Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 10, the 9/11 Commission Implementation Act of 2004.

As the vice chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I am especially pleased that the Faster Smarter Funding for First Responders bill is part of this legislation.

Our committee traveled throughout the country to learn firsthand from first responders about the tools they need to protect our homeland. The message we consistently received was, our current system for funding is broken and needs to be fixed.

Despite unprecedented appropriations immediately following 9/11, our Nation's first responders were not receiving the funds on the ground fast enough, and some were not receiving any money at all.

They know and we know that, as terrorists are not arbitrary in selecting their targets, the Federal Government cannot afford arbitrary formulas for distributing the money. Dollars must be handed out on risk-based reasons, not population, not politics. The first responder section of H.R. 10 will fix the flaws in the current system.

The 9/11 Commission agreed and supported the committee's recommendation that ``homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.''

Mr. Chairman, we owe it to our first responders, those law enforcement and emergency personnel who put their lives at risk every single day to protect American citizens. Our committee crafted the legislation that will fix current funding problems by, one, creating a streamlined funding system; two, supporting partnership and mutual aid agreements; and, three, by assisting local officials in setting preparedness goals.

These innovative solutions are endorsed by 26 first responders organizations across the country, and I applaud the House leadership for making them part of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today, H.R. 10, deserves the support of every Member of our body and I urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, we are finally bringing to a close a dispute that has lasted not years, but decades. By repealing FSC/ETI, we will bring U.S. law into conformity with the rulings of the WTO and remove sanctions that are now hurting United States workers and companies. We have got to remove these sanctions, and we must do so without delay.

We are doing a lot more in this legislation. The conference report provides a credit for domestic production activities, including software, which is enormously important to the high-tech industry in our State of Washington. It is a critical component that I worked hard on in the Committee on Ways and Means as our committee developed this proposal.

In this bill, we also help millions of our constituents in Washington, Texas, Tennessee, and other States by restoring the deductibility of State sales taxes. But we would not be here without the tireless efforts of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt). I commend their leadership on this issue.

The legislation also includes relief for reforestation costs to help keep U.S. workers competitive with global and foreign industry. This is a critical reform for the thousands of people that I represent who work in the timber industry.

There is a long list of important reforms in this conference report, Mr. Speaker. It provides transition relief for current users of FSC. It clarifies the safe harbor provision for timber REITs. It will make U.S.-based mutual funds more competitive by suspending the withholding tax for foreign-based investors. And it goes a long way toward updating U.S. tax law and how we treat United States-based companies that operate overseas.

If we hope to continue to attract capital and keep our companies and workers competitive, we must adopt these reforms. The product before us today is the result of years of negotiations between members of the Committee on Ways and Means, among members of both parties, between the House and the Senate, between the White House and the Congress.

Nothing this complex and far-reaching is going to please everybody, but it is far too important a bill with too many critical reforms for this Chamber to reject.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote for this excellent bill.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the U.S. Congress, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Baird, Mr. Nethercutt, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Mr. McDermott, and myself, congratulate Air New Zealand for its recent decision to upgrade its wide-body fleet by placing an order with The Boeing Company for eight 777-200ERs and two 7E7s, Boeing's newest airplane. Air New Zealand's order of the Boeing 7E7 makes it the second official customer for this revolutionary new aircraft.

This decision clearly demonstrates Air New Zealand's commitment to the world's best technology and long-term view of the airline's place in commercial aviation. It is with great pride and gratitude that we applaud Air New Zealand's purchase of American-manufactured aircraft.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

The jobs bill before us is urgently needed. We need it to remove the international sanctions put upon our United States products by the European Union that are hurting sales of U.S. goods overseas and are jeopardizing jobs here in the United States.

We need the jobs bill to help promote job creation here in the United States by reducing taxes on United States manufacturers.

We need the jobs bill to update provisions in the tax code that are decades old and penalize American companies and keep them from competing with foreign companies.

We need the jobs bill to move forward in the spirit of the bipartisan progress that has already occurred and has been made on these issues.

The provisions that some are contesting here on the floor right now won bipartisan support in the other body and also here on the House floor. This bill is not about moving jobs overseas. It is about creating incentives to keep jobs right here in the United States.

We need to move the jobs bill to conference, and we should do it without delay. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject the motion to instruct, to support going to conference so that we can bring back a conference report that everybody can support.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Crane) and the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and our ranking members of the Committee on Ways and Means for moving this free trade agreement so effectively through the committee process and onto the floor so that before we break for August recess we can express our support for this agreement.

I do rise in support of the U.S.-Morocco free trade agreement, Mr. Speaker. This is our second trade agreement with an Arab country. With our trade agreement with Morocco, along with those of Israel, Jordan, and Bahrain, we are working to improve economic opportunities in North Africa and in the Middle East.

While the Moroccan economy is much smaller than ours, it remains a key export market for the United States and for my home State. In a State where approximately one in three jobs is now related to trade, it is not surprising that Washington State was the top exporter to Morocco with over $112 million in 2003.

By eliminating 95 percent of the tariffs immediately on United States manufactured goods, we are improving the competitiveness of our businesses in Morocco. Of the $465 million total United States exported from Morocco last year, nearly 29 percent, or $134 million, was due to aerospace products. It is very important to the Northwest, where so many jobs are directly or indirectly affected by our aerospace industry. In fact, Boeing aircraft dominate Royal Air Morac's fleet with a potential of 17 more planes on order.

This agreement will also strengthen intellectual property rights standards for patents, for trademarks and for copyrights so that our high-tech industries are protected in our digital economy. Higher standards, however, are not enough unless there is a commitment for better enforcement of these standards.

For this reason, I am very pleased with Morocco's commitment to better enforcement of intellectual property rights, such as increasing criminal penalties for piracy and for counterfeiting.

This is a very good agreement for our agricultural community. It eliminates duties on our products, and it liberalizes quotas on critical commodities. It also ensures that United States commodities will have equivalent access to any other trade agreements that Morocco negotiates with any other country. If Morocco gives another country better market access on agricultural products, our farmers get the same benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this trade agreement so that we can build an economic bridge with Morocco and the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this historic free trade agreement with Australia. Australia has been a true friend and ally. They have been there when it counted the most, on the shores of Normandy, on the

streets of Baghdad when the odds seemed insurmountable and the light of victory was far, far away.

Over 50 years ago, we began an alliance with Australia based on mutual security needs. Today we build on our security alliance in the past with an economic alliance for the future. Bismarck once said that ``politics is the art of the possible.'' While that is certainly true and an accurate description of the negotiations of this agreement, this trade agreement is also about a world of possibilities. There is a common thread that binds the fabric of both nations' past to the future. We are both nations that are built on possibilities. Whether our citizens arrived an Plymouth Rock in Massachusetts or the rocks in Sydney, many came for the possibility of new beginnings and the possibility of determining their own destiny; and just like those before us, this generation of Americans and Australians will paint the canvas of this trade agreement with their entrepreneurial spirit.

In doing so, we are reminded that the strengths of our nations are not in our governments, but in the thousands of our citizens who are turning possibilities into reality; and it is time for this Congress to make this trade agreement a reality.

This is a trade agreement that creates jobs. Two-way trade in goods and services between both countries is already $29 billion each year, supporting more than 270,000 American jobs, 12,500 of which are in my State of Washington alone.

While all States will benefit from this agreement, the Puget Sound region will have even more to gain, because Australia already is our fifth largest trading partner, and the State of Washington leads the Nation with more than $2.6 billion worth of exports to Australia each year. It is a trade agreement that will help businesses and farmers in the Northwest.

For the 25,000 Boeing workers that I represent, this agreement will ensure that Boeing remains competitive in Australia. Currently, nearly 95 percent of Qantas Airways' operating fleet is Boeing aircraft, making them one of Boeing's key customers in that region.

For our high-tech industry, strengthening intellectual property standards will help reduce counterfeiting and piracy, while encouraging capital investments.

For our farmers, eliminating agricultural tariffs and resolving technical and regulatory barriers will ensure that Northwest fruits will enter the Australian market.

Mr. Speaker, vote for this trade agreement, not out of a sense of obligation but because of a steadfast confidence that Americans and Australians can better face the challenges ahead by walking side by side.

Mr. Speaker, this is a critically important bill for the constituents I represent. It contains tax relief for domestic manufacturers including producers of software, a provision on which I insisted during committee consideration.

The bill also restores after 18 years a tax deduction for State sales taxes. This relief is long overdue; and it enjoys bipartisan support, very strong here in the House.

The litigation of major provisions goes on and on. It provides a tax rate cut for small business. It updates 40-year-old provisions in the law that overtax U.S. businesses operating overseas. It provides incentives to companies to bring home foreign earnings, invest them here in the United States; and it extends the R&D tax credit, and it provides transition relief for current users of ETI.

I am sure every Member of this Chamber could think of ways he or she would change this bill. But insisting this or that provision and ignoring the larger issue will not bring us into compliance with our international trade obligations under the WTO. And it will not get us closer to providing real tax relief to U.S. workers and businesses.

I urge support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4520 and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in voting for this important legislation.

This bill contains a number of critically important provisions. It brings us into compliance with the WTO and it will remove punitive sanctions on American products that are hurting U.S. sales in Europe and jeopardizing American workers.

Voting against this bill is a sure way to increase foreign tariffs on U.S. products, making it tougher for U.S. workers to compete in the world economy.

The simple fact is this: U.S. workers need this bill. They need the opportunity to compete domestically and internationally.

I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, a strong bill, a bipartisan bill, and it is a necessary bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great lady of the Republican Party in the State of Washington. We are so sorry to learn that Catherine May Bedell, our former Member of Congress from the 4th congressional district in Washington State, passed away last Friday.

We lost Catherine May Bedell last Friday. She was a rare lady, Mr. Speaker; and a couple of us wanted to stand up today on the floor and pay tribute to her and let her friends who continue to serve in the House of Representatives and those in politics in Washington State and all over the country know of her passing.

Catherine was born in Yakima. She was one of the few women in national politics at that time to win office on her own, because many people were appointed to replace their husbands or their fathers. Catherine was a strong Member of Congress, a strong woman, very articulate. She had a great time in life, and she stood up for those enterprises that she believed in.

Her political career began in 1952 in Washington State's legislature, and she served as a representative until she was appointed by the party to run against the current Congressman, Otis Halbert, who had decided to retire. She was elected to the Congress in 1958.

Catherine May Bedell was a wonderful spirit, Mr. Speaker. She was somebody who used her talents, being able to speak well, being able to write well, A PR agent, for example, who was hired on by NBC Radio to put together the Betty Crocker specials sponsored by General Mills.

She returned to Yakima before she died. Catherine May Bedell was a great fighter for interests she believed in. She was a member of the Atomic Energy Committee, the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, and she fought for the Hanford Nuclear Reserve against people who were trying to close it down. She also was a Member of the House Agriculture Committee, and she

fought for dams to protect those farmers and bargers who operated there in the 4th Congressional District.

The last time I talked to Catherine May Bedell was soon after she left a position on the United States International Trade Commission. She and I met at an event in San Diego, California, where Catherine continued to do what she always did when she saw a woman who had interests in politics. She urged me to run. That was a long time, 11 years before I actually ran for Congress, Mr. Speaker, but when the time came I remembered Catherine May Bedell's words and her encouragement and actually took her up on that bet and let her know through letters and cards how I was doing in the Congress.

So that was my best memory of her, because it has so much to do with the work that I have done here in the United States Congress.

Mr. Speaker, we have some folks who have followed her career and would like to say a few words.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. DICKS).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), of the Fourth Congressional District of Washington State.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) from the First Congressional District of Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say, in closing, we appreciate the time allotted to us. When a door closes, often another window opens. And to all of us, I want to say that 5 weeks ago a member of my campaign staff gave birth to a little baby girl whose name is Catherine May.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 265, The Mount Rainier Boundary Adjustment Act of 2003, will allow the National Park Service to relocate a popular campground that has limited access as the result of road damage caused by years of reoccurring floods. The road to Ipsut Creek Campground in Mount Rainier National Park is now located below the level of the Carbon River in many areas. Due to frequent road washouts, it can be difficult--if not impossible--for visitors and residents to drive safely to the campground.

There have been numerous attempts to repair this road--but, unfortunately, it continues to wash out. Previous road reconstruction after flooding has cost $750,000.

The road to the campground serves as one of the most primitive and popular entrances into Mount Rainier Park and leads to a temperate rainforest within the park as well as the beautiful Carbon Glacier.

This boundary adjustment will allow for the purchase of approximately 800 acres of private land just outside the park, allowing the campground to be moved to a more secure area and providing safe travel to the site. All of the private landowners are willing sellers, and this vital project is currently included in the National Park Service Management Plan. It has the strong support of the local residents, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and numerous conservation organizations.

The Congressional Budget Office released a favorable estimate for this project--stating that

this act will have no significant impact on the budgets of State, local, or tribal governments. In addition, the CBO found that annual maintenance spending at Mount Rainier will not notably increase, ensuring that the Park will not have to assume additional, costly responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 265 has broad, bi-partisan support and is a critical priority not only for ensuring safe travel to the Carbon River area of Mount Rainier Park, but for providing a permanent solution to an expensive, on-going maintenance problem for our Park personnel.

I would like to thank Chairman Radanovich on the National Parks Subcommittee, as well as Chairman Pombo and Ranking Member Rahall on the full Resources Committee for their help and support in bringing this legislation to the floor for consideration. I would also like to thank the majority and minority staff on the Resources Committee for their work.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to help ensure safe travel in one of our Nation's most visited and well-loved National Parks.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, for more than 20 years, Saddam Hussein used tactics of torture, brutality, and fear to terrorize the citizens of Iraq and neighboring countries. Exactly 16 years ago this week, Saddam Hussein unleashed weapons of mass destruction that killed 5,000 of his own Kurdish citizens. He encouraged Iraqi officials to rape and torture women. Men and women of Iraq were repressed, and they were isolated from the rest of the world.

One year after the United States and coalition forces liberated Iraqi citizens, the people of Iraq are embracing this opportunity to build a new and free Iraq for their children.

Last October, I saw firsthand the remarkable activities that are taking place on the ground in Iraq. There are now over 3,800 programs that offer immediate assistance to improve the quality of life for all Iraqi people. As reconstruction efforts continue to move forward, many essential services like water, sanitation, electricity, and telecommunication have been restored and even surpass prewar levels. In fact, public health spending is now 26 times as great as it was under Saddam's regime.

Today I met with a delegation of Iraqi leaders to talk about the continuing advances in Iraq. This was a diverse delegation. It was men and women, Shi'ias, Sunnis, tribal leaders, doctors, members of the free press. They are dedicated to promoting and to teaching democracy throughout south central Iraq. They shared their personal stories. They talked about the Democracy Regional Center where a democracy discussion was held for more than 1,500 Iraq people from different backgrounds, and they are launching a radio station, and they are promoting democracy to 10 million people through that part of the country. The Iraqi people are embracing democracy with open arms.

Mr. Speaker, last week I held a roundtable discussion with a group of remarkable women leaders from Iraq. One of the women in the group gave me her wedding ring to keep as a reminder that we should not waiver from our commitment to women.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, support the Iraqi men and women who have done so much for us in that Nation. We should help them.

Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall vote No. 20 because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been here, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, January 20, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote No. 1, the House Quorum Call. Had I been present, I would have voted ``present'' for rollcall vote No. 1.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, January 21, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote No. 2, Honoring Catholic schools, rollcall vote No. 3, Benefits of mentoring, rollcall vote No. 4, Recognizing NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab and Mars Rover Mission, and rollcall vote No. 5, Expressing sorrow and respect for former Senator Paul Simon. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' for rollcall votes No. 2-5.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to keep our promise and provide a comprehensive and voluntary prescription drug benefit for all seniors. Seniors cannot afford the frighteningly increasing cost of drugs any longer. This bill will protect the poorest seniors by helping pay for their drug costs immediately. By using the same principles already used by private companies, this bill will lower drug costs for seniors by passing along to them larger discounts from manufacturers.

As a result, over 775,000 Medicare beneficiaries in my State of Washington will get access to the drugs they need at affordable prices. The poorest seniors in Washington State, over 206,000 people living on fixed incomes, will pay only nominal fees, and I am talking about $2 to $5 for prescriptions, that is all, while qualifying for full assistance on their premiums, their deductions, and their coverage.

We can only strengthen Medicare's future if we are able to ensure access to the services that seniors need today. In this bill, we increase payments to doctors and hospitals, especially in rural communities, so that doctors will have some reason to stay in practice and seniors will get access to health services that they need.

For Medicare HMOs this bill requires Medicare to account for military retirees in the formula resulting in higher reimbursements in counties with military facilities. To help every State, the Federal Government will assume the drug costs for people eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. This is hugely important. It will help 82,000 beneficiaries who qualify for both programs in my State with their drug costs, but this bill will also save my State $500 million, half a billion dollars over the next 8 years on drug coverage for its Medicaid population. In all, Washington State will receive at least an additional $800 million to serve our seniors.

Strengthening Medicare also means improving the quality of life for every senior. For this reason, I am very happy that we are able to provide preventative services to all seniors like a first-time initial physical exam. For the first time, seniors will have access to innovative treatments to deal with rheumatoid arthritis and other diseases. Seniors also will profit from disease management care, which means there will be coordination to help those seniors who suffer from multiple serious illnesses.

Mr. Speaker, these treatments will allow seniors to receive treatments in their homes, take the burden off physicians or hospitals, and I will tell the Members for too long our parents and grandparents have paid too much for the drugs they need. The time has come to strengthen the Medicare program so that seniors can get the care that they need and they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, later this week we will have an opportunity to keep our promises to seniors. For too long our parents and our grandparents have been paying too much for prescription drugs. This problem is much more acute for low-income seniors, especially women. Women represent more than half the seniors with incomes that are less than 135 percent of the poverty level. They live longer than men, they spend more on health care, and they are more likely to suffer from chronic medical conditions. In essence, women need more drugs for a longer period of time but are least likely to be able to afford them.

This prescription drug bill will help those on fixed incomes. A woman with an income of less than $13,000 today will receive full assistance. No premiums, no deductibles, no gap in coverage. Furthermore, disease management programs will help women who are suffering from multiple chronic diseases. It will help them receive better care from health professionals who can coordinate their medical needs.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to end the rhetoric and deliver on a promise.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion. The House has considered similar motion on 14 different occasions in the last month. And just as those previously, this motion will deny millions of families the relief we have already proposed by broadening coverage under the child tax credit.

Earlier this year, the House passed House bill 1308, the All American Tax Relief Act. This very important legislation includes increasing the child tax credit through the end of the decade. We all agree on expanding the refundability of the child tax credit. On a bipartisan basis, we want to broaden the child credit's availability to more families. This is one reason why H.R. 1308 not only increased the child credit to $1,000, but also eliminated the marriage penalty in the child credit. We also agree that those serving this Nation in uniform should receive tax relief, including the increases in the child credit. That is included in House resolution 1308. We differ, however, on how to achieve these goals.

This vote is not about denying a refundable tax credit to certain families. It is about helping more working families get tax relief for a longer period of time. A vote for this Democrat motion would reduce the child credit to 2 years instead of maintaining the credit at $1,000 and making it permanent over the decade.

Who realistically believes we should allow the credit to revert to $700 a year in just 2 years?

A vote for this motion would eliminate the possibility of more married couples with children receiving the child credit. A vote for this motion would deny tax relief to members of the Armed Forces. Much of the cost of the House bill goes toward maintaining the child credit at $1,000 until 2010.

I hope no one will hide behind the rhetoric of deficit reduction. The fact is we should insist on keeping our provisions in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to belabor matters that have been exhaustively debated day, after day, after day on the floor on the many occasions that I referenced. I think it is important for folks to realize that all of these provisions are included in House Resolution 1308, that the House of Representatives has passed that piece of legislation, stands behind it and the other provisions included in that legislation, and vote no on this motion.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to respond to the point of the military families not receiving child credit.

The House-passed bill, H.R. 1308, does not deny the child credit to military families. Military families, including those who are deployed abroad, are already receiving a refundable child tax credit, and they will continue to receive a refundable child credit under the House- passed bill.

The Democrat motion to instruct would only increase the refundable child tax credit to some military families, by allowing them to take into account income that is currently tax free when they compute their refundable credit if they are in a combat zone.

I think it is important to also bring up that in our provision, H.R. 1308, that we provide additional tax relief for members of the Armed Services including capital gains tax relief on home sales, tax free death gratuity payments, and of course, tax free dependent care assistance which is child care assistance, and that these provisions provide $806 million of tax relief to people who are members of the Armed Forces over the next 11 years.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

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

I think it has been an interesting discussion this afternoon. I am glad that we had this discussion. I have listened to what the gentleman from New Jersey has said, and some of it has merit, but some of it, I believe, is a flawed argument.

We have included in our proposal, which passed the House by a vote of 224 to 201 several months ago, H.R. 1308, all the elements of the gentleman's proposal, but our bill is far better and far superior, and that is what has been kept out of this debate.

Our bill increases the child credit to $1,000 per eligible child through the year 2010. The Democrat bill ensures that the child tax credit stays at the same level only through 2005, and then it reverts back to $700. Our bill eliminates the marriage penalty in the tax credit. It raises the phase-out threshold for marriage couples. His bill creates a marriage penalty for married couples because it keeps the income levels below what our bill does.

Our bill accelerates the increase in the refundable child tax credit so that the 15 percent rate takes effect in 2003 instead of having to wait until 2005. His bill requires that the rate schedule be phased in and not become 15 percent until 2005.

In sum, Mr. Speaker, we passed a very, very good bill. We passed a bill with some Democrat support. This selecting out of a provision of our bill, which covers a number of very, very important topics, like providing tax relief and enhancing tax fairness for members of the Armed Forces, like suspending the tax-exempt status of designated terrorist organizations, like providing tax relief for astronauts who die on space missions, and like increasing the child tax credit to all people, including the ones he wishes to serve, and doing it far more quickly and for a greater length of time.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``no'' vote on this motion.

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