Allen Boyd

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, earlier in the evening, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall No. 624, which was H.R. 1129. Mr. Speaker, had I voted on that, I would have voted yes.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, in honor of National Hospice Month, I would like to take a moment to recognize the two hospices which serve the communities in my district, Big Bend Hospice and the Hospice of Northwest Florida-Panama City, and thank them for their invaluable contributions to North Florida's families. Hospice care involves a team of professionals, including physicians, nurses, therapists, home care aides, counselors and volunteers who help terminally ill patients and their families share their final days at home in peace, comfort and dignity. These hospice caregivers help patients, as well as their family members, with one of the toughest transitions in life. The hospice program, primarily based in the home, treats the person, not the disease; focuses on the family, not the individual; and emphasizes the quality of life. Hospice care ensures that the patient's life is as fulfilling and satisfying as possible, right up to the last moment. Hospice care has played an important role in my life. Two years ago, I lost my father to cancer. I do not know what my mother and my family would have done without the care that Big Bend Hospice provided. The hospice allowed my father to die at home, in dignity, surrounded by the people who love him. I want to thank the caregivers who helped my family through a very difficult time. My family and I will never forget their commitment and compassion.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, in the last few weeks I have grown increasingly concerned about the World Trade Organization's impact on our sovereignty. The WTO allows a panel of trade experts to rule that Federal and State laws are barriers to trade. If we do not take action to comply with the WTO's ruling, other nations then can level punitive tariffs against us. While many have glossed this over, Congress has already changed one law to avoid these sanctions. The WTO has cases pending against several State and Federal laws. In Florida, we require foreign agricultural producers who ship crops into our State to pay for inspections when their produce enters our ports. These inspections protect locally grown crops from exposure to foreign-based infestations, which could devastate a multibillion-dollar agricultural industry. While the State law does not violate any Federal statute, it is currently being challenged in the WTO. I would urge my colleagues to take a close look at the WTO before voting on fast track. Protect our sovereignty and slow down fast track.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the incorporation of the Florida Sheriffs Youth Ranches. On October 2, 1957, the sheriffs of the State of Florida, with the best interests of our young men and women in mind, saw fit to organize the Florida Sheriffs Boys Ranch along the banks of the Suwannee River. The Florida Sheriffs Boys Ranch has been in continuous operation for the last 40 years and has served as the foundation for programs ranging from statewide child care programs to nationally accredited, community- based, family counseling services; independent living skills; parenting classes; and family life education. The ongoing work of these rewarding programs and their dedicated staff have given over 30,000 young men and women the chance to resolve personal conflicts and the opportunity to live as lawful, productive assets to society. Their efforts have helped to rebuild the American family and combat juvenile crime at the source, encouraging our youth to act as responsible citizens and to pursue more rewarding pastimes and activities. Their hard work and dedication to the youth of the State of Florida is most commendable, and I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you join me in honoring the Florida Sheriffs Youth Ranches on this, their 40th anniversary.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Allen] for giving us the opportunity tonight to join in this colloquy on campaign finance reform. I want to start by acknowledging some people that got us here. That is, the freshman class presidents: the gentleman from Florida, [Mr. Jim Davis], who is our freshman class president on the Democrat side; and the gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. Kenny Hulshof], on the Republican side. They made a commitment and were instructed by their Members to work on this issue, and appointed the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Tom Allen] on the Democratic side and the gentleman from Arkansas, [Mr. Asa Hutchinson] to help the task force to work on this issue. I am proud to be a member of that task force. I go back home and people say, ``Boyd, why are you working on campaign finance reform? Why is it important to you?'' I say, well, there are two reasons. One is I just came out of a nasty campaign. During that campaign I saw the effects of soft money pouring into congressional campaigns and how it distorted the campaign, at times. So I think that is the first reason. The second reason is, I believe that the longer we stay in Congress the more calloused we become to the system, the campaign finance system we live under here. We become calloused to the blight that it gives our image, this institution, this institution, the U.S. House of Representatives, the congressional body of the most powerful Nation of the world, which has relatively low marks in terms of public support compared to years past. A lot of it has to do with the tremendous amount of money that is pouring into the campaign system. Mr. Speaker, as we stay here a long time and we get our committee chairmanships and we get our leadership positions, we learn how to use the system better. We become calloused to the bad effect that it has on our democratic form of government. So those are the reasons that I feel very strongly that we ought to do something about campaign finance reform. As 1 of 72 new Members of the U.S. House, I was glad to be part of the task force. Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan task force. I heard the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], say earlier this evening, just before we adjourned he was talking about ethics legislation, and he talked about bipartisanship and how important bipartisanship was going to be to advancing reasonable, responsible ethics reform. The same holds true with campaign finance reform. We cannot come out here and fight with these close numbers and ever accomplish anything. We have to work together. The gentleman from Maine and the gentleman from Arkansas, [Mr. Hutchinson], got our groups together, and we looked at all of the issues. The issues we could not agree upon we sort of laid off the table. We heard from many different kinds of groups during that process. I thought it was a stroke of genius the way the Members set that up. We heard from the Democratic National Committee, the Republican National Committee, the National Broadcasters, the National Right-To-Life, Bi- Pac, the League of Women Voters, environmental groups, labor groups. We heard from all kinds of groups who have a vested interest in this process. After we heard from those groups, we determined the things that we could agree upon and the things we could not agree upon. We laid off the table and removed from the table those things we could not agree upon, and we have come to the conclusion that the removal of soft money from this system is the one thing that we can do that will best reform the current system that we have. Is the bill, House Resolution 2183, which is called the Bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act, is it perfect? No, it is not perfect. I would submit that there are very few perfect pieces of legislation that ever come out of this congressional body. But it is a bipartisan proposal that will eliminate soft money and will go a long way towards cleaning up the campaign finance problems that we have in this Nation. Mr. Speaker, I want to implore the leaders of this body, who I think do a good job overall. We are experiencing some bumpy times here in the last few days, but I think generally the body has been going in a very positive direction in the 6 or 8 months that we have been here as freshmen. I want to implore the leadership to address this issue. We have been promised, the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Allen] and the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] extracted from the Republican leadership a promise to have this House Resolution 2183 heard. I want to implore the leadership to give us a chance to have it heard. If we can make it better and pass it off this floor, let us do it. I want again to thank the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Allen] and the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] for the work that they have done, and I want to encourage the people back home to call their Member of Congress and encourage them to get involved in this campaign finance reform, and let us get it done.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] for his work over the many, many years and also my friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], the ranking member. As my colleagues know, we are going to pass today and I am going to vote for a tax cut bill which is on balance a very good bill, and it is a much better bill than it was when it left this House of Representatives earlier because it had many provisions in it at that point in time which caused many of us, including myself, to vote against it. But the conference has chosen to take those provisions out, and that makes me very happy. However, there is one very obscure provision which is very onerous which I want to tell my colleagues about, and that is a tax exemption repeal for a Teachers Insurance Annuity Association--College Retirement Equity Fund, better known as TIAA-CREF. TIAA-CREF was created in 1918 by Carnegie Foundation to provide a portable pension fund for university employees. It has had tax exempt status for 79 years, and, my colleagues, we are going to repeal that tax exempt status in this piece of legislation that we are going to pass today, and that is wrong. I would ask my colleagues to work with me because the repealing of this tax exempt status will mean that there will be a 5-percent reduction on average of the average university employee retiree over the next few years, and I would ask that Members will work with me to repeal this provision in the future.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in opposition to this. I want to address the subject that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] brought up, and also my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Sanford]. Mr. Chairman, last year this Congress changed the peanut program. It fixed the abuses that those gentlemen are talking about, whereby people who live not on the farm and are not active producers are no longer able to own those peanut allotments, and that is the reason they are being sold and put in the hands of people who actually farm. I want to make sure that we get that straight. I would urge Members to defeat this well-intentioned but poorly thought-out amendment.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of the bipartisan Budget Enforcement Act. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton], the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp] for their work; and also the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] for getting us to this point where we can now address this issue on the floor. I have heard Members who claim they support the balanced budget agreement and they support the balanced budget resolution; yet if asked to set their promises into law and make them enforceable, according to many of them, then every program will be cut and tax cuts will not take place. Either we believe the economic assumptions are correct and the budget will be balanced in 2002 or we do not. Many of my colleagues are trying to have it both ways. They voted for H.R. 2014 and H.R. 2015 and sent out press releases trumpeting their support for a balanced budget agreement. Yet when they are asked to place these promises into law and make them enforceable, they talk about how programs will exceed the caps and revenue will not equal the projections. This is incredible to me, because it becomes painfully obvious that they do not think the balanced budget agreement will truly balance the budget. While I am new to Congress, this issue is not new. In 1982 we had a balanced budget agreement. In 1985 we had another balanced budget agreement, followed by another one in 1987, and yet another agreement in 1990. None of them succeeded because they were not enforced. One of the things that is supposed to define intelligence is the ability to learn from our mistakes, and we must learn from those mistakes that we made previously. I ask my colleagues to support the Balanced Budget Enforcement Act.

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my colleagues that this is not about whether the tax cuts will be enforced or not. All this means, this relates to the tax side. It just means that one will meet those projections, revenue projections, that are in place. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, we learn a lot about a body after we are in it after a short period of time, and there are 71 other freshman Members along with myself in this body, and we learn something about how that body operates. Now we read every day about the problems the leadership is having in this body, and it is no wonder after what has happened here the last couple of days in reference to this Budget Enforcement Act. There has been a brilliant strategy move pull by the leadership of this House in getting people who support a budget enforcement and have been working on that for months and months and month, even years, together now are up here speaking for, some for the rule and some against the rule. It is a brilliant strategy move, and it is going to mean that this piece of legislation will go down. But I must tell my colleagues, just think about that when they read about the problems that exist in the leadership of this House, and there will be more as a result of this particular piece of legislation. The people who support this legislation have been tricked just like the people of the United States of America have been tricked in the previous balanced budget agreements in 1981, 1985, and 1990 when they were told there was going to be a balanced budget, and we did not have one. Do my colleagues know why? Because we did not have enforcement in place. So, my colleagues, we will get enforcement at some period of time, but I think we have a little ways to go, and the American people have to understand a little bit more about what is happening here in this U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of tax relief for American families that is fair and fiscally responsible. I am a strong supporter of the balanced budget agreement. I voted for that. I rise today in opposition to this rule because this bill that we are addressing today does not meet the criteria that is necessary to see that we have both of those things. I am deeply concerned that this reconciliation bill, as it is written without very important necessary enforcement language, that is, the Barton-Minge language that should have been included, will blow a hole in the deficit past the year 2002. Look back at history and exactly what happened with the other balanced budget plans that this U.S. Congress passed in the past. We worked too hard to get this far. We have a unique opportunity to get this budget balanced and establish an economic policy that will guarantee long-term balance for the U.S. Government. The tax cuts that we have in here, especially indexing of capital gains and the very long 10-year phase-in of estate taxes, is bad. I implore Members to vote against the rule.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the 28th birthday of Robert Doyle, a loyal member of my staff. As a lifelong, faithful Democrat, Bob has served the party with tireless dedication. Bob's interest in politics began at a young age. His 3-year service as his high school's class president began a noteworthy career in politics. Bob has also worked on several political campaigns including Leader Gephardt's Presidential campaign and the Maryland gubernatorial election. In his most recent venture, Bob managed my own successful congressional campaign this past November. He has worked for the office of the majority leader in the Florida State House of Representatives, and as vice president of the Windsor Group, a political consulting firm in Tallahassee. Bob and I quickly became friends during my time in the Florida Legislature and while working together on the campaign trail. He is like family to me and I am proud to rise today to wish him all the best on his 28th birthday.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to rise with some reservation in support of the budget resolution which we will have an opportunity to vote on tonight. I have those reservations because of frontloading the tax cuts and new spending while backloading the spending cuts. Many of us came here as freshmen with a mandate to put our fiscal house in order, and delay any new spending programs or tax cuts until we can pay for them with something besides borrowed money and increased Federal debt. My concern as I look at this budget resolution is that we are doing the easy things first, and save the heavy lifting for later. I think it is very evident now that actually the glide path goes the opposite way that many of us would like to see it go. It goes up until the year 2001, and then falls off significantly to come into balance by the year 2002. I think most of us recognize that that is the case because we have had some very good years here, and particularly this year, and our deficit is lower than it was expected to be. But nevertheless, that gave us a wonderful opportunity to move this glide path quickly into balance, and then we could begin our tax cuts and our new programs after we put our fiscal house in order. But that has not happened. I think it has not happened because many of us are realists, and we realize to get something that would work that we have to have some compromise. So maybe that is the reason some of us support it, with reservations, is because there has been some compromise, so that we have something we can pass off the floor of the Congress. A group of us, in recognizing that we did not get everything we wanted, just took the budget that we agreed upon, that we could compromise and support, and said, let us put some enforcement mechanisms in it. Therefore, I find tonight that the major problem I have is the lack of any enforcement language in the resolution. Yesterday in the Committee on Rules I joined several of my colleagues in supporting a budget resolution that is exactly the same as the one reported out of the Committee on the Budget, with one important addition. It contains strong enforcement language that would ensure we meet our deficit targets every year. Unfortunately, this alternative was not ruled in order. This troubles me greatly, because of the assumptions included in this agreement. The only reason we are standing here today is because the CBO found $225 billion in assumptions which allowed the negotiators the room to satisfy everyone's needs and concerns. If these assumptions turn out to be inaccurate, what measures are included in this budget resolution to make sure we actually reach balance by the year 2002? The answer is there are none. While I was not here in 1990, Congress and the President reached a very similar historic budget agreement that would balance the budget in 5 years. Yet we are here today, again, with another balanced budget proposal. Why? Because the 1990 agreement did not have enforcement mechanisms for entitlement programs or revenue. My fear is that we will reach 2000, the year 2000, and we will be nowhere near the glide path that is outlined in this agreement. This budget resolution has no enforcement mechanism to correct this problem. Not only will this result in larger budget deficits than projected, it will also mean another broken promise to the American people. So Mr. Chairman, that is why I urge Members, even though we can all support this budget agreement, that we need to have strong enforcement language and work with the coalition to make sure that that language is present in the budget reconciliation.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I also rise and want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] for giving us the opportunity to address this issue of transportation funds. Twenty-five States have received less than they put into the highway trust fund, and 17 States have gotten back less than 90 cents on the dollar. When that happens, the Federal highway program is clearly broken. Personally, I am also cosponsoring a piece of legislation called the Transportation Empowerment Act that would return most of the highway program dollars to the States. However, because of our makeup here in Congress and particularly in the Senate, that is a piece of legislation which probably will not move as STEP 21 will. So I am also supporting STEP 21. I think that is the logical mainstream proposal that can fix the existing problems in the current law while still maintaining an appropriate Federal role in highways. It is intriguing to me that as we stand here, 3 years from the 21st century, that we are dealing with proposals in our Federal highway funding program that uses formulas that date back to 1916. These two particular formula factors that we are talking about, lands area and postal route mileage, come from a time when the national highway system did not exist, for obvious reasons; there were not any cars. In fact, the national highway system did not come into effect until 1956. Mr. Speaker, I believe that these two factors, land area and postal route mileage, may have made some sense in a time when we were trying to get our horse and buggy out of the mud, but today they have little value at a time when we are trying to get our cars out of traffic. I would just like to remind my colleagues that what we are dealing with here is a gas tax, not a hay tax for horses. I applaud the fact that the administration has stepped up to the plate and released their own plan for the reauthorization of ISTEA, which is called NEXTEA, but I want to remind you that this proposal is a giant step in the wrong direction. The proposal maintains a State guarantee payback from the highway trust fund is at 90 cents, 90 percent, 90 cents on the dollar. However, I would like to remind my colleagues that over the last 5 or 6 years, even though we were guaranteed 90 cents return in ISTEA, Florida has averaged 77 cents on the dollar in gas taxes cents to Washington that would come back to Florida to help us with our roads. That is unacceptable. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation's own calculations, the funding allocation under ISTEA for the State of Florida during the fiscal years 1991 through 1997 was approximately 4.28 percent. Under the NEXTEA proposal, those numbers will move to 4.08 percent. Certainly, that is less money. I am in the situation, Florida is in the situation with many other States in that we will be getting a much smaller slice of a larger pie, and that is not acceptable. Proponents of NEXTEA have been arguing that 49 States also receive more dollars. But as I said earlier, that is simply because we have more dollars in the pot to carve up and we, in fact, will be getting a smaller slice. As a long-time donor State, Florida has consistently worked to provide greater funding equity in the Federal highway program. This legislation, STEP 21, is a clear step in the right direction, while also giving States more flexibility over how best to meet their individual transportation needs. STEP 21 is a streamlined, commonsense approach to the current Federal program. It replaces a 40-year-old program, a program which was put in place to build an interstate highway system, and it replaces a system with a more decentralized approach that will allow the States to the respond to changing statewide needs with adequate resources. STEP 21 streamlines the program's structure, increases State flexibility and provides financial equity. STEP 21 will guarantee a return of at least 95 cents on the dollar back to the States. It does that through allocating 40 percent into a Federal highway pot, and then it takes 60 percent and returns it to the States through a new streamlined surface transportation program. Many opponents argue that it will derail such programs as congestion mitigation and air quality programs and also transportation enhancement programs, such as bicycle trails and pedestrian trails. That simply is not true. There is nothing in this piece of legislation that prohibits those programs from going on. I would like to remind my colleagues that the CMAQ, that is congestion, mitigation, and air quality program, is governed by the Clean Air Act, and actually it is the Clean Air Act and not the Transportation Act that governs that. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind our colleagues that if we truly believe that we ought to have a government that is closer to the people, that the dollars ought to stay back in our States where they can best be used by local folks.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I listened to the debate last night and listened with interest, and so this morning I went back to my office, and I called our State capital and talked to the secretary about the Department of Juvenile Justice, and I want to tell my colleagues what he says about H.R. 3. Our State statute mandates already that adult filings, regardless of age in serious offenses, carjackings, death, rape, any kinds of issues like that. However, our statute also gives broad discretion to prosecutors to enter those juveniles into the juvenile system if they choose to based on the crime itself. Now we went through this about 4 years ago in Florida because we had a very serious problem, and we did a major reform. We committed a quarter of a billion dollars in Florida to this reform in which we created some hard beds that we locked up violent juvenile offenders, and we also created some prevention and some rehab beds so that we could turn those young people around who were not yet hardened, and I want to tell my colleagues that this H.R. 3 undoes some of that, and Florida will not qualify under this proposal. Mr. Chairman, I support the Stupak amendment.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, today we honor one of the academic worlds finest, Dr. Eva C. Wanton, founding dean of Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University's School of General Studies. Through her 30-year career at Florida A & M University, her record of quality teaching, service, and research reflects a commitment to improved educational opportunities for all students and a commitment to a better quality of life for her north Florida community. For all of Dr. Wanton's academic achievements, I'm sure nothing compares to the personal relationships she has developed with her students, her faculty, and her community. Dr. Wanton has put her words into action. She has not merely stood by on the sidelines giving instructions on how to achieve, but rather she has led through her actions. Every student who has walked through her doors has been enriched through the experience of knowing Dr. Wanton. How many of us have had that one teacher or professor that we can look back and say? ``My life was changed or positively impacted by an educator who went that extra mile because he/she saw the potential in me.'' If our young people are to succeed in today's world, we must have more individuals like Eva Wanton. Today I rise to personally thank Dr. Wanton for the extra effort she takes to make a difference in north Florida. She is a precious gift to our community. We should all set our goals so high, because when we do, there is no limit to what we can achieve.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply puts in place a 5-year sunset, which at the end of that time will cause us, as a Congress, to review this act. I have listened to the arguments over the last few weeks and read a lot about the arguments, and I think that in a perfect world, and if this bill works like it is supposed to, it will be a great piece of legislation to strengthen the relationship between employers and employees. Certainly, in its ideal form, H.R. 1 will allow workers and employees the flexibility to make decisions that will both strengthen families and build a better workplace. By putting in place a 5-year sunset provision, the amendment ensures future congressional review of this act. We are sending a message, a positive message, to employers that we are serious about making this act work. We are placing a great deal of trust in our employees and employers to come together in this act. The changing workplace and the changing dynamics that exist in two- income families make it essential that workers and employers forge an alliance. By ensuring congressional review of this act, those who remain concerned about protecting workers can assess the success of this act and make future adjustments, if necessary. The changing workplace demands that we seek new solutions to problems. I believe that compensatory time flexibility will prove to be something that is valued by both workers and employers. If it does not work like it is supposed to, this sunset act will certainly give us the opportunity in the future to review that and make the necessary changes. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close by giving my thanks to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Goodling, and also to my leader, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Clay, for allowing me to present this amendment.

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. Gordon].

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, as the Chairman's designee, I offer amendment No. 3.

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota, [Mr. Peterson].

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, we celebrate America as a nation of diverse peoples who share a common vision: freedom, independence, and liberty. Throughout our history, this diversity has served us well. The fabric of our communities has been strengthened by the contributions of all of our people. So as we celebrate Black History Month, we should be mindful of the rich history and vast contributions that African-Americans have made-- and continue to make--to our society. We marvel at the courage of Dr. Martin Luther King. We are humbled by the eloquence of Barbara Jordan. And we are enriched by the brilliance of Ella Fitzgerald. And there are thousands more. In north Florida, Rev. R.B. Holmes fights for a better future for all children through his efforts to build the best charter school in our Nation. Al Lawson works hard every day in our citizen's legislature to improve the lives of all of our families. And, at FAMU, Jim Davis makes a difference by trying to open the doors to higher education for all of our children. So, today, we proudly recognize the great role that African-Americans play in every facet of our human society. In that recognition we also seek to build a more perfect America. We seek to work together as leaders, parents, thinkers, artists, and students to make tomorrow's America better than today's. Our common goals are built on the common ground that all families seek: safety, security, and opportunity. We know that we can only realize those goals when we work as one.