleman from American Samoa or
the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands or the gentleman from Puerto
Rico believed X, Y or Z on a vote. We think that is consistent with our
view that we ought to be extending opportunities for democracy, not
limiting them.
Mr. BLUNT. Reclaiming my time on that, in the committees my
understanding is if the Delegates in the committees, if their vote is
the vote that makes the difference in committee work, that vote does
not have to be taken again. There is a fundamental difference clearly,
the Constitution and the courts believe, in what happens on the House
floor and what both majorities have decided happens in committee.
I also think there is no analogous situation in terms of the number
of people represented.
Generally, the single district States now are close to or bigger
than. The individual from Montana represents more people than anybody
else on the House floor. There is no 160,000-vote in any State.
My good friend from American Samoa, we have been friends for over two
decades now. We have found many times to work together, and this
certainly in no way reflects on my true fondness or long friendship
with him. I would be glad for you to make a comment, and if you want to
make a comment about the fact that American Samoa was excluded from the
minimum wage increase, another issue that we are concerned about, we
would like to be consistent in at least that regard in how we treat
these Delegate representatives and the people they represent.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from American Samoa.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank my good friend and colleague for yielding
to me for a few seconds to respond to some of the concerns that he has
expressed on the floor concerning whether or not we ought to be giving
the privilege of the congressional Delegates to vote in the Committee
of the Whole.
The gentleman makes a good point. The fact of the matter was that
this matter was taken to court by the other side of the aisle, and on
appeal the Court said it is constitutional if this procedure takes
place where if, as a result of the vote a congressional Delegate's vote
makes a difference, any Member of the House can also then appeal to the
Chair for a revote. That is what makes it constitutional.
But to the point where the gentleman says because Guam is only
160,000 residents, I think once we get into the population
consideration we are getting into another area. My good friend, the
Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, who is a Republican, represents
4 million Americans. I can also make the argument to my good friend
that we also bleed and die in the wars that we were currently fighting.
If there is any sense of equity and fairness in the process, at least
give us a chance to participate in that regard.
I can say the same thing for our good friends from the State of
Wyoming or other States. But when you consider the fact that we have a
$20 billion presence of our military, the strategic importance of Guam,
we should appreciate the fact that people representing the territory of
Guam should be given an opportunity. Guam, despite its small
population, does and is a very important territory as far as our
military strategic interests are concerned.
To the question of the minimum wage issue, I would say to my good
friend from Missouri that I would prefer that we take this issue up at
another point in time because I have my own ideas. I would simply say
the fact of the matter is that the Federal Labor Standards Act does
apply to my little district since 1938. The Congress amended the
Federal Labor Standards Act in 1956 to allow the Territories, because
in those days our economic situations were just not able to bear the
Federal minimum wage standards. For that reason, we have established
these industrial committees through the supervision and administration
of the U.S. Department of Labor to help us, being under the Federal
umbrella. So we do this so that eventually the economies of these
territories will come up to par with the national standards.
The problem is that my good friends on the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands are not under the minimum wage provisions of
the Federal
[[Page H771]]
Labor Standards Act. This is the issue we are trying to correct.
I must say that I think the good Speaker from San Francisco has been
unfairly characterized to suggest that she is doing this as a double
standard, being hypocritical. I think it was unfair for our good
friends on the other side of the aisle to depict the Speaker in doing
something like this. It is not right.
I thank my good friend from Missouri for yielding, and I just wanted
to explain those things.
Mr. BLUNT. I have great affection for my friend, and have had for a
long time. This is not meant to reflect on him or the people he
represents in any way. By the way, there are about 60,000 people on
American Samoa that my friend represents, as opposed to 600,000 that
others represent. I will let you respond to the number if you want to.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I will be happy to check on that with my good
friend. I represent probably the smallest constituency in the House.
But is it any different from our friends from Wyoming, if we are
talking about population as a factor, to give representation? The fact
is it is not because of the population but because of our status as a
U.S. territory.
Now I can't say, because many of the Members don't realize we have
had a 106-year unique political relationship with this great Nation. I
bet to say that not many of the Members know about that relationship.
If you want to talk about the contributions we have made, my little
territory has the highest per capita casualty rate in the whole United
States. If you want to count the numbers, I have had to go eight times
to my district to take the remains of our soldiers who were killed in
that terrible war in Iraq. If you want to make comparisons to the
70,000 people, yes; but we also say in a very proud way, we are very,
very proud to make that contribution to our great Nation. So if you
want to talk numbers, I think we can get into other situations as well.
Mr. BLUNT. I am sure we will, and I thank my good friend for that
point.
I would just point out for the purpose of this discussion, Alaska,
which the majority leader wondered about the population there, has
626,000 people. Wyoming has about 420,000-some people.
In terms of the decision to have the relationship with the
Territories, that was not made anticipating that the Territories would
be represented as States are represented. That is the plain and simple
truth of it.
If it had been, there probably would have been a different thought
about how you treat both Puerto Rico and American Samoa. This is a
debate that I am sure a dozen years ago was widely discussed as a
debate that should be had as a constitutional debate.
If your vote in the Committee of the Whole is going to matter, it
shouldn't be reversible by a vote by the body that doesn't include
those five representatives. We have Wednesday to discuss this, and I am
sure that we will.
I am glad to get the notification, although I think on an issue like
this that clearly was a huge issue a dozen years ago, that notification
on the floor is a little later than I would have hoped for.
The other issue on the schedule, I appreciate the leader trying his
best to accommodate the retreat that our Members will have next week.
And of course there will be a reciprocal accommodation for the retreat
you have the next week.
Having scheduled the floor for some period of time, as the majority
leader for a while and as the majority whip working with the leader, I
sympathize with the leader's challenge of the floor.
I would say that on this entire issue of the voting 5 days a week,
whether in truth there is anything to vote for or not, I think has been
widely taken advantage of, not by the leader but particularly by people
who don't prefer to understand how hard our Members work.
The late night comedians love the idea that Congress was suddenly
going to work 5 days a week. I think that was an unfair view of what
our Members do. In fact, I would advance the theory that our problem is
not that our Members don't work 5 days a week, our problem is that too
many of our Members work 7 days a week. Too many of our Members get so
focused on this that they don't focus on the things that the people
they work for hope they would, and this makes it even more difficult to
get your work done.
Here we are today, it was about 11 when we started this discussion.
We had a 30-minute debate that when we finished at 6 p.m. last night, I
would advance, could have happened then and then Members would have had
a day in their district to meet with people who want to meet with
Members on occasion during their regular workweek, not on Saturday or
Sunday, and under this current schedule the only option is to come to
Washington.
I know my good friend appreciates how hard the Members work. I know
his suggestion that we would start working 5 days a week in Washington
was not intended to be an indication that Members somehow don't work as
hard as other Americans do because he and I both know that is not the
case.
I wish our Members would have been able to go home last night or this
morning and spend some of this workday at home instead of on an
airplane. All of our Members as far as I know have a desk in their
district office. If they are not going to be there Monday through
Friday, they are not going to need that desk very often, and the only
way to see them is right here. I think it is unfortunate that we had to
come back today for 30 minutes of debate on a measure that was already
agreed to on a vote that not a single person voted the other way. I say
that more in sympathy than I do in criticism. I understand the pledge
you made.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLUNT. I yield on that issue.
Mr. HOYER. First of all, let me say he and I agree. I was at dinner
last night and Secretary Paulson was there. Secretary Paulson, as
everybody knows, was the managing partner of Goldman Sachs. Obviously
he worked very hard and is a very successful individual. He has been in
his job now for a few months.
He said to me he was surprised how hard Members of Congress worked,
how complex were the challenges confronting them, and how much of an
education, frankly, over the last months he has had in dealing with
Members of Congress, working on both sides of the aisle, how hard they
had to work to come to grips with solving our Nation's problems.
I want to make it very clear that Members of Congress do in fact work
6, 7 days a week, and that is the rule, not the exception. And when
they are at home in their districts, they are doing what the Founding
Fathers expected them to do, particularly in this House, the people's
House. They are going home and listening to their public and having
town meetings, they are visiting business enterprises that are creating
jobs and visiting schools. They are talking to their constituents. They
are meeting people with problems with the Federal Government in their
district offices where, as the minority whip has pointed out, they have
offices, district offices, to serve their public. That is our job.
I tell my public that this job really is a two-fold job. Fifty
percent of it is coming to the House and voting yea or nay on policy.
Fifty percent of it is making sure that our districts are represented
well in their interface with the Federal Government.
{time} 1145
The Federal Government has an impact on our States, on our
municipalities, on our jurisdictions and on our people, on our veterans
and on our seniors in particular, but many, almost everybody. It is our
job to be in close communication with them. As a matter of fact, the
reason we are elected every 2 years, by the Founding Fathers' device,
was to specifically keep us in close touch.
So I agree 100 percent with the minority whip when he indicates that
our Members are working, whether they are here on this floor or they
are at home. Period. Having said that, we are going to be considering a
CR pretty soon because nine of the 11 appropriation bills that we were
supposed to pass into law are still not passed. They weren't passed by
the end of the fiscal year, September 30 of 2006. They have not been
passed as of January 19, and we are going to try to get at least a CR
passed so that we can fund last year's responsibility.
[[Page H772]]
And I want Members to know that the committees have had essentially 2
days to work in this place, Tuesdays and Wednesdays; and the committees
have been complaining that they aren't able to get their work done. I
want everybody to know, Mr. Blunt and I are close friends. We are not
close Democratic friends and Republican friends; we are close friends.
We see one another a lot, we talk to one another a lot, but what I have
said, and the whip knows I have said this, we are going to come in
Monday nights. Now, why are we going to come in on Monday nights?
Because if we do not come in Monday nights and we come in Tuesday night
at 6:30, the committees cannot meet because they can't get quorums.
Woodrow Wilson said that the work of Congress is done in its
committees. If committees can't work, the Congress can't work. America
sent us here to work, to get its work done, to make a difference, to
take us in a new direction, and that is on our side.
I am prepared, as the leader, to take some of the flack when
sometimes, as we wanted to do today, as the whip knows, we wanted to do
the pension bill today. Mr. Dreier objected, it wasn't in the regular
order, we understand that, we are going to accommodate that, so we are
going to do it Monday. We think it is going to be an overwhelming vote
on that. That could have been done today. We could have done that and
moved it on, but we will be here on Monday. And committees will have
Tuesday and Wednesday. Next week is a short week, the week after is a
short week, so we won't be meeting on Fridays. So we are not on an
onerous schedule.
But I would say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this
leader wants to accommodate the interest of Members. Why? Because I
know you work hard, because I have been here for 26 years and I work
very hard, and my colleagues work hard. I want you to also know that I
think it is our responsibility and duty to the American people to be
here in sufficient time to allow us to do the people's business.
And I want the people to know that when we are not on the floor on a
Friday and only doing a half an hour or an hour's work, as the
gentleman indicated, that our committees have 4 hours, from 9 to 1, to
try to do their work.
Now, we are early in the session, so they may not have needed today.
And, yes, I could, as practice has been, when we get to Thursday
conclude, well, we can get this out of the way and go home. I know
Members like to do that.
I want Members to be informed on a regular basis it is my intention,
as the leader, as the person responsible for scheduling, to talk to our
committee chairmen and committee ranking members that they will have
the opportunity to get their work done, and I am hopeful that they will
report that work to the floor.
My friend and I have discussed getting work for the floor is
sometimes difficult; but I say to my friend, I think it is more
difficult if the committees don't have the opportunity to work. We are
trying to provide that, while at the same time, I say to my friend,
provide for Members' schedules, not only at home to work, but Members
to be at home to see their children and their families and their wives
and their husbands. We think that is important as well.
So scheduling, as my friend, Mr. Blunt, has observed, is tough; but
we are going to try to provide a schedule which provides the
opportunity to do our business here and at home and to make sure that
we stay in close touch with our families.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. BLUNT. I am reminded of a friend of mine, when I was the
Secretary of State in Missouri, who was the leader, the Democratic
leader in the State Senate, was fond of saying: If you can't change
your mind, you can't change anything. I am absolutely confident that no
committees met today. And I understand the work the committees do in
the Congress. When the committees aren't working when we could have
added 30 minutes onto the schedule last night and been done, not in the
middle of the night, by 7 o'clock, I think that would have been a good
decision to make. I would hope my friend will remain flexible about
that in the future.
This has gone on some time today. I appreciate the chance to talk
about the work next week. I am also hopeful, and I would ask, will the
change in the rules on allowing delegates to vote in the Committee of
the Whole, will that go to the Rules Committees, and will there be a
chance for Republicans to at least offer amendments?
Mr. HOYER. The answer to your question is it will go to the Rules
Committee; the Rules Committee will consider it. I have not talked to
the Rules Committee, nor have I talked to you or to Mr. Boehner about
what you might want to do on that, but we will do that.
Mr. BLUNT. Well, the gentleman is right, we certainly haven't had any
discussion on this until the floor today.
I would also make the point that last week we did take two bills to
the Rules Committee; but before any opportunity was given to even offer
an amendment, it was announced that no amendments would be allowed. I
think that is unprecedented in the last 12 years, where at least the
Rules Committee always heard the amendments and tried to offer
amendments and always offered a substitute in every instance that I am
aware of.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLUNT. I yield briefly, as the gentleman can usually out-talk me.
Mr. HOYER. I would like to yield to Mr. DeFazio of Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I am a member of the full Transportation Committee; and
Water Resources, a subcommittee of Transportation, did meet today.
Perhaps there were other committees meeting.
Mr. BLUNT. I would ask my friend how long you met and what was the
topic.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I don't serve on that subcommittee any longer. I met
some people on the way to the committee who told me they were meeting.
Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate the information.
Mr. HOYER. I just knew that you would be delighted to have that
information.
Mr. BLUNT. I would be glad to find out the substance of that meeting
this morning. I doubt it was very substantive or could not have been
done yesterday. I think all the Members understand this discussion.
I think the general coverage of Congress meeting for 5 days a week
was a disservice to the institution. It is like assuming that a surgeon
only does the surgeon's work when they are in the operating room.
Another point that I believe I am helping my friend, the majority
leader, make is, when we are in committee and not on the floor, that
doesn't mean we are not working. When we are at home holding town hall
meetings or meeting with constituents, or in my case, seeing how we are
doing restoring power to 200,000 people that didn't have power in my
district this week in weather that was between 6 and 26 degrees all
week, it was impossible for me to be there today because I had to be
here to cast a vote that could have been cast last night.
I hope we all work hard. Certainly the majority has had the better of
this argument so far because it is a lot of fun to talk about Members
of Congress that don't work, or suddenly Members are working. Another
thing I am going to tell my friend we are going to do, frankly, is keep
track of how many hours we worked in essentially a 3- and 4-day week
versus a 4- and 5-day week. So far, we are winning in hours of working
on the floor.
We worked hard; you worked hard. On the appropriations process, I
would have liked to have finished that last year. It is clear to me
that the unwillingness of the other body to move forward, a thing
neither you nor I have a lot of control over, was the real reason we
didn't get more of that work done. We had 11 of our 12 bills done by
the 4th of July, without tremendous effort to keep Members here on
Friday. The year before we had all of our bills done by the 4th of
July. I think that is a reasonable target for us, and I hope that we
help achieve that target this year.
We do want to get our work done. This is a bicameral legislative
system. We don't control what happens on the other side.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________