CLT
UPDATE
Saturday, April 26, 2003
"Tax hikes are back on table"
Despite repeated warnings from House leaders that the public won't tolerate tax increases this year, rank-and-file members have filed a series of budget amendments that would hike a wide range of taxes.
Raising the state's income tax and sales tax are among the revenue-generating options the House is expected to weigh Wednesday as it begins debating a bare-bones budget plan....
Chip Ford, director of operations for Citizens for Limited
Taxation, said House supporters of a tax hike aren't even close to mustering the two-thirds majority they need to override an inevitable veto by Gov. Mitt Romney.
"This is the year to draw a line in the sand and say, 'Enough is enough.' If they can't break the habit this year, they never will," Ford said.
The MetroWest Daily News
Saturday, April 26, 2003
Tax hikes are back on table
House leaders maintain that there's no appetite in the Legislature to raise taxes this year, particularly with Governor Mitt Romney threatening to veto any tax hike that reaches his desk. A veto override requires a two-thirds vote, which appears unlikely for any tax increase.
"There's no support for it," Finneran said Thursday. "The voters and the citizens of the Commonwealth clearly do not agree with the human service advocates," who say that the state needs a tax increase to avert devastating budget cuts.
Senate leaders have been more receptive to tax increases, but the state Constitution requires that tax measures originate in the House.
State Representative Kay S. Khan said taxes can only pass the House if residents contact their representatives by Wednesday to say they would rather see tax increases than the budget cuts the state is facing. With that sort of direct lobbying in mind, public-employee unions and advocacy groups are organizing a massive rally at the State House Wednesday in favor of tax increases.
"Personally, I think people up here are waiting to hear more from the public," said Khan, a Democrat of Newton. "They want to hear from the public that taxes are OK."
The Boston Globe
Saturday, April 26, 2003
Taxes, borrowing eyed for House budget debate
Groups targeted for budget cuts have formed a coalition and plan a daylong rally Wednesday at the State House. That's the day floor debate on the House budget starts and the coalition spends the day urging lawmakers to "Stop the Cuts - Raise Revenue."
Hundreds are expected to gather in front of the State House at noon for a Multi-Faith Convocation for a Humane Budget, following which proclamations will be delivered to the offices of Gov. Romney, House Speaker Finneran and Senate President Robert Travaglini.
And from 2 to 4 pm, speakers and entertainers will be on the Boston Common to draw attention to choices being made on the Hill. (Wednesday, noon, State House Steps)
State House News Service
Advances - Week of April 27, 2003
Rally for taxes
But golly, if you've been listening over the past couple of weeks, you might start to think the leading Dems have all been secretly infused with the blood of right-wing libertarians. Here is a group of people whose favorite activities for decades have been to increase the power and reach of government, to expand "services" to (fill in your favorite "most vulnerable" group) and to provide good jobs at good wages to their friends and relatives.
Yet suddenly they are sounding even more conservative, draconian and lacking in compassion than the governor. Here they are, declaring that his budget cuts don't go nearly deep enough. That instead of local aid cuts of 5 percent to 10 percent, communities must prepare for cuts of 20 percent or even more. That instead of preserving the core mission of government while dealing with the current fiscal realities, the core mission must be gutted.
That the blood must run in the streets, that children and elders must perish as they fall through a shredded safety net. There are even rumors that some kids might have to start walking to school. Oh, the horror, the horror.
Don't be confused. Don't worry. Nothing has changed. They're just playing those mind games together.
The Salem News
Friday, April 25, 2003
John Lennon sang about our lawmakers
By Taylor Armerding
House Speaker Tom Finneran has said repeatedly that increased taxes are off the table, and yesterday's proposal delivers on that pledge.
But remember, most Statehouse politicians have made a career out of expanding the budget, not shrinking it.
Today, they're gritting their teeth and bracing for the outcry from special interest groups, who prefer higher taxes to deep program cuts. Wait and see if House members are paying attention.
A Lowell Sun editorial
Thursday, April 24, 2003
'Bad cop' budget
A $3 billion budget mess hasn't been enough to curb the spending habits of lawmakers who continue to push for pet projects and hometown pork for their districts.
Two days after unveiling a $22.5 billion House budget plan that slashes aid to the sick, the poor and to cities and towns, legislators weren't shy about asking for millions more to take care of the special interests back home.
The Boston Herald
Saturday, April 26, 2003
Mass. pork-barrel politics survives big budget woes
Devising genuine government reforms in the middle of a budget crisis is salutary for two reasons: They can save money that might otherwise have to come from direct services, and they increase credibility in the budget process, eventually enhancing public trust....
The House makes strides toward rationalizing the court system, which hasn't been overhauled for at least a decade.... The House plan actually increases the empire of the Boston Municipal Court, however, and it gives the commissioner of probation, a favorite of House Speaker Thomas Finneran, more discretion over a bigger budget. There are still sacred cows in the House's new reform religion.
A Boston Globe editorial
Saturday, April 26, 2003
A better budget
The Finneran plan would take $600 million in debt payments that come due in the year that begins July 1 and stretch them out over five years....
Traditionally, credit rating agencies have frowned on borrowing to solve budget problems. The fear is the states will get addicted to the borrowed money and avoid making the tough choices critical to bringing tax revenues in line with spending....
Speaking in Orlando yesterday, a top Moody's official warned that many states face downgrading of their credit ratings as the fiscal crisis spreads around the nation. The credit agencies look more favorably on borrowing plans for long-term projects such as construction.
As one state official, who declined to be identified, said yesterday, "It's OK to borrow to build a garage but not to pay the grocery bill."
The Boston Globe
Saturday, April 26, 2003
Treasurer draws a line on debt plan
By Charles Stein
Wednesday is the deadline for legislative committees to finish work on any proposed constitutional amendments referred to them.
Due out of the Judiciary Committee are five amendments. They would increase the terms of House and Senate members from two to four years; provide that the governor nominate, and the Legislature confirm, a new lieutenant governor if that office becomes vacant; ban same-sex marriages; call for the election of judges; and eliminate the Governor's Council that confirms judges.
There are also in the Election Laws Committee several more that would alter the process by which voters take their own initiatives to the ballot by way of petition drives.
And the Joint Ways and Means Committee has another amendment calling for a biennial budget. That proposal has been endorsed in the past by House Speaker Finneran and could pick up steam. Deliberations over the annual budget have become increasingly contentious and prolonged in recent years - often deflecting attention from other legislative matters. The state did change the Constitution during the WWII years to allow for a two-year budget but reverted to the one-year version in 1947.
If the House and Senate are to act on any proposed amendments this year, the two branches must act by May 7 to convene a joint session to consider constitutional amendments. And the process is so lengthy that none of them could appear on the ballot for voter action until 2006.
State House News Service
Advances - Week of April 27, 2003
Committee deadline to act on constitutional amendments
Citizens For Limited Taxation has identified Friday, May 2 as Tax Freedom Day in Massachusetts. In other words, according to CLT, workers in Massachusetts work until May 2 each year to earn enough money to pay total annual federal, state and local taxes.
CLT says freedom day arrives earlier in 48 other states because Massachusetts' per capita tax burden is the fifth highest in the nation.
Citing high housing, utility and automobile-related costs, CLT leaders say they are happy to hear Beacon Hill leaders resisting the temptation to raise taxes again, but remain in a state of vigilance due to the advocacy of higher taxes from other prominent interest groups.
State House News Service
Advances - Week of April 27, 2003
Tax Freedom Day
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
"Tax hikes are back on the table,"
surprise, surprise.
This upcoming Wednesday is the day for the big tax
hikes debate in the House. The Gimme Lobby shock troops ("speakers and entertainers")
are staging on Boston Common for a "massive rally," then
will assault the State House throughout the day with their perennial
shock-and-awe campaign. It'll make for great "film at 6:00" on
the evening news, as usual.
Tax-and-spend legislators are hoping for an uprising
of the citizenry demanding a further increase of their tax burden. State Rep. Kay
Khan (D-Newton) said, "Personally, I think people up here are waiting to hear more from the
public." She added, "They want to hear from the public that taxes are OK."
She has invited you to share your opinion on tax
hikes with her and her colleagues in the House.
I hope you won't disappoint her.
Rep. Khan said they are waiting to hear from you.
Respecting and thoughtfully complying with her request is the least each
of us can do.
Our state representatives are waiting to hear from
us. Let's not keep them waiting.
You can e-mail
Rep. Khan with your thoughts or -- better yet -- find
your own state representative here and contact him or her.
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
The MetroWest Daily News
Saturday, April 26, 2003
Tax hikes are back on table
By Michael Kunzelman
Taxes are back on the table in the House of Representatives -- sort of.
Despite repeated warnings from House leaders that the public won't tolerate tax increases this year, rank-and-file members have filed a series of budget amendments that would hike a wide range of taxes.
Raising the state's income tax and sales tax are among the revenue-generating options the House is expected to weigh Wednesday as it begins debating a bare-bones budget plan.
House members also filed amendments that would allow cities and towns to offset deep cuts in state aid by hiking local taxes, such as the meals tax.
But even the sponsors of the proposed tax hikes concede that the amendments aren't likely to gain widespread support in the House.
"At the very least, we need to open up the discussion," said state Rep. Deborah
Blumer, D-Framingham. "I think we have a responsibility to do that."
Rep. James Marzilli, D-Arlington, sponsored an amendment that calls for raising the income tax rate from 5.3 percent to 5.75 percent.
About a dozen House members, including Blumer and Reps. Jay Kaufman, D-Lexington, Ruth
Balser, D-Newton, and Kay Khan, D-Newton, have co-sponsored Marzilli's amendment.
"The most important thing we can do is preserve the core of programs for our children and seniors," Blumer said. "We can't totally dismantle programs that many people want and need."
On Wednesday, House leaders unveiled a $22.49 billion budget proposal that cuts state spending by $2.3 billion and raises fees by $390 million in order to close a $3 billion budget gap. But the House's budget doesn't propose any tax increases.
"Some people say we can't afford higher taxes. I don't think we can afford these cuts," Marzilli said.
Rep. James Eldridge, D-Acton, filed an amendment that would raise the state's sales tax from 5 percent to 6 percent, which would generate an estimated $750 million.
"I'm just really concerned about how these cuts are going to affect my district," he said. "I have come to the conclusion that we need to raise revenues to solve part of our fiscal problems."
Eldridge, who was elected to his first term in November, said his bill has eight or nine co-sponsors, including
Balser.
Eldridge said he doesn't support an income tax increase, citing voters' overwhelming support last year for a ballot question that called for eliminating the state's income tax.
"Three of the six towns I represent voted to abolish the income tax," Eldridge said. "I wanted to offer an alternative to that."
House Speaker Thomas Finneran and Rep. John Rogers, the influential chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, both insist the vast majority of House members aren't willing to consider tax hikes.
"The speaker continues to express the opinion that he doesn't see any appetite for new taxes in the commonwealth or among the membership," Finneran spokesman Charles Rasmussen said yesterday.
Chip Ford, director of operations for Citizens for Limited
Taxation, said House supporters of a tax hike aren't even close to mustering the two-thirds majority they need to override an inevitable veto by Gov. Mitt Romney.
"This is the year to draw a line in the sand and say, 'Enough is enough.' If they can't break the habit this year, they never will," Ford said.
Some lawmakers see evidence that voters' attitudes about tax hikes are changing as they learn more about the scope of potential budget cuts.
Kaufman said he took a straw poll at the Woburn Senior Center this week. The seniors he polled unanimously supported tax increases as an alternative to deep budget cuts.
"My working assumption all along is that once legislators and the public see the implications of these cuts, they and we will find it unacceptable," he added.
Lawmakers filed more than 1,000 budget amendments prior to yesterday's 5 p.m. deadline.
Members of the newly formed House Democratic Council, which was co-founded by several MetroWest lawmakers, filed a series of "suburban-friendly" amendments, according to Rep. David
Linsky, D-Natick.
The council's 20 or so members drafted a plan to use $300 million in short-term borrowing to soften the blow of certain budget cuts. The council's plan would:
l Set aside $63 million to ensure that no community has its Chapter 70 funding for local schools cut by more than 10 percent. Under the House's budget, some cities and towns would sustain a 20 percent cut in Chapter 70 funding.
l Reduce the House's overall cut in local aid from 15 percent to 10 percent.
l Restore funding for reimbursing cities and towns for the cost of public school transportation.
l Dedicate an additional $22 million for first-year payments for school construction projects.
"This is a way to plug a lot of needed holes in the state budget and spread the payments out over time," said
Linsky, who co-founded the council with Reps. Cory Atkins, D-Concord, Alice
Peisch, D-Wellesley, and two other House members.
Short-term borrowing wouldn't jeopardize the state's credit rating, Linsky insisted.
"This is what leading economists, including the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation and the relatively conservative Beacon Hill Institute, have urged us to do," he added.
Return to
top
The Salem News
Friday, April 25, 2003
John Lennon sang about our lawmakers
By Taylor Armerding
John Lennon may be long gone, but his lyrics live on. The guy was a prophet. Who knew that when he wrote those timeless words, "We're playing those mind games together," he was talking about the Massachusetts Legislature, otherwise known by some of us as the Not-So-Great and General Court.
If you spend much time listening to legislative leaders (a tedious task, I know), you might be confused. Earlier this year, you would have heard them declare that they wanted to "cooperate with" Gov. Mitt Romney to solve the deep and distressing fiscal problems facing the commonwealth. That they heard the message of the electorate last year for, among other things, real reform in government, putting the brakes on government spending and no increase in taxes.
More recently, however, you would have heard them bashing our freshman governor, declaring that his budget is based on fantasy numbers. This much we all expected. The Legislature is, after all, overwhelmingly Democratic and the governor is Republican. Nobody believes those declarations about cooperation anyway, unless it is to cooperate in Romney's political demise.
But golly, if you've been listening over the past couple of weeks, you might start to think the leading Dems have all been secretly infused with the blood of right-wing libertarians. Here is a group of people whose favorite activities for decades have been to increase the power and reach of government, to expand "services" to (fill in your favorite "most vulnerable" group) and to provide good jobs at good wages to their friends and relatives.
Yet suddenly they are sounding even more conservative, draconian and lacking in compassion than the governor. Here they are, declaring that his budget cuts don't go nearly deep enough. That instead of local aid cuts of 5 percent to 10 percent, communities must prepare for cuts of 20 percent or even more. That instead of preserving the core mission of government while dealing with the current fiscal realities, the core mission must be gutted.
That the blood must run in the streets, that children and elders must perish as they fall through a shredded safety net. There are even rumors that some kids might have to start walking to school. Oh, the horror, the horror.
Don't be confused. Don't worry. Nothing has changed. They're just playing those mind games together. They want us to think that every service is an essential service. They want us to think that cutting any of them will be utterly intolerable. And then they will offer us the only way out of this terrible wilderness. If we will all just agree to a tax increase, then these awful things won't have to happen to us.
What they don't want -- what terrifies them, in fact -- is the prospect that Romney's proposals might actually work. The governor is no fool -- he has said as much himself when he observed that the Legislature would rather cut services than reform government. Indeed, cutting services only hurts "the most vulnerable," while reform would hurt their friends and relatives on the payroll.
For evidence of this, one needs to look no further than the state Trial Court system, one of the state services Romney would like to reform. For years, the Legislature has insisted that the courts hire people that court administrators haven't requested and don't want. From 1998 to 2001, the Legislature larded 416 positions into the Trial Court that were not requested. Then there is the politically connected Boston Municipal Court, which has more than twice the budget but less than half the caseload of the less-connected Springfield District Court.
But this past week, we heard legislative leaders denouncing Romney's calls for court reform as "unnecessary."
Remember that the next time you hear your state rep or senator say they can't do anything to fix the state's problems but take more money out of your pocket.
They're just playing those mind games.
Return to
top
The Lowell Sun
Thursday, April 24, 2003
Editorial
'Bad cop' budget
While the Massachusetts House of Representatives deserves credit for proposing a bare-bones $22.5 billion state budget, we're reserving our praise until a no-new taxes budget is officially in the books.
House Speaker Tom Finneran has said repeatedly that increased taxes are off the table, and yesterday's proposal delivers on that pledge.
But remember, most Statehouse politicians have made a career out of expanding the budget, not shrinking it.
Today, they're gritting their teeth and bracing for the outcry from special interest groups, who prefer higher taxes to deep program cuts. Wait and see if House members are paying attention.
Yesterday, we saw the House issue the "bad-cop" budget with $150 million cut from Chapter 70 education funding and $180 million cut from all other local aid. It's meant to show the state's dire financial position.
In June, we suspect the Senate will release the "good cop" version of the state budget. It will likely call for a mix of state borrowing, tax increases, government reforms and a new revenue stream expanded gambling to close the state's $3 billion spending gap.
In between, of course, is Gov. Romney's budget proposal, which calls for major government restructuring, less intrusive local aid cuts and no new taxes.
The best budget fit for Massachusetts residents and taxpayers can likely be constructed among these three plans.
That's why the House's "scare" plan doesn't scare us. And it shouldn't scare you either.
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Saturday, April 26, 2003
Mass. pork-barrel politics survives big budget woes
by Elizabeth W. Crowley
A $3 billion budget mess hasn't been enough to curb the spending habits of lawmakers who continue to push for pet projects and hometown pork for their districts.
Two days after unveiling a $22.5 billion House budget plan that slashes aid to the sick, the poor and to cities and towns, legislators weren't shy about asking for millions more to take care of the special interests back home.
Among the beneficiaries of the goodies, the father of modern rocketry, Robert Goddard, who would have a statue erected to him in his hometown of Worcester. Rep. John J. Binienda wants $52,500 for that.
And Rep. Peter V. Kocot (D-Northampton) is asking for $80,000 to build a tourism kiosk in his city.
A new rule requiring that lawmakers offer a budget cut equal to any new spending proposal they make - except those that cost $100,000 or less - tempered what has become an annual feeding frenzy surrounding the filing of amendments to the budget.
By the 5 p.m. deadline for amendments yesterday, House members had filed 1,021, about 500 fewer than last year. But the new rule produced some creative plans to spend money at the expense of enemies.
Rep. Marie J. Parente proposed giving the 472 people who work for House members a 2 percent raise next year. The cost: $370,000. The target: the salaries of those who work for the governor.
Singling out Gov. Mitt Romney's communications director Eric Fehrnstrom, Parente said some people just make too much. The fact that Fehrnstrom makes $150,000 a year, "it just frosts people," she said.
Republican House leaders fired back, offering an amendment that would prohibit the state Treasurer - Democrat Timothy P. Cahill - from appearing in any advertisements paid for by the state.
Cahill's predecessor, Shannon P. O'Brien, infuriated opponents last year when her picture was prominently featured in ads listing abandoned property accounts - all at taxpayer expense.
Minority Leader Bradley H. Jones tacked on yet another tweak at proponents of a tax hike by boosting the amount people can choose to pay in state taxes, from the current 5.3 percent income tax rate to 6.25 percent.
This year, fewer than 1,000 people volunteered to pay at the rate of 5.85 percent, producing an additional $110,000 in tax dollars.
"This just gives people an even bigger chance to put their money where their mouth is," Jones said.
House Democrats countered with dozens of tax proposals of their own, including a measure from Rep. James Marzilli Jr. of Arlington to roll the tax rate back to its 1999 level of 5.95 percent - a move supporters say will solve $1 billion of the state's budget problem.
Marzilli acknowledged that if a vote on higher taxes were taken today, it would go down to defeat but said he cannot support the budget cuts being proposed without offering an alternative.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Saturday, April 26, 2003
A Boston Globe editorial
A better budget
Devising genuine government reforms in the middle of a budget crisis is salutary for two reasons: They can save money that might otherwise have to come from direct services, and they increase credibility in the budget process, eventually enhancing public trust. This week House leaders presented a spending plan for the next fiscal year that is surprisingly open to change given the institution's hidebound reputation. "This is the most reform-oriented legislative budget I've seen in a long time," said Cameron Huff of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.
The House budget doesn't take the kinds of radical steps Governor Romney proposed to reorganize and streamline state government; then again, it doesn't make some of the false promises Romney's plan eventually revealed. We hope many of the proposed improvements in the House plan survive the Senate and become enshrined in a more open, fairer state.
One orthodoxy the House takes on is the Pacheco law, which for years has required proof of savings before any government service can be privatized. The House budget establishes a pilot program for two state agencies -- the state transportation department and the University of Massachusetts -- and exempts them from the law.
We on this page believe that not all government services are created equal when it comes to privatization. Letting private companies clean subway stations or run municipal skating rinks is different from providing direct care services for the aged or infirm, where the consequences of poor management are far more severe. The House plan finds a reasonable middle ground.
When it comes to the so-called Quinn Law, which gives premium salaries to police officers who amass sometimes dubious higher education credits, the House does not go far enough, reducing the state's appropriation by $9 million. Depending on collective bargaining agreements, some communities may simply be forced to take on the costs themselves. That would not be progress. As John Rogers, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said Wednesday, "There is a need to shut down diploma mills." The best way to do that is to starve them of taxpayer funds.
The House makes strides toward rationalizing the court system, which hasn't been overhauled for at least a decade. Giving the Supreme Judicial Court flexibility over individual court budgets and shifting caseloads from overburdened courts to others more able to handle them should make dispensing justice fairer and more efficient. The House plan actually increases the empire of the Boston Municipal Court, however, and it gives the commissioner of probation, a favorite of House Speaker Thomas Finneran, more discretion over a bigger budget. There are still sacred cows in the House's new reform religion.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Saturday, April 26, 2003
Treasurer draws a line on debt plan
By Charles Stein, Globe Staff
State Treasurer Timothy Cahill yesterday said he would not sign off on any plan to restructure Massachusetts' debts in which the money was used to pay the state's day-to-day expenses.
"I am not going to be a party to deficit financing," Cahill said.
On Tuesday, House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran proposed a debt refinancing that he said would free up $600 million that the state could spend on a variety of projects. Finneran provided few details at the time but suggested the money could be used for three things: investing in technology companies, helping cash-strapped cities and towns, and reforming the state's expensive system for building schools.
The Finneran plan would take $600 million in debt payments that come due in the year that begins July 1 and stretch them out over five years. In the first year, the state would have to make only minimal payments. The move would cut debt service payments next year while increasing payments down the road. Some of that extra interest cost would be offset by paying off a portion of the state's long-term bonds early. With interest rates at a 40-year low, Massachusetts could borrow for as little as 3.5 percent, according to state officials.
Any refinancing plan would have to be approved by the Legislature, the treasurer, and Governor Mitt Romney. Romney has yet to offer an opinion on the refinancing, saying he wants to see more specifics. Romney came out strongly Thursday against providing money to technology companies, arguing that the private sector was far better suited than the state to handle that task.
Cahill, a Democrat, said that for him the key to the restructuring is how the money would be spent. He said he could support a plan in which money was used to solve long-term structural problems, such as the school construction program. Massachusetts will spend $382 million this year on school construction, and the state is committed to even greater costs in the future. Finneran described the program as a "budget buster" and likened it to the Big Dig.
Cahill said he opposed Finneran's idea of providing aid to cities and towns. "That's too close to deficit financing," he said. He said he was generally supportive of helping technology companies, but said he needed to see more details.
In response to Cahill, a spokesman for Finneran said last night, "The speaker doesn't view any of his proposals as a form of deficit spending." Earlier this week Finneran said he would not use any of the money to pay normal state operating expenses.
A number of states have dealt with their fiscal problems by what Cahill calls deficit financing -- borrowing money to pay operating expenses. Last year Connecticut borrowed $200 million to close a budget deficit. In the early 1990s Massachusetts borrowed $1.4 billion to pay its expenses and repaid the debt over seven years.
Traditionally, credit rating agencies have frowned on borrowing to solve budget problems. The fear is the states will get addicted to the borrowed money and avoid making the tough choices critical to bringing tax revenues in line with spending.
The two main credit rating agencies, Moody's Investors Service and Standard & Poor's, have yet to offer an opinion on the Finneran plan. "We will keep close watch on the debate," said Ray Murphy, a senior credit analyst with Moody's.
Speaking in Orlando yesterday, a top Moody's official warned that many states face downgrading of their credit ratings as the fiscal crisis spreads around the nation. The credit agencies look more favorably on borrowing plans for long-term projects such as construction.
As one state official, who declined to be identified, said yesterday, "It's OK to borrow to build a garage but not to pay the grocery bill."
Return to
top
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or
payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For
more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|