Expressing support for designation of January 2010 as "National Stalking Awareness Month" to raise awareness and encourage prevention of stalking.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, the vote we are having here today is not a vote for PAYGO, or whatever we want to call it. It is a vote to raise the debt ceiling. It is a vote to raise the debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion. The majority might argue this isn't about the debt, but let's not be fooled. This is about a debt ceiling. Treasury has to raise it because we have had this incredible spending spree, and we are on an unsustainable trajectory of more debt.

Now, let's take a look at where we are right now. Right now, the burden of the debt on our economy is 60 percent. That is worse than what is required in Europe, because under this budget that is passing, it goes up to 77 percent of our economy by the end of the President's budget. Now, already, foreigners hold about half of our debt, and China lends us the most. The problem we have, Madam Speaker, is that the Chinese aren't going to keep lending us all their money.

Let me tell you a little bit about what will happen to America. The debt trajectory we are on will weaken America. The debt goes to catastrophic levels in this country which will destroy our economy-- that is a tough word--and for sure give the next generation an inferior standard of living. These are facts. They are not opinions.

Now, one thing that I find interesting about PAYGO is the budget that we are living under right now doubles and triples our debt in 10 years, and it is all PAYGO compliant. The debt skyrockets under the current budget, and it all does so within PAYGO. And if you actually look at the President's budget, it says: with this PAYGO rule, not only will the debt triple in 10 years, but we will have another $473 billion under PAYGO to spend on top of that. That is what PAYGO does, Madam Speaker.

PAYGO has been in place before. We have seen it. It started in 2007 when the Democrats took over Congress. At that time, when PAYGO was put in place, we had a $161 billion deficit. We have a $1.6 trillion deficit now. Forty percent of the entire budget is exempt from PAYGO. It does not do a thing at all to reduce the deficits. In fact, what PAYGO does is it locks in the deficits at its current levels, and it doesn't address the spending crisis.

Not only is spending growing at an unsustainable rate, not only are entitlements growing themselves right into bankruptcy, not only are we looking at bankruptcy of Medicare, Society Security, and Medicaid right around the corner. PAYGO is ripe with loopholes. It exempts 40 percent of spending, as I mentioned. It exempts mandatory spending on appropriation bills. It exempts all spending designed as emergencies, and more than 160 programs are exempt from its enforcement.

The point is this, Madam Speaker: my greatest concern is that if we pass this illusion of fiscal control, that will replace any real fiscal spending control whatsoever. It is good talk. It sounds good. When you look at the details, it accomplishes nothing. And when it is ever applied, it is only to chase higher spending with higher taxes. We should reject this and start over.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming, a distinguished member of the Budget Committee, Mrs. Lummis.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the vice ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

I yield myself 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, we need to step up to the plate. Look at what is happening with the current government right now. I have three children. They are 5 years old, 6 years old, and our oldest just turned 8. For the last 40 years, the size of our government has been remarkably consistent, about 20 percent of the economy. Meaning we have taken 20 cents out of every dollar made in America to go to the Federal Government. When my three children are my age, the current government we have right now, this is before you would even pass the President's budget, that current government goes to 40 percent of our economy. You will have to take 40 cents out of every dollar made in America just to keep the government we have now in place at that time, doubling the taxes on the next generation.

I asked the Congressional Budget Office what would the income tax rates have to be to support all of this when my kids are my age? The lowest tax bracket, which is now at 10 percent, they said that would have to go to 25 percent. The middle income tax brackets for middle income families go up to 66 percent. Top tax bracket on small businesses, 88 percent.

Madam Speaker, we know we are crashing our economy with this borrow- and-spend mentality. And all of that is PAYGO compliant. This is not budget discipline, it is an illusion. Let's come together and fix this problem.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on each side?

At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The Speaker of the House came and just said something to the effect that this was a proud moment, a happy occasion, a bill she's really excited about. The bill we're about to vote on, Madam Speaker, raises the national debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion. Even if I were a supporter of this bill, I wouldn't be proud of it.

I'm taking a look at the President's budget. On page 172, table S-9, the President's PAYGO proposal says that at the end of the budget window we can spend another $473 billion. So we're saying all the debt that's going up, the tripling of the national debt that we're giving to our kids and grandkids, not only does that comply with PAYGO, we can go ahead and spend another $473 billion on top of it.

This, Madam Speaker, is a fiscal charade. Real people from both parties need to step up and solve this problem. I have thrown out a few ideas of my own. I hope other Republicans and Democrats do the same. Because, Madam Speaker, if we don't tackle this problem, it's going to tackle us.

Our constituents sent us here to be a part of a solution and not a part of the problem. We know irrefutably we're going to bequeath this mountain of deficit and debt onto the next generation. Both of our parties share the blame. No one party corners the virtue on fiscal responsibility. But we're going to, together, have to come down here and fix this problem once and for all. And doing this doesn't do it. Doing this is a cop-out. Doing this raises the debt limit $1.9 trillion and gives us a fiscal cop-out so we can go talk tough in the election about how we did this and that while we bequeath the next generation an inferior standard of living.

I didn't come here to make sure that my three kids are going to have a life that's worse off than ours. Nobody here wants that. So let's get this fixed, defeat this bill, come together, and do real fiscal discipline. The American people are under attack. We overspend.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I rise in favor of this PAYGO legislation. This has been a priority of mine and my Blue Dog colleagues for many, many years, and I am proud to stand here today where we're on the brink of final passage of this very important legislation.

Madam Speaker, PAYGO was the very first bill that President Obama sent to Congress last year, and the progress we made in the last year would not be possible without his support. And I want to thank the President for weighing in and supporting fiscal responsibility.

I also want to take a moment to thank the leaders of the House who have been so important, particularly Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has a commitment to fiscal responsibility, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who you've already heard from, and also chairman of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from South Carolina, John Spratt.

My Blue Dog colleagues and I will continue to advocate for tools to bring our fiscal house in order because this is only the very first step. It is a small step, and it will not solve all of our problems that have been created over the last decade, but we will continue to advocate for tools that will pave the way for long-term economic stability.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure and privilege to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the Budget Committee chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, you hear a lot about when the debt was incurred. I think it's important that we all understand that the policies that were put in place that caused that debt to be incurred started in 2001 with the economic package. Subsequently, we had the war, and then we had a recession. All that came from 2001 to 2007. That was under the policies of the previous administration and the previous Congress. So I want the Members to keep that in mind.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this motion.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute now to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) who is also a cosponsor of the original PAYGO legislation.

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill), a real leader on this issue for all of his years in Congress.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, PAYGO, when it was put in place in the past in the 1990s, was put in place with bipartisan votes. It is my hope that the gentleman from Indiana will work with us in a bipartisan way.

The first thing we must do is understand exactly what PAYGO does. He said, for example, that PAYGO has a list of exemptions which wouldn't affect current spending programs. Well, PAYGO has nothing to do with current spending. It speaks to additional and new entitlement, mandatory spending programs and-or tax reductions, changes in law.

So the first thing we should do, Madam Speaker, is get a good understanding about exactly what PAYGO does do--stop digging the hole, and

then we can begin to fill in the hole and reach fiscal responsibility, reach a balanced budget like we did back in the 1990s.

Madam Speaker, with that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time each side has.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I would like to remind the gentlelady from Wyoming that we did borrow-as-you-go since 2001, and we want to do pay-as-you-go starting now.

It is my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, the vice chair of the Budget Committee, Ms. Schwartz.

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota, a fellow Blue Dog, Mr. Pomeroy.

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, a great leader on this issue for many, many, many years, leader of the Blue Dogs, Mr. Tanner.

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege now to recognize the Speaker of the House, and yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Mrs. Dahlkemper).

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege now to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have left?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it's been a good debate, and I join my colleague and friend Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin in a call for working together in a bipartisan way to solve these problems. Madam Speaker, that's the only way that we will solve this massive problem that we have. I don't think any of us take pleasure--I know Mr. Ryan doesn't and I don't--in being here and talking about having to raise the debt ceiling because of policies we have put in place in the past that have incurred a tremendous deficit and mounting debt in this country. I would be less pleased if I had voted for those policies, and I would be embarrassed.

I can give you an example: the economic package of 2001 that carried us down this trail; subsequently, 9/11; subsequently, Medicare prescription drug

programs unpaid for; wars that we continued to cut taxes while we were committing our troops overseas and hundreds of billions of dollars to prosecute those wars.

Madam Speaker, we have to stop this foolish policy of spending more than we take in. Congress has consistently shown that we don't have the will to discipline ourselves when it comes to spending the revenue. Pay-as-you-go legislation is a tool that will put us back on the right path to fiscal responsibility. It worked in the past, as others have said, put in place first by George W. Bush, Sr., along with the Democratic Congress, and then later on by President Clinton with the Republican Congress. We can do it again if we work in a bipartisan way. This is a great first step, though.

For those who criticize the legislation as having too many exemptions, I'm very pleased to hear Mr. Ryan and others say they've changed their tune about exemptions, because I've got some vote sheets here that show that they voted to enact spending programs or mandatory programs that we had paid for, but they voted against the bill when it's paid for and then voted for it when it's not paid for. So I assume that means that they have taken a different approach into how we're going to do business in the future. This pay-as-you-go legislation not only will encourage that, but will require it statutorily.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1065, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 45) increasing the statutory limit on the public debt, with a Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

I thank the Speaker, and I yield myself 1 minute.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, as we have on numerous occasions, we just raised the liability, or the ability, of the United States to pay a substantial amount. What we are doing now that we have not done in the last decade is to adopt a fiscal constraint at the same time, a fiscal constraint to get us to wherever Americans want us to be, and that is to fiscal balance, to a fiscally responsible government and a fiscally responsible country to match the fiscal responsibility of most of our citizens.

The House has just voted that our country should pay the bills it already incurred. Those obligations, of course, come from actions America has already taken. Those actions cannot be changed, so it was necessary to pay the bill. But we can and must confront our record debt going forward. We can and must set a more responsible path fiscally for our country.

I yield myself 3 additional minutes.

A New York Times analysis found that 90 percent of our deficit is due to the policies of the previous administration, the extension of those policies, and the economic downturn. However we believe America got into this mess, this Congress can begin getting America out of it. That is why Congress must pass one of the most proven deficit cutting tools we know, statutory pay-as-you-go legislation or, as it is affectionately known, PAYGO.

Now, let me point out this chart to my right, your left. The deficits are when we did not have statutory PAYGO in effect. Now, when statutory PAYGO was put into effect in 1990, we still had deficits, but you can see that we started reducing those deficits almost on a straight line. And then in 1997 we went into surplus, fiscal year 1998, and we went into surplus for the next 4 years under PAYGO. Unfortunately, you will see that in 2001 it was decided that we would waive PAYGO, and then in 2003 it was decided by the then majority party that we would eliminate statutory PAYGO. And you can see the result. We returned to deep deficits.

So what we are voting on on the floor has demonstrably made a difference, has demonstrably helped America discipline its finances and bring surpluses. As I said, when George Bush took office from President Clinton, he, his administration, based upon the past record of the Clinton administration, said we had a $5.6 trillion surplus. Unfortunately, for the country, when President Bush left office we had an almost $8 trillion deficit confronting us.

PAYGO compels Congress to find savings for the money it spends, so it keeps our deficit from increasing. Under PAYGO we'll be required to find savings to balance any new tax cuts or entitlement spending, which makes this law essential, essential to the wise prioritization that responsible budgeting demands and, indeed, that our fellow citizens expect. As the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan fiscal responsibility group, put it, and I quote, ``PAYGO requires anyone proposing tax cuts or entitlement expansions to answer the question, How do you pay for it? Going through this process will force an explicit trade-off between spending, taxes and debt, which is exactly the priority-setting exercise that the budget process should and must facilitate.'' We all know that such deliberate priority-setting steps stops us from passing our bills on to our children.

I yield myself 2 additional minutes.

Under President Clinton, PAYGO helped turn record deficits into a $5.6 trillion projected surplus. We also know that PAYGO was disregarded, waived and finally allowed to expire under the last administration. And as I have pointed out on this chart, our deficits exploded and, indeed, our economy was hurt as well as those deficits exploded. Some argue that the PAYGO legislation on the floor today is too weak. But I'd point out that it brings our country more fiscal discipline than it has seen in nearly a decade.

The perfect ought not to be the enemy of the good. PAYGO can't get us out of our fiscal hole, but it can keep us from digging it deeper. When my Republican colleagues raise their concerns about our growing debt, I absolutely agree with them. They're right. All of us understand this debt is not sustainable. But it's not enough to complain about the debt; we have to do something about it. If my colleagues are sincere in their concerns, I hope they'll work with us to pass PAYGO and contribute to the bipartisan fiscal commission announced by President Obama. I hope you'll participate in that commission, helping us get our country to fiscal balance.

America's dangerous fiscal condition threatens our prosperity and our place in the world. If my colleagues will forgive a Democrat for paraphrasing Ronald Reagan, there are no easy answers to this mess, but there is a simple answer. The answer lies in recommitting ourselves to the principle that has served our prosperity so well in the past, the principle of responsibility. Ronald Reagan was right. Let us pass this legislation.

In closing, let me say, Madam Speaker, that so many people are responsible for this day; the Blue Dogs, I want to congratulate them. In a minute I'm going to yield to Allen Boyd who has led this effort on behalf of the Blue Dogs for such a long and successful time.

I yield myself 30 additional seconds.

I also want to congratulate an extraordinary individual who worked for an individual who's not on this floor, Charlie Stenholm, who deserves a portion of the credit this day for this legislation. And he was assisted, as I am now assisted, as all of the House is assisted, by an extraordinary member of our staff, Ed Lorenzen. Ed, I want to thank you personally for the extraordinary efforts you have made to get us to this day.

Madam Speaker, I designate Mr. Boyd of Florida to control the remainder of the time.

My colleague, Judge Poe, the Representative from Texas, has told you some of the examples about women who have found themselves in this dire situation. We had in my county, Orange County, California, a total of four young women in 1990 who were, in the span of 6 weeks, all confronted by the same situation. They were being stalked by an acquaintance or a former beau, someone they knew. Each knew they were going to be attacked. Each had been threatened that they would be attacked.

I spoke after the attack with a law enforcement officer there who said it was the hardest thing he ever had to do in his life was to tell one of these young women, I know you feel he's going to attack you, but there's nothing we can do until you're physically attacked. Despite the threats he's made, there's nothing we can do. So he said, I took it upon myself to follow this individual because I knew he intended to carry out that attack. He said, I came within 2 minutes of preventing him from killing her. But, unfortunately, he took her life, and then when he saw me, he took his own. This was the example given in this one case, but there were four cases within that 6 weeks in 1990.

I had previously passed legislation in the State senate on terrorism as it related to credible threats made against synagogues and churches by those who threatened to blow up synagogues. And I thought, Well, perhaps we can extend this and actually give law enforcement the chance to step in. Since that other law had been upheld by the State supreme court, perhaps it would uphold a law if we passed an anti-stalker law that said if you threatened the victim with a credible threat of great bodily harm, it became a stalking crime, and thereby perhaps you would have the deterrent effect of having law enforcement able to go to these victims or go, more importantly, to perpetrators and tell them, You may not understand this, but under this new law you face 3 years or more in State prison if you do this.

We passed the legislation in California after some debate. We had particularly effective testimony from one young woman who had been stalked for

years by a high school acquaintance who she didn't even know, and finally taken at knifepoint. There was a 12-hour standoff. But because he didn't drag her more than the allotted number of feet, it was not a kidnapping. So, finally, with her testimony, we got that through the State house.

And then we found that the very advice we were giving these victims-- get away from your stalker; move, because there's little we can do-- meant that when they moved from the State of California to another State--let's say Florida, an example that I'm familiar with--the restraining order was no longer in effect, which meant that he couldn't be charged with stalking.

So the answer to that was a Federal law. By that time, we had used the California law as a template. We passed it in all 50 States. Japan had adopted the law. Parliaments in Europe adopted the law. But the question was: How do you protect those who go from State to State when those restraining orders are no longer in effect?

So in the United States House of Representatives I introduced that legislation. As a result, this new law provides a uniform Federal law protecting stalking victims when they cross State lines either to travel or work or to get away from their stalkers, or for any other purpose; and when they're on Federal property; if they're on a military base, for example; if they're at a post office.

It was signed into law in 1996. And I will tell you now why I am appreciative of these Members bringing this law up to date, of which I am a cosponsor. Our key problem is getting people aware of the existence of this law. Our key challenge today is deterrence. As mentioned, you have a case today where one out of every four young women who is killed is being murdered by someone who formerly stalked her. And there is a deterrent effect to law enforcement coming to you and saying you could be serving 3 years in a Federal penitentiary or in jail. You've got 3.4 million people being stalked every year, according to the Department of Justice.

If we had those in law enforcement, if judges were more cognizant of the challenges of this problem, we'd be better able to handle this situation.

Many communities have come to understand that stalking is a serious problem. Many have come up with programs that can support victims and combat this crime, but we really need law enforcement to have more focus because how many times can you look at a situation and say, All right. There's something we could have done to help deter this. We know the incidences where that has been effective here.

Most stalkers are known by their victims. It isn't always the case, but most are known.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

And in today's world, stalkers, unfortunately, are using a very new and upgraded type of technology from what, traditionally, they used. It used to be that, you know, they'd leave a message on the phone. Today it's computers, it's GPS units, it's cell phones, it's social networking, and all of this can be used to harass victims.

If anyone would like more information on National Stalking Awareness Month, I urge you to visit www.stalkingawarenessmonth.org, and try--for those out there in law enforcement--try to understand just how devastating this can be to victims, and try to give them a hand, and try to deter these attacks before they occur.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to be the sponsor of this legislation. Stalking is described as repeated harassment or threatening behavior toward somebody else. The stalker can be a stranger or someone the victim knows very well--an ex-partner, a family member. Laws vary from State to State, but stalking is usually considered under the law to be any unwanted contact between the stalker and the victim, that he or she either directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places fear in the victim. Some examples include, but are not limited to, unwanted phone calls; letters; emails; instant messages; following the victim; showing up at the location where the victim is without any reason; leaving unwanted items or presents; and spreading false information or rumors about the victim.

Stalking can turn any ordinary day and any ordinary activity, like walking to your car, into a terrifying experience for the victim. Victims of stalking will never really know if they are safe whether they are at home, in their cars, at their work, or even just walking down the street. Stalkers show up at the oddest places. They will be sitting out in front of someone's home; they'll be there when the lady drops her child off at school; when she picks him up in the afternoon; when she goes to church. The stalker is everywhere.

One example is a wonderful young lady from Maryland by the name of Yvette Cade. Yvette Cade was severely burned by her husband shortly after a restraining order against him was removed by the judge. Just 3 weeks before, she begged a judge to reinstate a restraining order that had been ordered against her husband. And she told him, the judge, that she feared for her life. But the judge, in his incompetence, refused to reinstate the restraining order. The judge has been reprimanded for that conduct--for refusing to listen to Mrs. Cade's case--which could have prevented the horrible tragedy.

Let me make it clear: when the judge refused to reinstate the restraining order, her husband followed her to the store that she worked in. He walked in the store. He had a bottle of gasoline. He poured it over the top of her head and he set Yvette Cade on fire, all because he had been stalking her, but also a judge had the ability to intervene and prevent that activity--and he did not do so.

Yvette Cade survived those injuries, and she is an advocate for victims' rights to this day. This case is a reminder why we must educate law enforcement and others, including judges, about stalking and domestic violence in order to help them recognize situations as happened to Mrs. Yvette Cade. During a 12-month period, an estimated 3.4 million people ages 18 and older are victims of stalking.

There's a similar story of a woman named Peggy Klinke. She lived in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and broke up with her boyfriend, named Patrick Kennedy, after dating him for 3 years. He couldn't handle not being with Peggy and stalked her outside of her work. He waited for her outside of her gym. He followed her everywhere she went. And she could always find his truck wherever she showed up.

She filed stalking charges against him and had a protective order put out against him. Eventually, Peggy started dating someone else and tried to move on with her life. Patrick set her boyfriend's house on fire and flew to Peggy's mother's house in Ohio and spray painted her house with profanity. The police then thought they had enough evidence to take him to court. Six months before the trial began, Peggy moved to California to hide from Patrick. He hired a private investigator to find her, and he did so in California. Two weeks before the trial, he located her and then killed her and then killed himself.

The most effective way of preventing stalking is making people aware it exists and how dangerous it can be. While not every instance of stalking ends in violence, many do. Stalking must be taken seriously and decisive measures must be taken by law enforcement officials as soon as the behavior begins in order to prevent the escalation into a violent situation.

House Res. 960 expresses support for the designation of January 2010 as National Stalking Awareness Month to raise awareness and encourage the prevention of stalking. I support this bill and urge my colleagues to support it as well.

I yield 5 minutes to the original author of the national stalking criminal legislation some years ago, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

I yield to the gentleman for 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am ready to yield but I did want to make comments regarding my colleague Mr. Johnson.

I appreciate his comments about his family and how stalking violence can happen anywhere in the United States to anybody. We, as a body, must be aware that victims throughout the country go through terrible tragedies in their lives. This legislation brings awareness of stalking to the national front.

Stalking laws are imposed to protect the right to be left alone, and that's a right that all people have in this country, to be left alone. I want to thank the victims groups that have supported this legislation and, as chairman of the Victims' Rights Caucus, all of the numerous members of the caucus who also support this. I urge its adoption.

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