Recognizing the 60th anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean War and reaffirming the United States-Korea alliance.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 86) recognizing the 60th anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean War and reaffirming the United States-Korea alliance, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this joint resolution, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This resolution before us today, House Joint Resolution 86, recognizes the 60th anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean War and reaffirms the strong United States-Republic of Korea alliance. This resolution will help ensure that the bonds we forged in blood during the Korean War will never be forgotten.

Today, the United States and Republic of Korea relationship is stronger than ever, encompassing social, cultural, economic, security and diplomatic relations. Last year's joint vision statement between our two nations provided an important reminder to the importance of the bilateral relationship between our two countries. Our two countries are working as closely as ever on the problems of North Korea, which is critically important since North Korea continues its provocations, including nuclear and missile tests and just recently the sinking of the South Korean ship, the Cheonan, which resulted in the deaths of some 46 sailors from this tragedy.

With President Lee chairing the G-20 meeting this year in South Korea, this is certainly indicative of South Korea's prominence in international trade and economic development. For our part, Madam Speaker, I have long supported the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement to further such growth. I continue to hope that the Congress will also pass this free trade agreement as soon as possible because it will reinforce U.S.-Korean ties and create American jobs. And for the benefit of my colleagues, I want to note that this free trade agreement with South Korea will provide somewhere between $11 billion and $20 billion in export trade between our two countries which will be of tremendous benefit to both our countries.

I also want to thank my dear friend, the gentleman from New York, Congressman Charles Rangel, for his service to our country during the Korean War, for his long and able service in the House of Representatives, and for his authorship of this important resolution. I also want to note our other colleagues who are also veterans of the Korean War, Congressman John Conyers of Michigan, Congressman Samuel Johnson of Texas, and Congressman Howard Coble of North Carolina. My apologies if I may have left out other Members. It was certainly not intentional, Madam Speaker, but I also want to thank them as well.

Congressman Rangel fought in the Korean War from 1950 to 1952 as a member of the 503rd Battalion, an all-black artillery unit, in the 2nd Infantry Division. In late November 1950, his unit was engaged in heavy fighting in North Korea; and at the Battle of Kunu-ri, Congressman Rangel was part of a vehicle column that was trapped and attacked by the Chinese Army.

During that attack, he was injured in the back by shrapnel from a Chinese bomb shell. In subzero weather, members of the 503rd Battalion looked to Rangel, then just a private first class, for his leadership. During 3 days of freezing weather, he led approximately 40 men from his unit out of the Chinese encirclement.

When asked about his experience in battle, Congressman Rangel commented, ``That was the coldest place, ever, in the whole world. We lost a lot of guys who froze to death in their sleeping bags.'' Nearly half of the 503rd Battalion were killed in the overall battle. And might I mention, a battalion is composed of about 600 soldiers. So you can imagine if 50 percent of the 503rd Battalion were killed in the Korean War.

Congressman Rangel was later recognized for his courage and awarded a Purple Heart for his wounds and the Bronze Star for Valor for his heroic efforts. In addition, he was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation, the Republic of Korea Presidential Unit Citation and three battle stars.

In summing up his experience, Congressman Rangel once said, ``Since Kunu-Ri--and I mean it with all my heart--I have never, never had a bad day.''

I might also note, Congressman John Conyers from Michigan served for 2 years in the Michigan National Guard starting in 1950. With the onset of the Korean War, he joined the U.S. Army and fought for 1 year as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. For his service, he was awarded both combat and merit citations.

Congressman Sam Johnson began his 29-year career in the U.S. Air Force at the early age of 20. During the Korean War, he was stationed just 25 miles away from the front lines and flew 62 combat missions in his F-86 Saber jet fighter. In his plane, Shirley's Texas Tornado, named after his dear wife, Congressman Johnson scored one MiG fighter kill, one probable kill and one damaged. He flew on combat missions with Buzz Aldrin and John Glenn, and when he shot down the Russian MiG, he was so low on fuel that he actually had to glide back to Seoul. He went on to continue his outstanding military career through the Vietnam War as director of the Air Force Fighter Weapons School, known as Top Gun, and was one of the two authors of the air tactics manual revolutionizing military air dominance by incorporating three- dimensional flight.

Our good friend, Congressman Howard Coble, meanwhile, served in the Coast Guard from September 1952 until September 1956, and was deployed to Korean waters during the war.

I ask all of my colleagues to join me in honoring the sacrifices of these gentlemen, our colleagues, Congressman Rangel, Congressman Conyers, Congressman Johnson, and Congressman Coble, and the sacrifices of all of the other 1.8 million Americans who fought in the Korean War, as well as in recognizing the vital importance of the U.S.-Korean alliance by supporting this resolution; and also noting as a matter of history that over 30,000 of our soldiers died from that terrible conflict in South Korea.

Committee on Armed Services,

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, June 15, 2010.

Hon. Howard Berman,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of

Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Berman: I am writing to you concerning H.J.

Res. 86, recognizing the 60th anniversary of the outbreak of

the Korean War and reaffirming the United States-Korea

alliance. This measure was referred to the Committee on

Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed

Services, and Veterans' Affairs, for a period to be

subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for

consideration of such provisions as fall within the

jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.J. Res 86, and

the need for the legislation to move expeditiously.

Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over

this legislation, the Committee on Armed Services will waive

further consideration of H.J. Res 86. I do so with the

understanding that by waiving consideration of the

resolution, the Committee on Armed Services does not waive

any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters

contained in the resolution which fall within its Rule X

jurisdiction.

Please place this letter and a copy of your response into

the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure

on the

House floor. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which

you have worked regarding this matter and others between our

respective committees.

Very truly yours,

Ike Skelton,

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, as a veteran of the Vietnam War, I am deeply honored to yield all the time he needs to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the author of this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have left on this side?

Madam Speaker, I would like to certainly compliment and thank our distinguished veterans of the Korean War, now Members, our colleagues here in this institution, for not only sharing with us their experiences, but the fact that this close relationship that we have with the Republic of Korea should never be lessened in any way.

It's been my privilege over the years to have visited the Republic of Korea, visited with their leaders. And the outstanding results of now South Korea becoming one of the great economic powers of Southeast Asia, I might say, is mainly because of our close economic ties. I also want to note the fact that the number one electronic company in the world is in South Korea. Also, the number one shipbuilding company is in South Korea.

I sincerely hope that in the coming months we will be able to continue to negotiate successfully the proposed free trade agreement that was done previously by the previous administration and negotiators. It's my understanding that as a result of this proposed free trade agreement we stand to gain at least somewhere between $11 to $20 billion in exports of our products to South Korea if we get an approval of this proposed agreement.

I also want to note, as a matter of a little history, and complement what my friend from New York has stated about the people and the good leaders of South Korea. My own personal experience while serving in Vietnam, I tell you, you really know who your real friends are. The fact that there were 50,000 South Korean soldiers fighting alongside American soldiers in Vietnam, now that is where you really know who your real friends are. The leaders and the people of South Korea came and joined us in that terrible conflict that our Nation was confronted with in fighting communism.

It's also my understanding that in the coming months, the President of Korea will be presiding over the G-20 meeting of 20 of the most prominent countries economically, and hopefully there will be better solutions given to the economic demise that not only the world is faced with now, especially the contributions that the 20 countries can offer in solving some of the serious economic problems that we are confronted with today.

I gladly yield to the gentleman from New York.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I might also note, Madam Speaker, that out of some 15 million Asian Pacific Americans, we have well over 2 million Korean Americans as part of the fiber of our great democracy that have made tremendous contributions to our country. I wanted to just note that for the record.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, but I do want to say for the record again, on behalf of a grateful Nation, to extend our heartfelt gratitude and thanks to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Coble, and Mr. Conyers for their contributions, and especially as veterans of the Korean War.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for his gracious remarks and the work he has done to facilitate the bringing to this floor this resolution. I want to thank the other side of the aisle. I have never seen anything move so fast, and I am so deeply grateful that this happened.

Some of you don't know, but the Korean Government invited John Conyers, Sam Johnson, Howard Coble and me to go to Korea on June 24 and 25, but the legislative calendar prevented this from happening. But because of their enthusiastic support, as well as mine, next week the Speaker and the minority leader have agreed not to forget those people who served our country; and, indeed, served the international freedom community.

I want to thank also from my office Emile Milne and Hannah Kim for working with all of the committees that had jurisdiction to expedite the fact that this will be done before June 25.

I am reminded when you gave the facts that led up to the North Koreans invading South Korea, I was a 20-year-old kid in the barracks in Fort Lewis, Washington, when a sergeant screamed that the North Koreans had invading South Korea and the Second Infantry Division was slated to go to defend them. I was so anxious to leave Fort Lewis, I said: Hurrah. Where the heck is Korea?

I had no idea that a police action involved putting yourself in harm's way. But away we did go. There was some question at that time whether we could even land in Pusan because the North Korean Communists had been so successful that they drove the 25th Division and Japan and the People's Republic of South Korea to the Pusan peninsula, but we were able to push them back. The marines landed in Inchon and the Chinese came, and you know the rest of that story.

But how grateful I am to be not just alive, but to know we all participated once again in defending a democracy even in countries where we don't know the people and don't know the country. And as a result of that, one of America's strongest allies is the government of Korea. The truth of the matter is with China there and North Korea there, and especially the threat of Iran, South Korea has represented a symbol not only of democratic principles but a symbol of what can happen economically when freedom and democracy is the atmosphere in which we are working.

Those of us who served, especially the 50,000 who did not come back home, the close to 100,000 that were wounded, the 8,000 that were prisoners of war, we had no idea that our sacrifice would rebuild a nation from ashes to the great

economic power it is today, and the great contributions Korean- Americans make each and every day in all parts of every town, city and every state that we have.

But I want to particularly thank John Conyers who is the next highest senior member here in the House of Representatives. I want to thank Howard Coble. He is a veterans' veteran. There is not a day I see him that he does not remind me and others that we should never forget the sacrifices that are made for all of us and our children and our children's children. And, of course, Sam Johnson who I serve with on the Ways and Means Committee, is truly a hero. Very few Americans are living who have made the type of sacrifices that he has made for his country.

So collectively and on behalf of all of the veterans who have served, and particularly for this war that they call the Forgotten War, we were sandwiched between the World War II and the Vietnam War. So many people asked when we came back home: Where were you? They had no idea America had been involved. But we were involved.

The 21 nations will have representatives here next week to thank America, as we thank them, for allowing this great country to be involved in what appeared to be a very unimportant crisis. But at the end of the day, this country has risen to be one of our best trading partners, one of our best political partners, and certainly has made an outstanding contribution to the entire world of free countries and free people.

And so, Chairman Faleomavaega, I thank you for giving us the opportunity to celebrate this occasion and never to forget those who made it possible for us to be free men and free women.

Would the gentleman yield?

And I want you to know this is just the beginning of the United States of America's involvement. In September of this year, in commemoration of the lives that were lost by Koreans and Americans and the other 20 countries that fought against communism, there will be a commemorative ceremony in Seoul, which our State Department will be participating in. And again, my colleagues have been invited to join, but the situation here in Congress didn't allow us to accept.

But Mr. Boehner, the minority leader, as well as our distinguished Speaker had thought that since we could not be represented over in Seoul next week, that a reception will be held right here and a ceremony in Statuary Hall, where the participants from the free countries that joined with us will be there with their representatives. And we have invited veterans that have served in Korea to come join us.

The reason I constantly say I haven't had a bad day since, and to say how good God is, is because it's been 60 years ago. And recently, that is last week at the Kennedy Center, the Korean Angels, a young group that's trained to go around the world talking about peace and harmony to the world, celebrated and they lauded the Korean veterans. And my colleagues here on the House floor would know they came with crutches and wheelchairs and canes, but they did come.

And what this House and Senate will be doing for them, even if they are not able to come to Washington, they will be able to tell their kids and their grandkids and their neighbors and friends that their sacrifice has not been forgotten. And I do hope that you and the chairman and subcommittee chairman that expedited this, and the Members that hopefully will be supporting this in the House and Senate, would realize how many lives they are making more bright by reminding their loved ones of those that were left behind, that what they lost, the pain that they felt is not forgotten by the United States.

And it gives us a time once again to talk about the brave men and women that are in the Middle East, that are in Afghanistan. Each and every day that we are allowed to breathe the breath of democracy, to get up and to do and say what we want is only because they are willing to put their lives in harm's way for our flag and for our country and for the freedom that's here.

So all of us, in a sense, whether it was in World War II, whether it was Korea, whether it was the Persian Gulf where my son served as a Marine, or whether or not it's the present crisis that we face in the Middle East, we have so much to be fortunate that in this country there is a spirit that we defend what is right, what is moral, and at the end of the day we are better people, we are better legislators, and we are a better country for it. And so everyone who votes today, I think it's our way of saying ``thank you'' for those who made the sacrifice and also ``thank you'' for those who continue to do it as we speak today.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), who is the ranking member on the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia.

I thank my good friend from Indiana. I wholeheartedly agree with his remarks.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in strong support of this important resolution which honors, as the inscription at the Korean War Memorial reads, our ``sons and daughters who answered the call to defend a country they never knew and a people they never met.''

On a predawn Sunday morning in June 1950, while the world slept and the church bells of Seoul had yet to ring, North Korea launched a sudden, unprovoked military strike on the Republic of Korea. President Harry Truman, when he received the news, immediately returned to Washington and summoned his Cabinet. Within 48 hours, the President had directed General Douglas MacArthur to undertake a vigorous defense of South Korea and her people. The rest is history, history of what has come to be known as The Forgotten War.

The conflict in Korea became the first test of the mettle of the West in confronting Communist aggression in the Cold War. Over 50,000 of the boys and young men and women of the summer of 1950 who left for Korea did not return, including over 33,000 who fell in combat. In the sweltering heat of that summer, in the monsoon rains, on the windswept expanse of the Yalu River, and in the bloody withdrawal from the icy Chosin Reservoir the following winter, they gave, in some cases, their last full measure of devotion.

Names like Heartbreak Ridge, Pork Chop Hill, Gloucester Valley, where British, Belgian, and Philippine troops joined with their American comrades in arms, echo down to us in the slowly fading memories of aging warriors.

Were their great sacrifices worth the cost, worth the blood, sweat, and tears of the boys of summer of 1950? One only has to look at the faces of those living in freedom in South Korea. One only has to look at the gleaming towers of the bright skyline of Seoul in contrast to the darkness, the impoverishment, and the fear that lies north of the 38th parallel to say thank God for those brave men and women who risked all to save so many from Communist oppression.

However, we were unable to help save them all. One need only reflect on the huddled refugees, crossing the vastness of China on the underground ``Seoul train.''

One need only think of the young North Korean women, escaping the hopelessness of sexual bondage in China for freedom in South Korea, to know that those who answered Harry Truman's call truly made a difference.

I was a proud sponsor of the reauthorization of the North Korean Human Rights Act during the last Congress to help address some of those issues.

Today, dark clouds hang once again over the Korean peninsula. The vibrant economy and flourishing democracy of a South Korea which had risen from the ashes of war is again under the threat of the tyrannical and belligerent north.

In March, in a clear violation of the armistice agreement, North Korea launched another sudden, unprovoked attack, torpedoing a South Korean naval vessel and murdering 46 young South Korean sailors. And Pyongyang's provocation is not limited to military strikes. In actions which are clearly those of a state sponsor of terrorism, North Korea sent a hit squad of agents to Seoul to assassinate a leading dissident and attempted to ship weapons via Bangkok to designated terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah.

Madam Speaker, now is the time for our President to show some of the mettle that defined our Nation 60 years ago and stand up to the North Koreans by redesignating their country as a state sponsor of terrorism. Our South Korean, Japanese, and Israeli allies are depending on us to help shield them from North Korean provocations and weapons of mass destruction.

In the crisis on the Korean peninsula, Beijing has played a cynical game, calling for denuclearization of the Korean peninsula on one hand, and shielding its North Korean cronies on the other hand. Beijing even had the audacity to publicly warn South Korea not to let the aircraft carrier USS George Washington enter waters lying between the Korean peninsula and China for a proposed joint U.S.-South Korean naval exercise.

Well, we have news for Beijing: If you don't want the USS George Washington in your backyard, then you had better rein in the bullies in Pyongyang.

Another sterling legacy of the Forgotten War is the vibrant Korean American community. Immigrants from Korea over the past six decades have contributed immeasurably to the American mosaic, impacting positively this Nation's economic, educational, scientific, and cultural life. Economic and trade ties have also boomed between our two countries in the decades since the war, ties which could be greatly invigorated by prompt congressional action on the proposed free trade agreement with South Korea.

Thus, it is perfectly clear that the world is a better place because of the heroism in Korea of the Boys of Summer 60 years ago this month. The 60th anniversary of the outbreak of war in Korea is an appropriate time to demonstrate that we continue to stand with our South Korean allies. The people of South Korea should be assured that we stood with you in the summer of 1950; we stood with you during the recent Cheonan crisis; and we shall stand with you until the day of peaceful reunification with your abused and besieged brethren in the north.

Madam Speaker, I strongly and enthusiastically urge my colleagues to support this joint resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

In its current form, yes.

This motion makes two important changes to this bill. First, it puts a Special Inspector General for TARP in charge of the oversight of the new Small Business Lending Fund. Remember, this fund is TARP II or TARP, Junior, as it's referred to. Second, the motion requires the Treasury to certify that the decisions about which banks receive funds are based on merit and not political consideration.

This new lending fund follows the model of TARP, minus the stronger oversight, and puts another $30 billion in banks. The motion to recommit would make the Special Inspector General for TARP, or SIGTARP, responsible for oversight of this new program.

In a letter to Chairman Frank, Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General for TARP, said, ``I believe it is absolutely critical to protect the taxpayers that the Office of SIGTARP be permitted to continue its oversight in what is essentially an extension of TARP's Capital Purchase Program. Accordingly, I write to recommend that Congress provide SIGTARP oversight for the SBLF in any resulting legislation.''

Just yesterday, SIGTARP announced an indictment in a $1.9 billion fraud case involving the failed Colonial Bank. Part of the fraud case involves efforts to obtain $533 million in taxpayer money from TARP. Due to the efforts of SIGTARP agents working with law enforcement, the taxpayers were protected.

The underlying legislation puts a deputy of the Treasury Inspector General in charge of oversight. The Treasury Inspector General was not among the many agencies and law enforcement that worked on this $1.9 million fraud involving TARP.

SIGTARP has considerable experience overseeing a program in which the government purchases preferred stocks in banks. If we create a new TARP program that will also purchase shares in banks, why should we not use the same oversight agency that has a proven track record and expertise? Failing to take advantage of SIGTARP's unique expertise is an extreme service to the taxpayers, exposing them to a greater likelihood of waste, fraud, and abuse.

Is the majority afraid to use this experienced and effective regulator simply because the word ``TARP'' is part of its title?

The taxpayers deserve to be protected when Treasury makes investments with their money. Unfortunately, we have some examples of TARP investments that have raised serious questions about how the investment decisions were made.

When One United bank received TARP funds in 2008, questions came up about whether the bank's political connections helped with its TARP approval. Prior to receiving funds, One United had lost capital and was under scrutiny by regulators for its lending practices

More recently, a number of Members of Congress and others have questioned whether political pressure was involved in the decision by large banks to raise capital for the troubled Shore Bank in Chicago. Shore Bank has applied for TARP funds, in addition to the $140 million in assistance from other banks, to head off a takeover by the FDIC. Shore Bank also has ties to the Obama administration.

We do not have all the answers on how these decisions were made for the banks, but we need to be sure that these types of questions are not raised about other banks.

The motion to recommit says Treasury must certify that each decision to provide funds is made solely on economic fundamentals and not because of any political consideration. This is the type of decision- making that taxpayers always expect and deserve. When their $30 billion is being put on the line, we need to do all we can to protect their investment. The underlying bill falls short to do that.

The motion to recommit improves taxpayer protections by putting the experience of SIGTARP over this new TARP program and requiring that investment decisions be made on economic fundamentals, not political connections. If you're going to have TARP II, why wouldn't you use the same regulator that you had for TARP I?

I urge my colleagues to stand with the taxpayers and support this motion to recommit.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I rise to oppose the motion.

Mr. Speaker, let's be very clear. This is just a preliminary chance to vote ``no.''

For reasons that I don't understand, my Republican colleagues are opposed to a program in which voluntarily the Federal Government makes funds available to community banks so that, if they want to participate, they can lend it to small businesses. Maybe it is the fear that it might succeed and diminish their issues that leads them to oppose it. They have been unable to oppose it outright on its merits, so here's what they want to do. They want to say it's really the TARP program, and

in fact, the gentleman from Texas said that. He said, if you're going to create a second TARP program, put the TARP inspector in charge. That's true. If you're going to fly to the Moon, pack a big lunch. If shmif.

The fact is that we don't create a TARP program. This is classic bootstrapping. It's not a TARP program. It's very different than the TARP program in a number of ways. The community banks want to participate in it. They don't want to participate in another TARP program. So, to kill it, they are inaccurately characterizing it TARP and then talking about another Inspector General from SIGTARP. This is not the problem of what the Secretary's being asked to say. It is to try desperately to get a little TARP rubbed off on it so they can defeat, by that way, something they can't defeat on the merits.

Let me now yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) who is the chair of the oversight subcommittee of our committee and a man with a great reputation for integrity in enforcing taxpayer rights.

I reclaim my time to say, the gentleman from Texas began with a great, surprising revelation. A bureaucrat, the Inspector General of TARP, wants to expand his authority. I'm surprised that there were not gasps of wonderment in the House. We have an Inspector General here. They can do it, and the SIGTARP Inspector General, because that program is about to go out of existence, decided to expand his authority. However, it goes beyond in one sense. It says that the Secretary must certify that he is acting solely on the basis of economic fundamentals and not because of any political consideration.

So here's the offer I make, with the support of the majority leader. Within a few days, we will bring a suspension to the floor that will require the Secretary to so certify under oath--we'll go you one better in this effort--and the Secretary will be required to certify under oath to the Inspector General of the Treasury, and if Members want, we can have them certify under oath to the Government Accountability Office, and if there are other people you want them to certify to, we'll be glad to do that.

But the sole purpose of invoking the Inspector General of TARP here, with his collaboration, so he will continue to have a job, is to discredit the program. If you want this program to go forward, you vote against this. We will come forward with further reinforcement of the oath taking--we'll even make it oath taking, but please, if you want to vote ``no,'' vote ``no'' I would say to the Members, Mr. Speaker, but don't fall for this name game. This is an effort to call it TARP. It's your TARP; no, it's not. It's the Peewee Herman school of legislating; let's call each other names without dealing with the substance. Let's not, when we're dealing with a serious issue of trying to get money to community banks to help our smaller businesses, fall for that nonsense.

I yield to the gentlewoman.

The gentlewoman is right.

What our friends on the other side have, for political reasons, is a severe case of TARP separation envy. It's going away. They haven't had their President tell us to do it. They are going to miss it, but we're not going to deal with that in this bill and kill the bill. I hope the recommittal is defeated.