Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as I said yesterday, I don't normally take to the Senate floor and speak in opposition to an amendment of my colleague from New Mexico. But I did yesterday, and I must this morning because if this amendment is reported in New Mexico, and if it says to constituents of our State that the budget resolution we adopted, and what will be left over after the tax cut would decimate education, then it would appear to me that I must answer because that isn't true. First of all, the Senator from New Mexico, my colleague, is at least not as sensational in his approach as the President was yesterday. The President even knows right down to the nickel what is not going to be spent in education. That is impossible. He says that 544,000 kids aren't going to be able to learn to read. That is ludicrous. If that is the kind of talk he needs to defeat a tax bill, then good luck to him. It is just absolutely untrue. Let's get the facts as I remember and understand them. We produced a budget resolution. It is nothing new with reference to the taxes; $792 billion spread out over 10 years was the tax cut in that bill. We also allocated the remaining money for the next decade and, incidentally, in doing that, even though there was a reduction in discretionary spending, the highest priority domestic program was education, for all the reasons stated on the floor by Senator Murray and Senator Bingaman. It is terribly important that we use our education dollars right and better but that there be more of them. We put $37 billion in additional money during the first 5 years of that budget for education. Now, what happened after that? After that, some 3 months later, the Congressional Budget Office did a midsession review and told us there was more money than that. As a matter of fact, there was $170 billion more in the surplus account. We didn't add some of that to the tax cut. It is sitting there. What I did, so that everyone would understand, I said let's look at this surplus in the chart I used yesterday, and let's assume that we freeze discretionary spending and ask CBO how much money would then be available to put back into discretionary accounts during the decade. They told us: We don't know whether you will use it in discretionary accounts. We can't say that. But there is $505 billion that could be added into priority spending. I believe that means all of the discretionary spending can go up significantly and you can establish education as a high-priority item and fund it at levels higher than we have now, which I think Republicans will do if we have reform in the educational allowances of the Federal Government, so that there is accountability and flexibility in the programs that we send there. I believe what my colleague from New Mexico is expressing on the floor is a sincere desire that we be sure that in the discretionary accounts we fund education adequately. If that is what he was saying, I join with him in saying that is true. But when he says you need to take $122 billion--or whatever the number is--out of the tax cut in order to do that, I disagree. I don't think you have to do that. Plain and simple, I think there is plenty of discretionary money available. I add, if you use the President's numbers on Medicare--and he said you only needed $46 billion to fix prescription drugs--you have $505 billion, less the $46 billion, and all the rest can go to discretionary spending in the next decade. I am not trying to mislead anybody. In order to understand it, I said start with the premise that we freeze all these accounts and put in what is left. If you look at the budget resolution, we put $181 billion into those accounts, with education being the highest priority. It just happens there is more than that $181 billion because the midsession review added many billions of dollars in accumulated surplus. I am fully aware that Senator Bingaman, my colleague, has regularly and consistently as a member of the Committee on Education, and on the floor, been a promoter and a staunch supporter of education. I agree with him, but I believe he is wrong in thinking that we have to reduce the tax cut in order to be sure we do that. I also remind everybody that there are some very significant education programs in this tax bill. It makes it easier to continue your education because it has allowances, credits, and deductions in the adult education area. It makes it easier to pay off student loans. It makes college more affordable, and it provides tax exempt financing for school construction. All of that is in the Roth bill. Whatever time I had remaining, I yield back. I make a point of order that the Bingaman amendment No. 1462 is extraneous to the bill before us. Therefore, I raise a point of order under section 313(b)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I have the following statement: Today, by a previous order, the Senate will begin 30 minutes of debate for closing remarks with respect to the Bingaman amendment regarding education and the Hutchison amendment regarding the marriage tax penalty. Two back-to-back votes will then occur at approximately 9 a.m. Following those votes, any additional amendments will be limited to 2 minutes of debate. Therefore, numerous votes will occur in a stacked sequence, and Senators are asked to remain in the Chamber in order to conclude the voting process as early as possible during today's session of the Senate. I thank my colleagues for their attention and their cooperation. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. That is not true, Senator. I did the budget resolution.

Mr. DOMENICI. That is not true.

Mr. DOMENICI. That is CBO numbers.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the truth of the matter is, we can ask the Congressional Budget Office any questions we would like. We asked them how much is the surplus, if you freeze discretionary programs at this year's level for 10 years. They said these are the numbers.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI. Might I ask a parliamentary inquiry? How much time remains on the 20 hours allowed by law?

Mr. DOMENICI. Could I ask a question before you do that?

Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the chairman. I say to Senator Bingaman that I would not rise in opposition to his amendment if it was not, as I view it, an implication that what I propose is going to hurt education. Since that is the case, I must tell the Senator that I think he is wrong. So I will proceed, as I must, to tell him what we did with education and what we can do with education based upon the money that is left over after the tax cut is effective. I do not know where the chart comes from that the Senator has up there. But I would assume it comes from somebody who assumes there is no money left over after the tax cut and, therefore, everything will be reduced, and over the next 10 years there will be no inflation added to any function. If that is the case, it is wrong. But if Senators want to look at the budget resolution we prepared, we expect they will stand up and say no, there is not enough money in this budget for education. What we did in that budget resolution, which is not binding--just like his resolution here is not binding; it does nothing for education--it is a wish list and cuts taxes. It reduces the tax cuts substantially. It would be nice if the Senator would tell us which $120 billion and some he would take out of the tax cut. But having said that, let me first start by saying if you want to look at a budget resolution that passed the Senate which had $181 billion in money over a baseline that was frozen for the next decade on the discretionary side, and ask what did it provide for education--an assumption just like the assumptions of the Senator from New Mexico--I would like to tell you what it does. In 1999, that function on education had $47 billion in it. By the year 2009, it has $60 billion in it. It specifically provided that education initiatives receive an added amount of $37 billion over 5 years, $101 billion over 10 years. The Senator from New Mexico, my colleague and my friend, could ask, how are you sure that will happen? I am not. Neither am I certain that the Senator's sense-of-the-Senate resolution is anything but a wish list. How do we know it would happen? If we reduce taxes by the amount suggested, there is absolutely nothing to indicate there would be more added to education in the appropriations process. It is what the Senator thinks they should add; therefore, it is called a sense of the Senate. Over the decade under the budget resolution adopted, and I am not certain it will be implemented because it is not binding, we actually vote every year on the appropriated accounts. So all Members know, the education function in that budget resolution has $570 billion, an average of $57 billion a year, while we are spending $47 billion this year. I don't know where the other graphs came from that are talking about what we are doing to education. Those numbers are from the budget resolution. Nobody knows at what level education will be funded on the discretionary side of the budget of the United States of America budget. They will not know any more if Senator Bingaman's sense of the Senate passes. They will say we should not cut taxes by $120 billion, because if we don't, we might put it in education. Having said that, I merely want to look at the budget of the United States and the surplus that is created and then start with a freeze on everything, including education. And it may be the Senator is starting with a freeze and assuming it continues. How much is the surplus? It is $3.371 trillion. What do you do with it? We put $1.9 trillion in the trust fund for Social Security because it is there. We then say: Let's cut taxes in a gradual way over a decade at $792 billion. Then we ask how much is left over to spend on discretionary programs and Medicare. It turns out to be $505 billion. I could not believe under any circumstance that the Congress of the United States, be it Republican, Democrat, or whatever, would take that $505 billion and spend it on education. I cannot believe that. There may be a difference of opinion as to where it is to be spent, but there is a whopping lot of money for high-priority items. I don't know where the Senator got his numbers. If the numbers were legitimate, I would be supporting him. I believe we ought to establish a priority for education. If I thought we would not have enough money for the education function to be appropriated by the appropriators, I might even be saying don't cut taxes that much, but I don't think that is the case. I don't think we need to do that. There will be money around for education. It will grow dramatically because it is a high- priority item, and there is $505 billion over a freeze to be allocated for discretionary programs, and somewhere around 70, 80, or 90 for a Medicare prescription drug reform fix. I regret doing this, but I do not think I want New Mexicans to think what I propose will destroy education in the manner that this sense of the Senate implies. If it did not imply that, I would be for it and I would not be speaking.

Mr. DOMENICI. That is a CBO number.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, there won't be time tomorrow to say what I am saying tonight. That is why I came down. I congratulate the Senator from Delaware, Senator Roth, and the Finance Committee for a fine job. First of all, I am kind of infuriated, but I will keep my emotions down. The President of the United States has gone beyond what anybody would believe when today, in front of a bunch of young people, he as much as said the Republican plan will make sure you don't even learn how to read. That is disgraceful because the truth of the matter is, if the Congress wants to spend more money on education after this tax cut, there is plenty of money to do it. If the President is persuasive enough next year, he can get more money for education because there is more money to spend. The second thing is not at that level for me, but Senator Lautenberg is just flat wrong. Do you know who was spending the Social Security surplus? The President was. In fact, he even sent to us his first proposal and said, only save 62 percent of it, spend the rest of it. He said, we will save it over 15 years, so don't worry year by year about putting it in the trust fund. We challenged him on that. He came back in his midsession review and said: Republicans, you are right: Let's put 100 percent in. So we put 100 percent in the lockbox, into security. So I don't understand what Senator Lautenberg is talking about. Having said that, let me talk about this bill because it is a very masterful bill, considering where we are. First, there is no question that marriage, saving for retirement, and dying should not be taxable events as we enter the new century. If there is anything we have learned, it is that we need to enhance and praise marriage, not punish it. We need to encourage saving for retirement, and we should not tax the event of dying. Isn't it wonderful that we have fixed all of those to a great extent in this bill? What is the matter with that? Mr. President, that is what you are going to be vetoing when you veto this bill. Alternative minimum tax. That is, the alternative minimum tax should not turn the child care credit, education credit, HOPE education tax credit, and foster care credits into phantom tax relief, not worth the paper they were written on because an old alternative minimum tax, adopted during the oil boom, would make these credits unusable, so when you hear these funny words, ``Let's fix the alternative minimum tax,'' it is hundreds and hundreds of thousands of middle-income Americans who thought we gave them an education credit, who thought we gave them a child care credit, only to find that now the alternative minimum tax takes it away. That has been fixed. Taxes are too high if measured by what is needed to fund the Government. They are too high if measured historically. The average family is paying twice what they paid in 1985. The tax burden is 54 percent heavier when measured from President Bill Clinton's first day in office to the end of 1999. He may take a lot of credit for other things, but that is a fact. Despite these record increases, the administration's 2000 budget proposes another $170 billion in new taxes. Unbelievable. Broad-based tax relief. The Senate bill starts off with broad-based relief, lowering the bottom brackets for everyone in our families across America, and then in the bill, after lowering the rate to 14, they raise the brackets by $10,000. That means that millions more Americans will be paying the lowest possible rate. This bill provides significant family relief, although not as much as my good friend from Texas would like on the marriage penalty. I ask our seniors across America, as the President tries to frighten them into thinking we are harming them on Medicare and Social Security when that is not the truth, wouldn't you like it if your sons and daughters who are paying a marriage penalty because they are married are treated like other citizens instead of punished? I believe senior citizens would be very grateful for that for their children--the millions across America. Child care: I think the seniors who they are trying to frighten to death because they want an issue and not a solution would be thrilled to know that Chairman Bill Roth and his Finance Committee made it easier for their grandchildren to be taken care of under child care and the enormous costs that it imposes on a family. We have made it more accessible, and we have made more advantageous tax laws. Their Tax Code is notorious for giving a tax break on the one hand and then taking it away on the other. That is the alternative minimum tax, and it works in that fashion. This bill that has been put before the Senate protects the child credit, and it protects education credits. Mr. President, and fellow Senators, there is much more that can be said about it. I suggest that this bill will do more for millions of Americans. Taxes are too high if measured by what is needed to fund government. Taxes are too high if measured by historical benchmarks. The average family is paying twice what they paid in 1985. The tax burden is 54 percent heavier when measured from President Clinton's first day in office to the end of 1999. Despite these record increases, the Administration's 2000 budget proposes another $170 billion in new taxes. The Senate bill starts out with broad-based tax relief. Lowering the bottom bracket gives a tax cut to every taxpaying family. The bill lowers the rate to 14 percent. I would have liked to see it go even lower. The bill also widens the lowest bracket so that more people can earn more money without being forced into the 28 percent bracket. This change will return 4 million Americans to the lowest bracket. It will return 151,000 New Mexicans to the lowest bracket and at the same time another 83,000 New Mexicans will see their taxes cut. This bill also provides significant family tax relief. Saying ``I do'' at the altar has meant paying on average $1,400 more on April 15. Marriage shouldn't be a taxable event. This bill corrects this inequity for 19 million American families. As more and more women have entered the work force, one of the fastest growing family expenses is child care. In New Mexico, the annual cost can run from $3,133 to $5,200 per child. This bill increases the child care credit from 30 to 50 percent for families earning less than $30,000, and expands the eligibility for the credit to all families. With the credit increase and the eligibility expansion, as many as 68,000 New Mexico families will be eligible for either a bigger credit or first-time eligibility. The tax code is notorious for giving a tax break with one hand and taking it way in the other. The Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT, works in this fashion. This bill protects the child care credit, education credits, day care and other norefundable tax credits from being rendered unusable by the AMT. When the AMT was created in 1986, 140,000 people had to pay it. But by 2008: There will be 40.6 million Families eligible for dependent child credits but 24.8 million of those families would receive zero or less than the full credit as a result of the AMT. There will be 49 million familes with nonrefundable credits--all credits except EITC--and 33.9 million of them will receive zero or less than the full credits as a result of the AMT. There will be 16 million families eligible for HOPE and lifetime learning credits, but 11.3 million would receive zero or less than the full credits as a result of the AMT. The bill recognizes that all family expenditures are not equal. This tax bill recognizes that education is important and provides $12 billion over ten years in tax relief. The bill includes education savings accounts to help 14.3 million families. Seventy percent of these education tax benefits goes to families with incomes less than $75,000. It makes employer provided education assistance permanent. In this ever changing technology-driven world, it is essential that workers pursue life long learning and complete graduate degrees. The bill also makes it easier and cheaper for school construction. There are more than 1,700 schools in New Mexico that I hope will be helped by this initiative. In New Mexico there are 331,815 public school students. It would be wonderful if New Mexican--parents and grandparents started as soon as this bill is signed into law to open an account for each of these 331,815 children. There would be no better investment in America's future and these education accounts should help families meet that goal. When it comes to health care, the Tax Code doesn't discriminate based upon who you are, but rather upon who you work for. Families shouldn't receive disparate tax treatment determined by who you work for. It isn't fair that one worker has health care purchased with pre-tax dollars; while the sole proprietor or the employee of a small business has to pay for health care with after-tax dollars. This bill provides 100 percent deductibility for health insurance for the self-employed. It also provides an above-the-line deduction that will phase in from 25 percent to 100 percent for every taxpaying American family. There are 43.3 million uninsured people in America, plus 10.2 million who have access to health insurance but decline to participate because of the high cost. This is a big problem in New Mexico. There are 340,000 uninsured New Mexicans where someone in the family works. The bill provides generational equity by providing a child care and a long term care credit. One in four families care for an elderly relative. This bill provides a tax credit and an extra exemption for the in home care giver. Expensing is the most efficient way of reducing the cost of capital for new investment. The bill provides $5,000 worth of new efficiency for every small business by increasing the amount that can be written off in the year the investment is made. A tax policy that allows capital investments to be deductible in the year they are made maximizes productivity, economic growth and job creation. When a company doesn't have to calculate depreciation it saves 43 hours a year in tax preparation. If we adopted a system of expensing we could save 106 million hours a year in tax and recordkeeping. We would also lower the cost of capital by about one-third. This bill takes significant steps to reduce the estate and gift tax . The bill would lower the top rate to 50 percent, double the gift tax exclusion and get rid of the generation skipping transfer tax which can impose taxes as high as 80 percent when a gift is left to a grandchild. Milton Friedman said and I agree, ``The estate tax sends a bad message to savers, to wit: that it is o.k. to spend your money on wine, women and song, but don't try to save it for your kids. The moral absurdity of the tax is surpassed only by its economic irrationality.'' The death tax is also one of the most unpopular taxes. While most Americans will never pay it, 70 percent believe it is one of the most unfair taxes. Its damage to the economy is worse than its unpopular reputation. The Tax Foundation found that today's estate tax rates (ranging from 18 to 55 percent) have the same disincentive effect on entrepreneurs as doubling the current income tax rates. NFIB called it the ``greatest burden on our nation's most successful small businesses.'' This bill makes a major stride. It makes the R&E credit permanent. With a $3.2 trillion surplus, the only responsible, legitimate course of action is a tax cut. Foolish are they who argue against tax cuts. They say to working families, ``I know what to do with your money better than you do. Give it to me so I can spend it for you.'' The tax burden is high. People work until May 11, of each year to pay their taxes. It is the highest tax burden since WWII. People pay more in taxes than they spend on food, shelter and education. The Senate tax plan is an excellent plan that moves us toward lower, flatter, simplier taxes. It moves our tax system toward taxing income that is consumed and not income that is earned, saved and invested. It's the same old debate: one party wants to give the money to programs; we want to give the money to people. A government big enough to give you everything is a government that takes everything away with a big tax bite. I can't imagine anything more frightening to the average taxpayer than the sight of grand government schemer rushing towards a trillion dollar pile of extra tax payer dollars. Republicans say it is the best of times for a tax cut; the Democrats say it is the worst. Everyone quotes Chairman Greenspan. When Greenspan is deciphered the oracle is that a tax cut is better than spending all the money. If the surplus were a dollar 2 quarters would go for Social Security reform; one quarter for high priority spending --education, research, and defense. With the first three quarters we can save social security, reform medicare, provide adequate funding for domestic and defense spending and pay down the national the debt. The remaining quarter is for tax cuts. The Taxpayer Refund Act before the Senate is the best of plans. It lowers rates. It encourages savings. It eliminates the worst of a bad tax code by eliminating the marriage penalty; killing the death tax and ending the Alternative Minimum tax to rescue the full benefit of the child care, foster care, education, and other needed tax credits for families who otherwise unavoidably would end up in the AMT. If not tax cuts now, then when? The Democrats say--not ever. I say, If not tax cuts now, then what? The President's plan answers: Spend it all. Grow government! The Senate plan is synchronized to our business cycle and the condition of the economy. Congress' budget allocates 75 percent of the projected surpluses over the next 10 years for paying down the debt. This ensures our long-term fiscal virility. Even with our tax cut, our surpluses will climb steadily as a share of GDP and our national debt will be paid off--falling dramatically from 40 percent of GDP this year to only 12 percent by 2009. our plan lowers the level of debt more than the President's plan, keeps government from growing out of control and gives the American people some of their hard earned money back in the form or a well-thought out tax cut.

Mr. DOMENICI. Is this off my time?

Mr. DOMENICI. Whatever baseline anybody wants to use, there is roughly $405 billion above a freeze available to be spent on discretionary spending and on Medicare reform. That is all we try to show in this chart. Before you start the chart, you can spend however much you want, but I decided to spend none so we could put in perspective how much there is that we can spend out of this surplus, and these are authentic numbers. They are correct, if you start with that assumption. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. He just yielded me a half minute.

Mr. DOMENICI. Let me assure fellow Senators and explain what this is. This is a true assessment of the surplus in total dollars, if you assume that for the next 10 years discretionary spending is frozen. I did that so we could find out how much new money is there, available to spend, because the discretionary programs are not entitled to an inflationary add-on. They are entitled to what we add on. If you want to know where their numbers came from, they came from the budget resolution we produced, which had $181 billion in discretionary spending. That was something we came up with. I asked them to take that out. And when they took it out, they said: Now you have this much to spend. You have $505 billion. If you would like to certify that and ask the Congressional Budget Office, is this correct, they will tell you absolutely, because we got it from them. Mr. President, I am not going to answer questions now because I want to finish my argument.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask Senator Roth, may I have 1 additional minute?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. Chairman, fellow Senators, I did not know that Senator Breaux was going to come to the floor. I am delighted that he has. I want to state how consistent he has been over the months by just putting a quote from the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, a Democrat, here for everybody to see: Medicare must not be used as a wedge issue any longer. The question before this Congress is not whether to cut taxes or whether to save Medicare. That's not the choice we're facing. I support a tax cut, targeted, and I'm dedicated to saving Medicare. It's not an either/or position. That is from a distinguished Senator who is on the committee that will do both--will reform Medicare and will write the tax laws. I give him a great deal of credit because he is a man of his word when it comes to these issues. Frankly, it is not correct that it is either Medicare, prescription drugs, reform, or tax cuts. The truth of the matter is, Senator Bill Frist has just showed you. I hear Senator after Senator get up on that side and say there is no money for Medicare in this budget, there is no room after the tax cut. Let me repeat, I went back and asked the Congressional Budget Office to do an analysis and assume that we froze discretionary spending. We put in the tax cut, we put in the $1.9 trillion for Social Security, and we asked them: How much money can be added to discretionary spending and Medicare reform and still live within the estimated surplus? And they told us--$505 billion. I say to the seniors in this country, I believe you have witnessed here on the floor, through the good work of Chairman Bill Roth and the Finance Committee--I say to the seniors across America, I have seen them produce a tax bill that I believe you will love because you care about your sons and daughters; you care about the married members of your family. This bill before us stops penalizing marriage for 22 million American families. I ask the seniors, isn't that a good piece of work? It makes child care more available for your grandchildren. Isn't that a good piece of work? It makes child care more accessible. And guess what. The President plans to veto these--all in the name of ``we can't afford tax cuts.'' To be honest with you, the truth of the matter is, when you finish with that Congressional Budget Office analysis, you are spending 23.4 percent of the surplus for tax cuts, you are putting the entire Social Security surplus aside, and you still have $505 billion to be used over the next decade for high-priority items. So for those who have come to the floor and said there is no money, there is $505 billion over the next decade. Do you want to use $100 billion of it for Medicare? Some say that is too much. The President thought $46 billion was enough. That is very interesting. We still have people talking about how much money we are going to need to reform Medicare. I don't know how much. I trust the Finance Committee, under the leadership of Bill Roth, to produce a bipartisan bill. The President had proposed $46 billion as the entire amount necessary. Remember, the chart my friend Bill Frist put up said there is $505 billion over the next decade.

Mr. DOMENICI. Let me finish. The President asked for $46 billion for the entire reform package on Medicare. What are we talking about? Holding up a tax bill that takes care of the married sons and daughters of our senior citizens across America. They have children and need all these things that the Tax Code provides? They say, we just want to do anything but give them help, so we will even hold up their bill, claiming we are really holding it up for you seniors because we want to take care of Medicare. Frankly, I have nothing but compliments for the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, because he is one who is concerned about this. But I am equally comfortable in saying I am. I think Senator Bill Roth of Delaware is concerned about it. I think Senator Breaux is concerned about it. Frankly, I believe we are going to have plenty of money left over to fix that Medicare problem from that $505 billion. Now, if the Senator wants me to explain this budget, I will explain it right now.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is another opportunity on the part of the other side to propose to the American people that they want anything but tax relief. This is a motion to recommit. It would do nothing to protect Medicare. It is the President's proposal, which is a phony transfer of IOUs to the Medicare trust fund. It does nothing to help senior citizens. It is just an effort to lock up $300 billion so you can't give the American people a tax cut, plain and simple. They don't want to confront the issue of a lockbox for Social Security so they muddle it up and instead of trying to solve something, they would like to create an issue instead of a solution. Frankly, there are hardly any experts in America who look at this lockbox concept for Medicare and say it helps the seniors or it helps Medicare. If this is the plan the President is alluding to across this land, then he has none. I believe, since the other side did not let us have a vote, we ought to do ours procedurally also, and I am compelled to do that. Therefore: The language in this amendment is not germane to the bill before us, so I raise a point of order under section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. DOMENICI. That is right.

Mr. DOMENICI. I heard your attack on it last night, but I was home so I couldn't come down here.

Mr. DOMENICI. I will yield in a little bit. You want to ask about the authenticity of my charts. I already explained it and you weren't here.