[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 116 (Thursday, August 1, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9341-S9344]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GOOD ECONOMIC NEWS
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, let me take a couple of minutes to comment
on something else, and that is the economic news that was announced
today, which I personally am very proud of, as I think every Member of
this Congress can be, and this administration can be proud of the news.
I know when I look at my own State of Louisiana, Louisiana's
unemployment in 1992 was 8.2 percent; 8.2 percent of the people in my
State did not have a job. Today, the unemployment rate is 6.9 percent,
a substantial drop.
In 1992, the growth rate in this country was 2.7 percent, and the
deficit stood at $290 billion. Today's growth rate figures of 4.2
percent is incredible progress, and we should be proud of it.
Hopefully, we are moving in the right direction with regard to the
Federal deficit.
In 1992, we looked at a Federal deficit that had staggered up to $290
billion. Today's figures we are estimating are somewhere between $115
billion and $130 billion--still too high, but real progress.
I was interested in just this week--and these are not just figures
that apply in Washington. A lot of people back home say, ``Well, some
Department in Washington issued figures I don't really understand.''
The hometown paper in New Orleans has a special report just this week
on the economy in my State of Louisiana. It shows what we are talking
about on the floor today, about this good economic news in Washington
is good economic news throughout the United States of America.
This is a special in the Times-Picayune in New Orleans. It says in
comparison:
A decade ago, the economic world as New Orleans knew it
seemed over. The oil boom that had turned into the oil
slowdown was now the oil bust.
Almost before anyone knew what had happened, tens of
thousands of jobs had disappeared from the local economy. . .
Fast forward to 1996. Traffic is bustling--
On all of our roads and highways:
Houses in prime neighborhoods seemingly sell in seconds.
Banks are cheerfully advertising their services or rates. The
oil and gas business looks pretty good.
Residential building contracts in New Orleans, Baton Rouge
and statewide are up through June from a year ago 11 percent
for this area, 29 percent for the State.
Get the picture?
``Fundamentally, the State's economy is in great shape,''
said Hibernia Corp. President Stephen Hansell.
What I am trying to point out is that this is good news in my State
and, I daresay, in the other 49 States as well.
I was interested in how the article concluded:
The Federal Government didn't manufacture it.
And they talk about other things that didn't have anything to do with
it. I want to make the point that I think the actions here in
Washington did, in fact, have something to do with it. I think the 1993
Deficit Reduction Act had something to do with this.
Many of my colleagues said this is going to destroy the economy of
America; this Deficit Reduction Act is a terrible thing. The news today
is that the results are in and the news is good news. The tough things
that we had to do in 1993 to get this country back on a course of
economic recovery have worked, and there should be celebration in the
Congress for recognizing that something that was very difficult to do,
in fact, was done.
The deficit went from $290 billion to $115 billion to $130 billion. I
say to the writers of this editorial that that had something to do with
that economic boom.
That meant that there was more money for private citizens, more money
for the private economy to be able to borrow, to invest, to expand
their businesses and to create jobs. That had a direct effect on the
news today in my State and other States that things are on the right
track, the economy is strong, that more jobs are being created. And it
just cannot happen by accident.
Some of the tough things we had to face when we voted for the 1993
Deficit Reduction Act in fact was very much a part of the economic
recovery that we are seeing in Louisiana and the other 49 States. So I
think we can all be proud to say that Government does sometimes do the
right thing, even though at the time we do it there may be a great deal
of questioning whether it is the right thing. Today the results are in
and it was the right thing to do. And we will continue to do that.
I think that we, as Democrats, can be proud of our activity in that
area. I feel very strongly that we, as Democrats, can still promote
economic growth by tax cuts that are paid for, the bipartisan group
Chafee-Breaux, so-called, promoted a capital gains tax cut that was
paid for. I think that is very important. We should continue to
consider tax cuts for the economic growth. But we ought to make sure
they are paid for, that they do not increase the deficit. A tax cut
that merely increases the deficit may be easy to pass but it is bad
economic policy.
So I think that we should move forward with tax cuts of which I do
support. The President has supported tax cuts. The $10,000 tuition tax
deduction is one. The penalty-free withdrawals from individual
retirement accounts for educational expenses is another good economic
policy that will be paid for. There is the HOPE scholarship tax cut,
$1,500, again, which is a move in the right direction. So I think that
we as Democrats can be proud of the results that are in today, and
continue to look at new ideas in terms of tax cuts that are paid for to
promote economic growth and development in this country. Mr. President,
I join with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue to do
what is necessary to promote the economic growth that we now see in the
United States. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, per a previous agreement that I understand
has been entered into, at this time I would like to set aside 1 hour of
the 5 hours allowed to this side of the aisle on the debate on the
welfare conference report to talk about some other economic matters
that several Members on this side of the aisle, including this Senator,
would like to address. So if it is convenient and agreeable to those on
that side of the aisle, we would like to proceed in that fashion at
this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would inform the Senator that the
Democrats are in control of time between 12 and 1 o'clock under the
current order that is under discussion.
Mr. EXON. How much time has been consumed on the economic debate up
until now?
Mr. CONRAD. None.
Mr. EXON. How much of the 1 hour has been used?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-two minutes.
Mr. EXON. Twenty-two minutes. Then I would like to ask that the
remainder of that time proceed, and if
[[Page S9342]]
necessary, although we hope it will not be necessary, to accommodate
those who wish to speak on this subject, I may ask unanimous consent
for a few additional minutes after the time expires. I would like to
advise those on that side of that fact.
I believe the Senator from North Dakota was seeking recognition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
This morning the Commerce Department delivered extremely good news on
the Nation's economy. The Commerce Department reports that the economy
grew at a rate of 4.2 percent in the second quarter.
Mr. President, these figures confirm that the economy under President
Clinton is strong, it is growing, and it is creating jobs. We all
recall what the economy was like before this administration came into
office. In 1991 the economy was in recession. By 1992 the budget
deficit had ballooned to $290 billion. America was in trouble.
Then President Clinton came into office. He offered a bold plan of
deficit reduction to strengthen the Nation's economy. That plan passed
by the Democratic Congress has delivered superb results. And today we
can report on what has happened.
In August 1993, a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President
enacted into law a historic deficit-reduction plan. That plan was
designed to reduce the deficit by $500 billion over 5 years. Unlike any
other deficit-reduction plan that we have seen since I have been here,
that plan delivered on its promise.
Mr. President, we recall very well what our friends on the other side
of the aisle said during that historic debate. They said that the
economic plan passed by the Democratic Congress and supported by the
Democratic President would crater the economy.
I can remember so well the Republican majority leader standing at his
desk telling us that if we enacted that plan there would be economic
ruination. He was wrong. But he was not alone in being wrong. Virtually
every Member on the other side asserted that if we passed this bold
economic plan to reduce the deficit and strengthen the economy it would
do just the reverse. They said--and they said repeatedly--if we passed
that plan the deficit would go up, not down, that economic growth would
be reduced, not increased, that joblessness would multiply.
Mr. President, they were wrong. They were dead wrong. And now we can
look at the record to see precisely what has happened.
Former Senator Dole said, ``President Clinton knows * * * the
American people know that the plan does not tackle the deficit head-
on.'' Mr. Dole was wrong.
Representative Armey, now the majority leader in the House of
Representatives said, ``The impact on job creation is going to be
devastating.'' Mr. Armey was wrong. He was dead wrong.
Senator Gramm of Texas said this: ``I want to predict here tonight if
we adopt this bill, the American economy is going to get weaker, not
stronger. The deficit 4 years from today will be higher than it is
today, and not lower.'' Senator Gramm of Texas was wrong. He was dead
wrong.
Mr. President, all we have to do is look at the record. Let us start
with the testimony of the head of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Greenspan,
before the Senate Banking Committee about the economic plan to reduce
the deficit. It was supported by the President and passed by Democrats
in Congress.
Mr. Greenspan said about the deficit reduction in President Clinton's
1993 economic plan--and I quote--``an unquestioned factor in
contributing to the improvement in economic activity that occurred
thereafter.''
That is not a spokesman for the Democratic party. That is the
Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, talking about
what the Clinton economic plan has meant to this country.
Just to be certain no one forgets what has happened, with respect to
the record on deficit reduction, let's look at this chart, which shows
the Reagan record, the Bush record, and the Clinton record on deficit
reduction.
President Reagan came into office in 1981. The deficit stood at just
under $80 billion. Under his economic plan that passed the Congress--we
recall the Republicans controlled the Senate from 1981 to 1987--he got
his economic plan passed, and what happened? The deficit skyrocketed.
It just about tripled under President Reagan's economic plan. Then we
saw some reduction as steps were taken to rein in the increasing budget
deficit.
Then President Bush took over. President Bush saw the deficit go, on
his watch, from $153 billion a year to $290 billion in 1992. The
deficit was out of control.
President Clinton came in, in 1993. And each year of his
administration the deficit has been reduced, and reduced significantly,
from $290 billion in the last year of the Bush administration to $130
billion estimated this year.
In fact, the deficit may come in at less than $120 billion this year.
The deficit has been cut more than half during the Clinton
administration. It is directly attributable to the plan that we passed,
the economic plan that we passed, in 1993.
The President also, when he was running for President, promised he
would produce with his economic plan 8 million new jobs in the 4 years
of his first term. We can now look at the record. The President has
done better than he promised. Instead of 8 million new jobs, the
economy under his economic plan, a plan passed by the Democratic
Congress, has produced 10 million new jobs. The President has done a
superb job of running this Nation's economy.
Not only has the job creation record of this administration been
outstanding, the economic growth we now see has also been much better
than previous administrations. Mr. President, if we look at private
sector economic growth in the Clinton years, we see it is averaging
over 3.1 percent. In fact, with the news this morning, we now know it
has averaged 3.2 percent. That is in comparison to private sector
economic growth in the Bush years of 1.3 percent--a dramatic
improvement in economic growth in the private sector in this country
under the Clinton economic plan.
It does not stop there. There is more good news. The misery index--
that is something we have talked a lot about in the past. That is a
calculation of the unemployment rate and the rate of inflation. The
misery index is at its lowest level since 1968. What a remarkable
economic record this administration has to take to the American people.
It does not stop there. There is more good news. The unemployment
rate in December of 1992 was 7.3 percent. In June 1996, the
unemployment rate has declined to 5.3 percent. The unemployment rate
has been below 6 percent for 22 consecutive months. This chart shows
what we have seen in terms of the reduction in unemployed people in
America from a rate of 7.3 percent when President Clinton came into
office to 5.3 percent today--about a 30-percent reduction in
unemployment.
Mr. President, it is clear, the economic game plan that President
Clinton put before this Congress, that was passed without any help from
Republican Members, has led to a superb result, a dramatic reduction in
the deficit, a dramatic increase in jobs, a dramatic increase in
economic growth, a significant reduction in the misery index, the
lowest level since 1968.
Mr. President, the good news does not stop there, either. If we look
at real business fixed investment, again we see the record from 1985 to
1996, and we see the real business fixed investment, as a result of the
Clinton economic plan, has taken off like a scalded cat, the largest
increase in business fixed investment in over 30 years. This is truly a
remarkable economic record.
I have to remind our friends on the other side of the aisle, when we
put this plan into place, they predicted it would be nothing but bad
news. They said it would crater the economy, it would increase the
deficit. They said it would reduce all of the things that we want to
see increase, and increase all the things we want to see reduced. They
were wrong. They were dead wrong.
This economic plan, a plan that was passed without a single
Republican vote, has produced remarkable results--by some measures, the
strongest economy in 30 years. This is a record of economic success
that should not be interrupted.
Mr. President, I think the record is clear. The Clinton
administration has
[[Page S9343]]
delivered on its economic promises. In fact, it has exceeded its
promises on economic performance. That is one significant reason this
President ought to be continued in office.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator have left on
the 1 hour?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-five minutes.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I need about 10 minutes, but we may end up
in a discussion, so we may take a couple of Members' time and combine
it, and we may not need quite as much.
Mr. EXON. Since I have several other requests, I yield 7 minutes to
the Senator from Connecticut. I have to do that or we will run right
out of time.
Mr. DODD. I understand. Maybe because we used more time on the
welfare debate and we did not start this discussion until about 12:20,
we might be able to get an extension.
Mr. EXON. I suggested that.
Mr. DODD. Let me commend my colleague from North Dakota for his
comments and observations--I see both my colleagues from North Dakota
here--in talking about this news this morning.
This is great news. Obviously, when you have the gross domestic
product growing at an annual rate of 4.2 percent, the strongest growth
rate in 2 years, that is very, very good news for jobs, security, and
opportunity for virtually every person in this country.
Certainly all of us, regardless of party, I presume, would be
celebrating this magnificent news that portends well for this country
as we, in the remaining years of this decade, get ready to enter the
new century.
My colleague from North Dakota points out what the situation was like
3\1/2\ years ago. There are many people here who will count on the
American people having a short memory, that they will forget how things
were 36 months ago, what we were living under in this country, where we
had unemployment rates of 7 percent. Those were the identifiable rates.
I argue it was much higher than 7 percent in many parts of the country.
The job growth rate, 36 months ago or a little more than that, was at
its lowest level since the Great Depression. The Federal deficit was
hovering around $300 billion a year, $290 to $300 billion. The dollar
was at the highest level in American history. That was the situation a
little more than 36 months ago.
Where are we today? A gross domestic product growth rate of 4.2
percent, unemployment a little above 5 percent across the country, 10
million new jobs created in a little over 36 months, the deficit at its
lowest level in almost a generation. Back in 1992, the President said,
``I will cut it in half in 4 years.'' Even the President was wrong. It
has been a 60 percent reduction in the deficit rate in the last little
more than 36 months. Private sector job growth has soared, soared in
the last number of months.
I point out, if I can, the deficit reduction numbers on this chart,
which highlight a major issue. We have made a herculean effort over the
last several years to reduce this deficit.
As my colleague from North Dakota points out, we did not have a
single vote on the other side in the deficit reduction plan, not a
single vote in either body--the House of Representatives or the
Senate--in support of our deficit reduction plan in 1993. Yet we now
see what has happened. In 1980, the annual deficit was at $74 billion;
between 1981 and 1992, the annual deficit rate climbed to almost $300
billion. In around 36 months we have taken that $290 billion figure and
reduced it to $117 billion. In fact, this very number of $117 billion
would be zero were it not for just the deficit that we accumulated
between 1981 and 1992.
And let me say this. We would be in balance today, were it not for
the debt run up by the previous two Presidents. Just the interest
payments on the debt accumulated in those 12 years has created this
$117 billion figure. For the first time in many years, we now find
ourselves where receipts of the Federal Government exceed our
expenditures but for interest on the debt that was accumulated in those
years. It is a tremendous accomplishment, a tremendous accomplishment.
It is really the linchpin, I think, in what has occurred in other
economic areas, how the markets are reacting, how Main Street is
reacting, the fact we have been able to create the kind of growth we
have seen.
We have had 4 years of deficit reduction. You have to go back to
1840, more than a century ago, a century and a half ago, when we had
four consecutive years of deficit reduction. Miraculously, it has
happened because a lot of people cast some courageous votes.
In fact, the opposition, the Republicans, tried to shut down the
Government twice over deficit reduction. I raise all of that because,
next week, I am told, we are going to have a proposal made by the other
side--presumably by the presumptive candidate for the Republican
nomination--that will call for tax cuts of roughly $600 billion. I
suspect most of them are going to benefit the more affluent in our
country and are going to blow a $600 billion hole in the progress we've
made on deficit reduction.
What was all the talk about in this previous Congress if not deficit
reduction? With 10 weeks to go before election day, all of a sudden we
get this suggestion of a $600 billion tax cut coming along, and many
people are warning the candidate and others that you would create real
havoc in the economy if that were adopted. It is certainly going to
make it almost impossible for us to reach the goals that I believed we
were all committed to achieving here over the next several years. Of
course, where is the savings going to come from in this $600 billion
tax cut that will be proposed?
It is almost as if we are treating the public like they are fools.
Does anybody believe, with 10 or 11 weeks to go before election day,
with a $600 billion tax proposal, that it isn't totally motivated by
trying to bring some life to a moribund campaign and do so by
jeopardizing the economic gains we have made? I think most people are
going to see through that. What is tragic about it is that we have
Candidate Bob Dole contrasted with Senator and Chairman Bob Dole. If
Bob Dole were sitting in the U.S. Senate or were chairman of the
Finance Committee, he would ridicule the idea. He would rightly see it
as unraveling agreements that we have already achieved to try to
balance the budget in 7 years. In fact, all the proposals on
constitutional amendments to achieve a balanced budget would appear to
be nothing more than a lot of rhetoric.
We are being told how these tax breaks may be paid for. One report
says that, of the $600 billion in tax cuts, $240 billion would be
coming from offsets in increased tax revenues resulting from increased
growth--$240 billion is coming from increased revenues from increased
growth. Boy, that is a rosy scenario, if I ever heard one. The same
people who proposed this insisted a year or so ago that we use
conservative economic growth numbers when we start trying to make up
for this. Where does the other $360 billion come from if you are going
to pay for this tax cut you are talking about? Well, stop me if this
sounds familiar to you, but if last year is any indication, it is going
to come from Medicaid, education, Medicare, and the environment. That
is what they tried last time around. One analysis has a $313 billion
cut coming in the Medicare program.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes.
Mr. DORGAN. I yield the Senator 3 additional minutes.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will ask my colleague to engage on this
point. I am very concerned. I hope that cooler heads will prevail in
this campaign season and that suggestions like this will be put in the
trash bin where they belong, at a time when we are moving forward and
achieving deficit reduction numbers, the economy is growing, the gross
domestic product numbers and the unemployment levels are moving in the
right direction.
This is a time to come together. Nobody expects perfection here. Our
Republican friends made a huge mistake in their predictions about the
1993 budget reduction efforts. All of us have made mistakes. So why not
admit you made a mistake? It was a bad vote. You should have supported
it, and you did not. Collectively, we have come together and the
country is moving in the right direction.
I hope we won't destroy what has been a very significant effort over
the last number of months to move the country in the proper direction
by reducing this deficit, resulting, I believe,
[[Page S9344]]
in the kind of gross domestic product growth numbers that we are seeing
here today, the unemployment numbers that are moving us in the right
direction. This is not a time to try to pander to the American public
with the suggestion of massive tax cuts for the affluent, paid for by
rosy economic figures that are unrealistic and cuts in the very
programs we have fought to defend.
Mr. President, I would love to be proven wrong. I would be delighted
if next week came and went and all the talk about these wild schemes--
wild schemes--to try to breathe life into a campaign by jeopardizing
the American economy and the direction we are going, was shelved and we
got back to a more rational, thoughtful approach on how to continue the
kind of economic growth numbers we have seen here this morning and
offer some real promise to the American people.
With that, Mr. President, I will yield whatever time remains to my
colleagues from Nebraska or North Dakota.
Mr. EXON. How much time does the Senator from Nebraska have
remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 14 minutes.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to my friend from North
Dakota, followed by 5 minutes for this Senator from Nebraska and 4
minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts, in that order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. Does the Senator from Nebraska intend to try to get
additional time? We had talked about an hour, and we were not able to
start because they were talking about welfare reform.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I do not see the Republican leader on the
floor at this time. I will try to get that time. If people want more
time, I will be glad to yield. We are trying to be very fair with the
time. Everybody would like to have lots of time, but I only have 14
minutes remaining as of now. I am conserving that as best I can.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we had talked about trying to have a block
of time to talk about the economy. The reason we wanted to do that is
because this is very important. This is the question that most people
in this country ask themselves, and families reflect on this: Is this
country moving in the right direction or the wrong direction? Are we on
the right track, or are we on the wrong road? Those are the questions
people ask.
We are not here suggesting that everything is wonderful in America.
We have a country that faces a lot of challenges. There is no question
about that. But we have a country that has gone through an immediate
past period causing significant problems, requiring significant
remedies, but a country that has begun to address those things head-on.
I want to take us back just a bit to a new President that came to
town, who said, ``I have a new idea. I have consulted with a man named
Laffer, an economist, who has a new graph and curve, the Laffer
curve.'' The Laffer curve says that, if you give folks at the upper end
of the income brackets big tax cuts, you actually collect more money
because it will filter down and everybody at the bottom will get damp.
That is trickle-down economics. So there were big, big tax cuts given,
especially to the people at the top. The result was that we ran into
massive deficits, unparalleled in the history of this country--massive
budget deficits. The rich got richer, the people at the top, during
that period. The top 1 percent of Americans had a 66-percent increase
in their financial wealth just from 1983 to 1989. The bottom 80 percent
lost 3 percent of their wealth. So some people did very well--just the
top 1 percent. But almost all the rest of the people did not do well at
all under this circumstance.
Well, we had a new President come to town again in 1992. He started
in January 1993. He recognized immediately that we faced an enormously
serious problem. This country was not going to grow and was not going
to realize its potential unless we dealt head-on with this deficit
problem. We had a vote here in the U.S. Senate on a deficit reduction
plan. I voted for it. I told the people I represented why I voted for
it, why I thought it was important for this country. I have never
apologized for voting for it. I felt it was the right thing to do. Was
it a good political thing to do? No, not at all.
There were some people who sat in these chairs who lost their seats
in the Senate over that vote. They had the courage to stand up and say,
``Count me in. I want to address this deficit. I want to suggest that
we take the medicine necessary to do this.''
So the deficit began to come down. We did not get one vote on the
other side of the aisle. We got a lot of claims on the other side of
the aisle. I see the Senator from Texas is here to visit with us today.
I recall his claim. His claim was it is going to lead directly to a
recession. But it was not just him. Many others did the same thing.
``The sky is going to fall in. There is going to be a big recession.''
What happened was the deficit fell.
This is what happened to the deficit under President Reagan, under
President Bush, and why he did not win reelection, by the way. That
line was still going up; and the deficit under President Clinton. He
understood that, unless we tackled this problem, this country could not
realize its economic potential.
Are we done tackling this problem? No. But this has been a success
because we had more jobs and more economic growth.
What was the news this morning? The news was in the last quarter this
country grew at 4.2 percent of economic growth, a very robust rate. The
fact is this economy is still growing. Why? Because we are doing the
right things. We are not perfect, but we are at least doing the right
things.
I want to mention one additional point. It is important. We have
another plan by a guy who wants to be President next January. He has a
new plan--across-the-board massive tax cuts, which, of course, will
benefit the high-income people and cause a hemorrhaging of a new
Federal deficit. That is the new plan. At least it has a new title.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. DORGAN. May I have 1 more minute?
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator have
remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has remaining the time between now
and 1 o'clock.
Mr. EXON. I yield 1 more minute to the Senator from North Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the Senator's generosity.
The plan for across-the-board tax reductions that they would
implement next January, which would increase the deficit, is augmented
by what they are doing with the midnight oil right now. For the last
couple of nights they were in the back room and are going to bring a
bill to the floor of the Senate in a matter of hours, I assume, that
has this in it: opening another tax loophole, several hundred millions
of dollars. Amway has been asking for it. So they get it.
Who is going to get the brandnew tax loophole of $300 million? That
is the solution coming from the other side of the aisle. How do you fix
what is wrong in America? Increase the deficits by cutting taxes for
upper income folks and do secret deals in the back room to bring to the
floor of the Senate something that exports American jobs and gives new
tax breaks to big corporations that do not need it.
I yield the remainder of my time.
____________________