Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, today we consider the bipartisan FAA reauthorization bill. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) in the best tradition of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure worked long and hard to produce a sensible bipartisan bill, and they should be commended.

I also want to thank the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for including an important provision that will benefit smaller airports like the one I represent in Worcester, Massachusetts.

This provision will allow airports like Worcester, known as primary airports, to continue to receive Air Improvement Program Entitlement Funding, or AIP, for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 based on prior year emplanement levels. It specifically grants the Secretary of Transportation the authority to maintain current AIP funding levels for primary airports based on a discrete set of criteria related to the dramatic reduction in commercial air service since September 11.

AIP entitlement is a critical source and oftentimes the only source of funding for capital improvements at these airports. These airports rely on AIP funding to make a number of upgrades which now also include necessary, but costly, safety enhancements. In Worcester's case, this bill could mean the difference between receiving more than $1 million a year annually or $150,000.

This is an important provision, and I thank the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for its inclusion.

If only the Committee on Rules and the leadership of this House could act in a bipartisan way, because although I support the FAA bill, for the life of me I cannot figure out why the Republicans will not let us consider the child tax credit.

For a second straight week, the leadership is playing a nasty game with millions of hardworking American families. Two weeks ago, the President, Vice President, and the Republican leaders deliberately left 12 million families, including hundreds of thousands of military families, out in the cold by deleting the child tax credit extension from the recently passed tax cut.

We just fought a war in Iraq; we still have soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. And instead of a warm thank you, the Republican leadership gives our troops the cold shoulder. The average base pay of a serviceman in Iraq is about $16,000; but according to the Republicans, that soldier's family does not need any tax relief because they are not subject to Federal income tax.

This is wrong. These families work hard and they pay taxes. They pay sales taxes and payroll taxes and State taxes and local taxes and property taxes, most of which are going up because of the policies of this administration; but according to the Republican leadership, giving them a small tax credit would be welfare. How insulting.

My colleagues want to talk about welfare, well, let us do that. Enron paid no income taxes at all in 4 of the past 5 years, despite $1.8 billion in profits. Enron's taxes over 5 years were a negative $381 million, and its corporate tax welfare totaled $1 billion.

WorldCom paid no taxes at all in 2 of the last 3 years, despite $15.2 billion in profits before going bankrupt. WorldCom's total tax rate over the 3 years was only 1.6 percent. Corporate tax welfare slashed WorldCom's tax bill by $5.3 billion over the past 5 years.

All the while these corporations are not paying taxes, other companies are relocating to the Caribbean to avoid paying them altogether.

These corporate robber barons have saved billions and billions of dollars through loopholes supported by the Republican majority, and yet those same Republicans say that providing a hardworking American family a few hundred extra dollars is bad policy.

The Republican policies are crystal clear, Mr. Speaker; and they are wrong.

Last week, in this Chamber, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip, challenged the Republicans to defend their actions. Their response? Dead silence. Yesterday, President Bush and his staff, at long last bowing to public demand, implored House Republicans to take up and pass the child tax credit passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote in the other body. That bill is targeted, it is sensible, and very importantly, it is paid for by other offsets.

But the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, still refuses to bring this bill to the floor. Last week, the majority leader said there are more important priorities than tax relief for low- and middle-income families, and yesterday he brushed aside the White House request.

Instead, they are playing a game, pushing a much larger tax cut that will cost over $80 billion. They are betting that the other body will engage in a long, protracted debate over the House proposal because they know that the other body will not pass an $80 billion tax cut that is not paid for, and they are hoping that the whole issue will just go away.

Mr. Speaker, it will not go away because, as we have said over and over, we will not let it go away up till the Republican leadership in this House does the right thing and fixes the mistake that they made when they removed the child tax credit for millions of low-income and middle-income families.

So I say to the Republican leadership, are you really that cynical, are you really so consumed by the thrill of your own power that you refuse to do the right thing? Why can you not simply admit that it was wrong to drop these hardworking, tax-paying families from the tax bill and fix your mistake?

The answer may lie in an article in today's Washington Post. According to the article, the administration had no intention ever of implementing the child tax credit as approved by the other body. Treasury officials assumed

in May, weeks before the House and Senate met to work out the differences in the two tax bills, that the child tax credit would not become law; and now the White House claims to support it.

I insert this article in the Record at this point.

[From the Washington Post, June 11, 2003]

House GOP Responds to Senate Child Credit Bill

$82 billion plan offers breaks for military families

(By Juliet Eiperin)

For the second time in two weeks, House leaders are pushing

a sizable tax cut bill, seizing the debate over expanded

credits for parents of minor children to propose several new,

unrelated tax cuts.

House Republicans yesterday unveiled their $82 billion

plan, which features tax breaks for military families (and

for the estates of astronauts who die on space shuttle

missions). The proposal sets up a likely fight with the

Senate, which approved a more modest tax cut package last

week.

For several days, Republicans have been trying to quell

protests over the fact that the tax cut enacted last month

excluded 6.5 million poor families from receiving a credit of

as much as $1,000 per child. The Senate reacted swiftly,

passing a $10 billion bill last week that would give the

expanded child credit (now $600) to families making from

$10,500 to $26,625 a year.

House Republicans rejected that approach yesterday, saying

they wanted a broader bill that would extend the child credit

and other tax breaks through 2010.

``We've not in the business of politics, but rather in

policy,'' said Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas (R-

Calif.), noting that the expanded child tax credit phases out

in 2005 under the existing law. ``If these people need help

between now and the election [of 2004], they need it for the

rest of the decade.''

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) told reporters

yesterday that passing a bill dealing only with the child

credit ``ain't going to happen,'' because GOP leaders prefer

a broader package that ``provides tax relief, creates jobs

and [helps] the economy grow.''

The House proposal would provide a $1,000 per-child credit

for families from Jan. 1, 2003, through 2010. The credit now

begins to phase out when married couples make $110,000 or

more. House GOP leaders would raise start of the phaseout to

$150,000.

Their plan also would help military families, giving them a

tax break on home sales, death benefits and dependent-care

assistance. It would suspend the tax-exempt status of

designated terrorist organizations and provide income and

estate tax relief for astronauts who die on space shuttle

missions, including those in the Columbia disaster.

The House is poised to pass the plan Thursday. Its

prospects in a conference with the Senate are unclear. The

Senate bill's costs are offset by higher Customs Service

fees, adding nothing to the deficit. The House plan includes

no such offsets, which could cause problems with Senate

Democrats and some moderate Republicans.

``I philosophically support the House Ways and Means

Committee proposal, ``Senate Finance Committee Chairman

Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said yesterday, but ``I don't

know if there are enough Senate votes to pass it.''

Treasury officials informed Senate aides yesterday that the

government will not be able to mail child credit checks to

low-income families for 8 to 10 weeks. Administration

officials assumed in May that the Senate child credit

proposals would not become law, according to a Senate

Democratic aide who met with Treasury officials.

The American people are smart. They can see through all the politics. They want Congress to fix the child tax credit, and they deserve action.

Mr. Speaker, the other body has already acted. We can solve this problem by taking up the bill right now. With quick action, we can send this bill to the President; and he can keep his word and sign it by the end of this week.

That is why, at the end of this debate on the rule, I will ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and should the previous question be defeated, I will bring up the Senate-passed child tax credit so we can send it to the President immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight the difference in philosophies here, and I think that my colleague on the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, in Congress Daily said it best. Speaking for the Republicans, she said: ``We have a philosophical difference. I look at it and other Republican Study Committee members feel if we give people a tax break that don't pay taxes, it's welfare.''

I profoundly disagree with her characterization of these hardworking citizens who do pay taxes, they do pay payroll taxes and sales taxes and other taxes, as somehow not contributing to our tax base. As a prominent member of my party in the other body said, and let me quote her, We are talking about 200,000 military families, hundreds of firefighters and teachers and other hardworking Americans. I don't think of them or view them as welfare recipients. I don't think that they think of themselves that way. These are taxpayers. These are essential people in our communities, those who are protecting us from fire and from criminal activity, those who are teaching our children, those who are stationed abroad and protecting our very freedoms. They are hardworking families who pay sales tax, both State and local. They have payroll taxes that come out of their checks.

Mr. Speaker, this is what this debate is about, whether or not these people deserve to benefit from this tax cut that was passed only a few weeks ago in this House or whether or not they should be excluded. Those on our side of the aisle and a lot of moderate Republicans in the other body believe that these people should not have been deleted from the tax bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, just to make clear the point that this is not a partisan issue throughout the country. Unfortunately it has become a partisan issue here in the House of Representatives, but I want to refer to two quotes from some distinguished Members of the other body. One, a senior Republican from the other body representing the State of Iowa, when asked about this subject said, What's going to make them, meaning the House Republicans, accept it is whether or not they want this group of people, particularly people in the military who are sacrificing their freedom for our freedom, to get the same benefit everybody else is going to get who has children in their family.

What is really unfortunate is that by the inaction of the leadership in this House, it appears that the Republicans in the House do not want to help these military families and their children.

Another prominent Republican in the other body from the State of Maine said the base pay of a first year soldier is $16,000. Paramedics make an average of $22,000, and home health aides make an average of $18,500 per year. These people are a critical part of our infrastructure, and they deserve tax relief too.

I could not agree more. People on this side of the aisle could not agree more. We have been fighting during these last several weeks to try to put back in the bill what the Republican leadership in the House removed from the bill in the dead of night, specifically this child tax credit for low-income workers, precisely because we understand the plight of these workers, and when we go back to our districts we hear from them when they say, you know, if you are going to give tax relief to people, we need it more than Donald Trump does, so why are you not helping us?

Again, there are prominent Members of the other body representing the Republican Party who get it, who are fighting to try to fix this problem right now; and yet here in this Chamber, in this House of Representatives, the leadership continues to try to find ways to deny these hard-working, taxpaying individuals, these families the benefit that they rightly deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman that the underlying bill that we are considering here today is important. Aviation and the safety of our skies and the strength of our airports, all that is very, very important.

We are also trying to do here, so if anybody is listening they will understand, we are also trying to be able to, in addition to helping the aviation industry and helping our airports and helping protect our airports, we are also trying to help protect a lot of American families, 12 million families, to be exact, some of them military families where servicemen and servicewomen are serving our country in Iraq. We want to make sure that they can benefit from the child tax credit.

We cannot seem to get the leadership of this House to allow us to be able to vote on this issue, up or down. We are trying to advocate for millions of families in this country who not only need help, who deserve help.

So part of what we are doing on this bill and what we have been doing on previous bills is to try to highlight this issue, helping to persuade, and, if not persuade, maybe shame you into doing the right thing.

I guess I will ask the question that the distinguished minority whip asked last week during this debate. Why is it that we cannot get a vote up or down to reinsert the child tax credit that your leadership removed in the middle of the night?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close for our side.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask for a vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will provide that as soon as the House passes this rule it will take from the Speaker's table and immediately consider the Senate- passed version of H.R. 1308, which restores the refundable child tax credit that was removed from the recently passed Republican tax bill. This way we can send that bill immediately to the President's desk for his signature and start helping America's low- and modest-income families right away, right this second.

The President's press secretary, Ari Fleischer, said this week that ``the President thinks at its core what the Senate has done is the right thing to do, a good thing to do, and he wants to sign it.'' I think we should give the President an opportunity to do just that.

H.R. 1308, as amended by the Senate, will provide immediate tax relief to America's hard-working families, in contrast to the Republican/Bush tax bill. That bill does next to nothing to help those low- and moderate-income Americans who need relief the most. In fact, in a late night negotiating session behind closed doors, the Republican leadership deleted the one provision that would have helped these Americans, the refundable child tax credit. When it came to a choice of helping their rich contributors or Americans struggling to make a living, they chose the rich. They stripped out this tax break that would have helped the families of 8 million children whose parents serve in the military or are veterans.

H.R. 1308, the bill amended and passed last week in the other body and sent back here, will give immediate help to working families by providing the child tax credit to 6.5 million low-income working families and nearly 12 million additional children. These families would receive an average annual increase of $150 per child.

It will also help families of soldiers in combat in Iraq by extending the child tax credit to many of them. It was suggested by some on the other side of the aisle that this break for our brave men and women in the military was nothing more than welfare. Well, I strongly disagree.

I ask for a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record.

Previous Question for H. Res. 265--Rules on H.R. 2115 Flight 100--

Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act

At the end of the resolution add the following:

``Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

House shall be considered to have taken from the Speaker's

table the bill (H.R. 1308) to amend the Internal Revenue Code

of 1986 to end certain abusive tax practices, to provide tax

relief and simplification, and for other purposes, with

Senate amendments thereto, and a single motion that the House

concur in each of the Senate amendments shall be considered

as pending without intervention of any point of order. The

Senate amendments and the motion shall be considered as read.

The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided

and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of

the Committee on Ways and Means. The previous question shall

be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption

without intervening motion or demand for division of the

question.''

Mr. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 227: H. Res. 159. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable vote on rollcall No. 228: H. Res. 195. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 229: H.R. 1465. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 230: S. 222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 231: S. 273. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 232: S. 763. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 233: H. Amdt. to H. J. Res. 4. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 234: Final passage of H. J. Res. 4. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 235: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 231. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 236: on agreeing to H. Res. 257. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 237: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 238: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 201. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 239: H.R. 1954. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 240: H. Amdt. 154 to H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 241: Motion to Recommit to H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 242: final passage of H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 243: On Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res. 256. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 244: H. Res. 258. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 245: H. Res. 258. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 246: on passage of H.R. 1474. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 247: S. 222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 248: S. 273. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 249: H.R. 1610. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 250: H. Con Res. 162. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 251: S. 763. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 252: H. Res. 263 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 253: H. Res. 263 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 254: H. Amdt. 159 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 255: Passage of H.R 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 256: H. Res. 252: Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 257: On ordering the previous question for H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 258: On agreeing to the rule for H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 259: On passage of H. Con. Res. 110. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 260: On passage of H.R. 1320. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 261: H.R. 2350. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 262: H. Amdt. 5 to H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 263: H. Amdt. 4 to H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 264: On passage of H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 265: H. Res. 269 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 266: H. Res. 269 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 268: H. Amdt.

168 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 269: H. Amdt. 169 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 270: H. Amdt. 170 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 271: Motion to Recommit to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 272: Passage of H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 273: H. Res. 270 to H.R 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 274: Rule for H.R. 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 275: Motion to Instruct Conferees H.R. 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 276: H.R. 2254. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 277: H. Con. Res. 220. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 278: S. 703. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 279: H. Res. 276. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 280: H. Res. 171. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 281: Passage of H.R. 658. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 282: S. 342. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 283: Passage of S. Con. Res. 43. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 284: Previous Question to H. Res. 281. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 285: H. Res. 281 to H.R 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 286: Approving the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 287: H. Amdt. 171 to H.R. 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 288: Passage of H.R. 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 289: H. Res. 283 to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 290: H. Res. 283 to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 291: H. Amdt. 172 to H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 292: Motion to Recommit H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 293: Passage of H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 294: Kind amendment to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 295: On motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 296: On final passage to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 297: H. Res. 264. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 298: H. Res. 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 299: H. Con. Res. 209. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 300: Passage of H.R. 2465. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 301: Previous Question to H. Res. 293. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 302: Agreeing to H. Res. 293. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 303: Passage of H.R. 923. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 304: H.R. 1460. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 305: On sustaining the ruling of the chair on H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 306: Sustain ruling of the chair on H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 307: H. Amdt. 176 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 308: H. Amdt. 183 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 309: H. Amdt. 188 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 310: Passage of H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 311: Passage to H.R. 1416. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 312: S. 858. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 313: H.R. 2474. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 314: H. J. Res. 49. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 315: H. Con. Res. 49. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 316: H. Res. 199. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 317: H. Res. 294. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 318: On the Hastings amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 319: On the Kucinich amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 320: On the Lee amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 321: H. Res. 299 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 322: H. Res. 299 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 323: H. Res. 297 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 324: Ordering the previous question on H. Res. 298. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 325: Passage of H.R. 2559. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 326: Passage of H. Res. 277. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 327: On approval of the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 328: H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 330: H. Amdt.

197 to H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 331: Motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 332: Final passage of H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 333: On passage of H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 265 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 265 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of 2115, the Flight 100 Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule provides ample opportunity to discuss this important reauthorization before us today.

H.R. 2115 is a bipartisan bill introduced by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) as well as the ranking members, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). This reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration, appropriately titled for the 100th anniversary of powered flight, continues a tradition of funding the promotion of safety in our skies.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight some of the important provisions in the underlying legislation.

First, this legislation reauthorizes the FAA at $3.4 billion next year raising $200 million in the year after that. The FAA, nearly 45 years after it was created, takes an ever-present role as we take important steps to ensure America's security. The FAA is primarily responsible for the safety of our Nation's skies through activities ranging from the continued monitoring by air traffic controllers to the development of new air space technologies.

Within my district is Miami International Airport, which I have the privilege to represent, and is consistently one of the Nation's busiest for

both international and domestic travel. I am impressed by the level of public-private cooperation between organizations such as the FAA and Miami International Airport.

Mr. Speaker, following the tragedy of September 11, 2001, our Nation's airports and airlines were forced to deal with the ever- growing and obvious problem of security. I believe that this bill contributes to this endeavor while ensuring that those affected by these horrible acts are helped.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2115 provides for an extension of war risk insurance for both international and domestic flights while ensuring that this important insurance is extended to manufacturers and airline vendors through the Department of Transportation.

This Congress was quick to assist airlines following September 11, and rightfully so. The economic benefits from the movements of people and goods that airlines provide, I think, demanded our attention. I think we also have to consider that smaller aircraft that were restricted for months following September 11 would also need attention of the Congress. Congress, I think, should act, and I think it will through this underlying legislation to help general aviation return to some stability by providing compensation for the hardships on their businesses. The bill authorizes $100 million for these general aviators that were also greatly affected by increased security requirements.

H.R. 2115 is a good piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. It is important to the continued needs of the FAA, obviously, and to the flying public. The underlying legislation was reported favorably out of the committee by voice vote.

I take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman, for his great leadership on this issue, as well as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the distinguished ranking member.

Due to the importance of the FAA's role in the security of the United States, as well as in the economic well-being of the United States, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying legislation. I think it is important that we move forward and reauthorize the FAA, and we are doing that today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, in case some colleagues are perhaps listening to the debate on television in their offices, we have brought forth the rule to consider the aviation reauthorization bill, the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration.

The Federal Aviation Administration is of extreme importance to the safety of not only the flying public in the United States, but really to the economy of the United States. One of the pillars of the economy of the United States is precisely the superb system of aviation that we have.

But that does not happen by chance. We have an obligation to fund and reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, and this legislation that we are attempting to get to today with this rule not only does that, but deals with a number of very important collateral issues in the area of aviation.

So, again, to be clear with regard to what we are attempting to do today, what the Committee on Rules has done, we have passed a rule to bring to the floor legislation to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration in the context of very important legislation entitled Flight 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. That is what we are discussing today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, in case somebody would like to determine what we have brought to the floor today, because obviously any students of political science who may have been watching this debate will have confirmed today that there is certainly no rule requiring germaneness in debate in the House of Representatives, the issue that we have brought to the floor today, that the Committee on Rules passed a rule in order to be able to do so, we did so yesterday, is the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration.

In order to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, the relevant committees worked long and hard on a very important piece of aviation legislation which we bring to the floor today. It is H.R. 2115, the Flight 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. So that is what we are doing.

Now, since there is obviously no germaneness requirement with regard to debate, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have talked about other issues, and they are certainly welcome to do so. The semantic of the day had to do with the word ``tax.''

We are very proud of our record since we were honored by the American people with the majority in this Chamber with regard to the issue of taxes. I remember in my first term here, Mr. Speaker, as a freshman Member, we were still in the minority and our friends on the other side of the aisle controlled the agenda, they were the majority, being faced with one of the largest tax increases in the history of this country. We on this side of the aisle opposed that tax increase, and our friends on the other side of the aisle pushed very hard, and at that time they had a Member of their party in the White House, to impose that record tax increase on the American people.

Every time we have been able to since we were given the majority by the American people, we have tried to do the opposite. We have tried to lessen the tax burden on the American people, and we are very proud of that.

So with regard to when it is germane to the debate on taxes, we are extremely proud of our record. That debate will continue, and I think it is a fundamental difference between the parties. We believe in and have every time we have been able to reduce the tax burden on the American people.

But today the debate that we bring forward, the legislation that we bring forward, is the important reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration. We believe, Mr. Speaker, that because of the importance of the Federal Aviation Administration, not only to the flying public and to the aviation industry in this country, but to the economy of the United States, as well as to our national security, that we should move forward and reauthorize that very important Federal agency, as well as effectuate the other important programs and initiatives that are included in this very significant piece of legislation.

With that in mind, I remind our colleagues what we are doing, the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton); and I want to congratulate him on his hard work and the work product that we debate here on the House floor today.

I particularly also want to congratulate and thank my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the ranking member of the subcommittee, and my dear friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of our House and the ranking Democrat on the full committee, for the extraordinary cooperation that has been shown on this and so many pieces of legislation that our Committee on Energy and Commerce brings to the floor in the course of a year.

This is one of those rare occasions where the administration, the Democrats and Republicans are all on the same page. We all agree this is of vital importance to the national economy, to the advancement of important wireless technologies for the good of our consumers in America and for the good of the lead that our Nation has played in world telecommunications technologies and commerce.

This is one area where we can immediately begin to assist the Nation's economy in recovering, where we can immediately begin to do something to advance the cause of third-generation wireless technologies, the video and data links that are going to provide new services, equipment and products, built in America, made by American hands and used by Americans to advance the progress of their lives and their social contact with one another.

This is a good day for America, because we have come together and realized that all the handicaps, all the internecine battles that may have been fought between agencies and those in the private sector who wanted spectrum to begin to develop these new technologies, all of these fights about who is going to pay the relocation costs to get the spectrum made available to have these things happen in our country are now being resolved by this relocation trust fund, a concept that says the trust fund is going to be there to make sure the relocation costs are taken care of so the FCC can move these new and exciting technologies to the forefront so Americans can enjoy them and our economy can grow again.

This is a good day, but I want to point out to Members how without this kind of legislation things go wrong. We passed a bill on this House floor, again with the extraordinary bipartisan support of our friends on the Democratic side of our committee in this House and with the President's support, called E911. E911 is a concept that says when a person makes an emergency 911 call, it would be good to know where they are calling from; and when they are using a mobile telephone it would be certainly extraordinarily helpful if the person who received the 911 call could identify the location of the caller, because often the call is made in times of distress, an accident on the highway, a mugging in a park, a call of distress made by a citizen who is lost or in trouble on the highway and needs assistance, someone who has been seriously injured and cannot get help, cannot leave the automobile.

One of my dearest friends a few years ago was in an automobile accident in the middle of the night. His car got flipped off the road, and he landed in one of those wonderful Louisiana marshes on the side of the road and no one could see him on the highway. He spent the night there, crushed, bleeding, broken, until a garbage truck driver spotted him from the highway the next morning.

He nearly died. He went through incredible, horrible operations that might have been avoided if only E911 were in place, where he could have picked up his mobile phone in that car, called 911, and immediately somebody could have known where he was and an

ambulance could have come to his rescue.

That is what E911 is all about. E911 is literally taking the ``search'' out of ``search and rescue'' and making our mobile systems work much more efficiently so we can, in that first incredible hour where we can save lives and save limbs on the highway, we get to the person who has been injured, who made the call, and we rescue them. In that important 20 minutes when someone's child is being abducted, or a house is being broken into and somebody sees it on the highway and calls from a mobile unit, we can immediately identify that location.

When those kind of things are happening in our society, when we pass a bill to facilitate this kind of technology, and we find out that the funds that are derived from the telecommunications companies to pay for the deployment of this service are being diverted by State and local governments to other purposes, even when 911 is not deployed in our communities, we should get upset.

So today I take this opportunity to congratulate the House on moving forward on this Spectrum Relocation Fund and emphasizing how important it is to get the ball rolling on these new technologies and also call upon our colleagues at the State and local level to stop raiding those E911 funds. They are set up, like this relocation fund, to get that technology deployed.

In the E911 case, it is not just to get a technology that is going to enrich our entertainment values or satisfy our need for information exchanges and mobile services. In E911 it is going to mean somebody's life. It may mean someone you love survives. It may mean my friend would not have had to go through all of those operations and not have had to spend the night broken and wounded in the swamps of Louisiana waiting for rescue. That is how important it is.

So I hope, and I know my friends on the other side agree with me on this, we need to urge our friends at the State and local governments to take a good example from what we are doing on this relocation fund and make sure the funds that have been allocated to deploy E911 are used to deploy E911, not to cover deficit problems at a State or local government or divert it to other purposes.

E911 funds ought to be used to deploy E911. Americans ought to demand it. Any State and local government that is diverting those funds ought to be put on notice today that you are taking a chance on somebody's life when you do not deploy those services.

Here today, this House, this Congress, this government says that if we have government spectrum that we can make available to important uses like this, we are going to set up a relocation fund to make sure nobody touches it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) of the Committee on the Budget, who helped make this suspension day possible for us by helping approve this bill. I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), because the appropriators and budget chairmen have surrendered the right to control this money. This money is going to be in this fund to do what it was intended to do. They did the right thing when they approved this legislation.

I want to again thank the Defense Department and the head of our Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), for working with us, because in so many cases the spectrum we are talking about is now under the control of the Defense Department. That is the spectrum that might make the new generation of wireless services available for Americans.

I want to thank all of them for working with us on this legislation. This is the best example of Democrats and Republicans, of government agencies, of the White House, of everybody agreeing that we can do something good for the American economy, great for telecom resurgence in this country, great for new consumer services, great for all who produce and develop and work for the technology companies that make these incredible products available to us in America and to people all over the world. This is a good day for this House and for this government and for this country, and I urge approval of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1320) to amend the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Organization Act to facilitate the reallocation of spectrum from governmental to commercial users, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1320, bipartisan legislation called the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act, otherwise known as the spectrum relocation trust fund bill. I introduced this legislation with my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), along with the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Lately the subcommittee has been focused on the ailing telecommunications sector. Clearly the commercial wireless industry has not been spared from the wreckage, and we have been searching for ways to restore some hope. In my view what we need to do is get new, valuable spectrum into the hands of the commercial wireless carriers so that they can bring new, advanced wireless services to the consumer. That would be good for the wireless carriers, good for the equipment manufacturers, good for the consumer, and certainly great for the economy.

In the current context, the government already has identified the 1710 to 1755 megahertz band for relocation from the government to the private sector. This spectrum, mostly encumbered by DOD, is considered valuable ``beachfront property'' due to its suitability for commercial, mobile advanced wireless services like 3G. However, the road to relocating government entities to comparable spectrum is unpaved and filled with potholes. This bumpy road creates massive uncertainty in the process and depresses interest in participating in the auction in the first place.

H.R. 1320 would pave that road, establishing a spectrum relocation fund and procedures to ensure a timely, certain and privately yet fully funded relocation of Federal incumbents to comparable spectrum. H.R. 1320 requires the FCC to notify the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, NTIA, 18 months before conducting an auction of relocated spectrum. The purpose of that notification is so that the NTIA, after review by the Office of Management and Budget, can provide the Commission with an estimate of relocation costs for a particular band and a time line for relocation. That information is critical because under the legislation, an FCC auction of relocated spectrum is only valid if the auction yields proceeds of at least 110 percent of the estimated relocation costs.

The proceeds from auctions of eligible reallocated bands are deposited into a spectrum relocation fund which is an OMB-administered separate fund at the Department of Treasury. If any agency has any transferred money remaining when relocation is complete, the agency is required to transfer the money back to the spectrum relocation fund right away. Unexpected auction proceeds are then transferred to the Treasury no later than 8 years after the proceeds were initially deposited into the spectrum relocation fund. All the while, H.R. 1320 provides tight fiscal controls and congressional oversight, as it should, of the use of the spectrum relocation fund.

Finally, the bill exempts the telecommunications development fund, TDF, from the Federal Credit Reform Act, the practical application of which has prevented TDF from making loans without first obtaining budget authority on an annual basis. The provision in H.R. 1320 will significantly enhance

the TDF's ability to make loans to worthy development projects focused on rural and underserved areas. I appreciate my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), for his attention to this issue. I am pleased that the provision in fact is incorporated into the bill.

As such, the bipartisan bill represents a win-win-win. That is good news for the private sector which craves certainty in the process and the consumer who craves the benefits which new services enabled by additional spectrum will afford them. That is good news for government agencies who know that they will be made whole when they relocate to comparable spectrum and the taxpayer who will not have to pay a dime to relocate government agencies and will know that there is tight fiscal oversight in that regard. As I indicated, all of this is great news for the economy.

I should also add that we worked very closely with the administration to get where we are today and that the bill enjoys the administration's support, including the Department of Defense, the OMB and NTIA. I want to especially thank Assistant Secretary of Commerce Nancy Victory and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Stephen Price, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), my good friend from the great State of Michigan, ranking member (Mr. Dingell), and certainly the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), in addition to the majority and minority staff for their efforts to get us where we are today. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record three statements in support of this legislation: the first by the administration in their statement of administration policy; second, a strong letter of support by the Chamber of Commerce; and, third, a letter of strong support by the CTIA.

Statement of Administration Policy

(ThIs statement has been coordinated by OMB with the

concerned agencies.)

The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R.

1320, which would create a spectrum relocation fund. The

Administration believes that the fund will serve as

an important spectrum management tool to streamline the

process for reimbursing government users, facilitate their

relocation to comparable spectrum, and provide greater

certainty to auction bidders and incumbents. This legislation

will also expedite the opening of spectrum to commercial use

for new services and technologies for consumers.

The Administration is pleased that H.R. 1320 closely tracks

the Administration's proposal to create a spectrum relocation

fund. The Administration urges quick action by the Congress

to establish a spectrum relocation fund to make the spectrum

management process more effective and efficient.

pay-as-you-go scoring

H.R. 1320 would affect direct spending. The Budget

Enforcement Act's pay-as-you-go requirements and

discretionary spending caps expired on September 30, 2002.

The Administration supports the extension of these budget

enforcement mechanisms in a manner that ensures fiscal

discipline and is consistent with the President's budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is good legislation, a win-win. I look forward to getting it to the President's desk and working with the other body as well to make sure this bill happens.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.