Steve Pearce

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mrs. Patsy Cline, an outstanding citizen of the great state of New Mexico and resident of my hometown, Hobbs. Patsy has spent a lifetime embracing people of all origins and helping those most in need. She has given selflessly for many years to help more than 10,000 seniors in Lea County afford necessary medications through her nonprofit organization, Faith In Action. I would like to thank Patsy for her contributions, her selfless deliverance of assistance to those in need, and for extending a helping hand to thousands of people when they needed it most. Patsy embodies the meaning of a true volunteer. Through her actions, she has helped foster a kinder society by living a life of service to others, seeking nothing in return. We can all learn from Patsy's selfless dedication and courage. As a fellow New Mexican, it is my honor to rise and recognize Patsy Cline's commitment to community and country.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor an outstanding citizen in the great State of New Mexico, Mrs. Lori Paulson. Lori, despite being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2013, has dedicated the last two years to the betterment of her community, and beloved New Mexico State University. She is undoubtedly an inspiration and role model to all she meets. In the last two years, Lori has become more than a friend or mentor to the NMSU football team, she has become family. During both the 2014 and 2015 football season, Lori served as the Aggies' honorary captain--attending practices and events with the team, even participating in the opening coin tosses during every home game. Throughout her time with the team, Lori has helped players through injury and personal tragedy. Recently, Lori took another step to help the school and team she loves--she gifted $100,000 to the football program in the creation of the Lori Paulson Football Excellence Fund. When asked about the donation, Lori simply stated--``It's just me confirming what I have always said, which is that I believe in them.'' Lori is an exemplary Aggie. We can all learn from her selfless dedication and courage. As a fellow Aggie and New Mexican, it is an honor to rise and recognize Lori's commitment to her community and alma mater.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. About 5 years ago, I was in Roswell, New Mexico, at a meeting with veteran constituents. We were talking about policies and things like that. After about an hour, suddenly one gentleman overlooked in the whole group blurted out, ``I am living in a rat hole.'' It just caught us all by surprise. We dismantled the discussion there, and we went immediately to look at his house. Over the next 2 years, that community gathered money and businesses came together. They tore down the man's house and rebuilt it. The problem is that not everyone out there can get access to communities and local businesses to help them through the problems, so we have the housing programs which are set up. Unfortunately, they are mired in bureaucratic red tape. We soak up the dollars that should be helping people with administrative burdens that make no sense, with duplicative requirements to go through the processes. I commend both sides of the aisle, Mr. Luetkemeyer and Ms. Maxine Waters of California, for pushing this reform because it will allow us to direct the money to where it should be going. Many times we think that we disagree with each other about policies. The truth is there is not significant disagreement that we should be helping those at the lowest income levels to raise themselves up. It is through their progression towards prosperity and towards just making ends meet that we get rid of some of the deepest problems in our social cost of the government. It is not that we disagree; it is that sometimes we get trapped and that that program doesn't work very well so we want to cut funds. I really think that this is a very important step today where we are trying to modernize the systems that are delivering help to those that need it the most in the belief that the human spirit will actually take those steps to make their own way out once we help them stabilize. Again, just thanks for the work on both sides of the aisle. I urge support of H.R. 3700.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Messer and Mrs. Maloney for producing this balanced, bipartisan piece of legislation. The State of New Mexico has a geographical area about the same as five Northeastern States. That area, though, has 55 million people to pay the taxes to build roads, to build infrastructure, and to build schools. In the equivalent geographical area, New Mexico has almost 2 million people to build all of those miles of roads. Now, this is the effect of this legislation: it removes the financing mechanism that States like New Mexico use--those Western, lightly populated areas--municipal bonds to fund things like schools and roads and infrastructure. Yet the committee that decided what category these assets would fall into said that they are no good and that they are not going to count in the liquidity requirement for institutions. What that means is $3.7 trillion will evaporate out of that municipal bond market. That is $3.7 trillion that would help us build infrastructure and help us create better living for everybody in the West. Yet this committee, which never visited New Mexico, appears not to have looked at the quality of assets. Mrs. Maloney, adequately, says it is not a question of safety and soundness. Mr. Messer says that the default rate is four one- thousandths of 1 percent. They obviously did not look at the quality of the products. They simply said they are not going to qualify. What that means is that financial institutions will no longer have incentive nor space under liquidity requirements to hold municipal obligations such as bonds. This is detrimental to the way of life in the West. I would like to congratulate again Mrs. Maloney and Mr. Messer for bringing H.R. 2209 to us today to help be a partial cure to the problems that people from other countries have levied on us. It seems common sense; it seems useful; it seems good for the taxpayer and good for the country. Let's pass H.R. 2209.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. H.R. 511, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act, says it all. All we are trying to do is to provide Native American tribes the sovereignty and autonomy they deserve, ensuring that they have the same rights as other businesses off the reservation, and that they have the same standards as States and local governments. Now, we have heard on this floor from those who reject the bill, those who oppose it, about where after is decency, safety, and pay. I am proud of New Mexico. I represent the tribes. And I will tell you we are falling far short of those objectives of those who oppose the bill. Many of the tribes are looking to get into their own businesses now. They want to compete off reservation. They want to put tribal members to work. But they are hamstrung by the National Labor Relations Board, which currently chooses on a case-by-case basis which tribes are regulated and which are not. They are dependent on the government to give them permission. That is not what sovereignty sounds like in New Mexico, and tribes across this country are rejecting the status quo, saying: Let us move forward. Let us be in charge of our own destiny. We do not want to be responsible--we don't want to be wards of the government any longer. Give us our freedom to compete. I see tribal companies that could compete easily if they are allowed to by this government. And just the phrase being ``allowed to by this government'' is one that chafes, and should chafe, Native Americans. So the resulting confusion from the current status quo, which is trying to provide decency, safety, and pay, and is not doing that, the confusion from some being chosen and some not being chosen is one that needs to be overturned. H.R. 511 does that. I rise to support it, and appreciate the gentleman's time.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. I would be happy to respond. I will provide the documentation to the gentleman afterwards. I don't have it right here. But we see these things in New Mexico.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, again, this is an amendment that does not change the underlying language of the bill. It simply seeks to clarify to all parties that no change was intended and no change will occur to the existing order from the Secretary. Mr. Chairman, I would urge everyone to support the amendment and the underlying bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chair, just in answer to the gentleman's question, I would point out that what happens right now is that the EAJA is actually gamed. People can put in 15 or 20 frivolous claims, but if they have a finding on one substantial thing--and always, those lawsuits have a multitude of claims, but then one thing will be tucked in that is simply procedural that the agency forgot the deadline, it didn't have a meeting--and if the judge finds on one, then all are paid for. So they are allowed to bring frivolous actions with one substantiating claim, and it is those frivolous things that tie up and hold up development. No one objects to the fact that sometimes the agencies are wrong. People do object to the fact that frivolous lawsuits come under the cover of one thing that is just almost inane in the whole discussion.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chair, in the Permian Basin, which the Second District of New Mexico falls just in the corner of that, two or three counties have tremendous assets. It is home to some of the most prolific and purest forms of potash, which is used for fertilizer, and then it also has significant oil and gas. When I was elected to Congress in 2002, one of the first things that next year that we began to discover is that the oil and gas and potash industries have had an approximately 50-year running battle against each other. We began to try to sort through the differing opinions, working with the agency, the Interior Department, and over the next 10 approximate years, worked out an agreement with the Secretary of the Interior and the two different industries on how to both get along in the same area. That was a significant undertaking. It was a significant finding by the Interior Department and, again, took almost 10 years of very delicate negotiations. So my amendment to this bill, H.R. 1937, is simply to clarify that nothing in the bill overturns that agreement that has been reached. Again, this agreement came under the Obama administration but dated back through the Bush administration, so it has been pretty well looked at by both sides, both parties, and has been functioning very well. It is my desire to simply get the clarifying language that nothing in the bill is going to change that Secretarial order, and, likewise, the amendment does nothing to change the language in the bill. It is just clarifying that this is what we are going to do. It is extremely important for New Mexico, but also for the Nation, because the potash provides the fertilizer for food sources across the Nation; but also, the oil and gas industry is providing much of the oil and gas that is coming into America's supply right now and driving down the price. The discoveries in that particular region will produce more oil and gas in one county than has been produced in the entire State for its entire history. So it is not as if these questions are insignificant. Again, my amendment is very straightforward. It just seeks to clarify that nothing is going to affect that Secretarial order.

Mr. PEARCE. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate his work on this important proposition. Mr. Chairman, for almost my entire life, the Nation has worked under prevailing science that said we have reached peak energy, we are out, that we have to plan for the future because we have no more oil. Two years ago a discovery was found in New Mexico that will provide more oil from that one find than has been produced in our State from its entire history through the entire geographic part of New Mexico. The science was a lie. We are finding oil. What is happening right now is that the refineries use a heavy sour crude. The new finds in shale are producing light sweet, which is more valuable. It is easier to refine. Yet, that light sweet oil is sitting in the pipelines in New Mexico, trying to get to Houston. It is selling at $17 below the market cost because there is no destination. The Baltics have said they would use our oil, they would put our workers back to work. But this law prevents it. The law in place, H.R. 702, simply says: Open that door and put Americans back to work, Americans driving trucks, Americans at the convenient stores. Americans everywhere get the jobs. The idea that this somehow undercuts jobs is absolutely a frivolous idea to present on this House floor.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alaska for bringing this legislation forward. In my hometown of Hobbs, New Mexico, truck drivers are making $100,000 a year. They don't have to have a college degree, not even a high school diploma. And, yet, we limit this sort of opportunity on tribal lands. This bill is fairly simple. Simply let them free. Let them free to develop their lands in the way they want to. I heard one of my colleagues say that there are no frivolous lawsuits. Just this week the WildEarth Guardians were found to have filed a frivolous lawsuit on matters such as these, trying to stop development, trying to hold things up. The judge said this is frivolous. It is the WildEarth Guardians v. Kirkpatrick decision that is very recent. We are told that there are a litany of issues that we should be dealing with. I will tell you that Native Americans are sophisticated enough to take care of their own problems. They just need the opportunity to have jobs. They need the opportunity for economic development inside their own nations. Just recently we hosted in New Mexico a gathering of different tribes who are looking at investments in oil and gas. One lady said: My son is working in North Dakota for $60,000 a year, and he should be working here on the reservation in the oil and gas industry for $60,000 a year. That is the urgency that I am sensing on the reservations. The reservations are beginning to build their own houses, and they are doing magnificent work. They are becoming self-determined. But we here in Washington say we know better. Mr. Young's bill says that we don't know better. Just let them develop what they want. Take the shackles off, take the chains loose, and let the American spirit that is on the reservations live and breathe. It is a very simple concept, but one some have a very difficult time accepting. I say vote for H.R. 538 and put them free.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to attention that we are engaged in a very important activity here. We are talking about American jobs. Now, some people dismiss jobs as being a four-letter word. Well, I mean it kind of is, but not that kind of four-letter word. It is an important piece. When I was born, my father was a sharecropper. In 1947, the year I was born, he made $200. The next year, the drought year, he made 50 bucks. Mom said, ``We are leaving the farm.'' She jumped in the pickup truck. Dad jumped in the back, along with us kids. There were three kids at that time, later to become six. They headed to the West. I don't think they knew where they were going. I guess they would have stopped when they got to California. But they got 75 miles down the road and broke down 3 miles outside of Hobbs, New Mexico. They hitchhiked into Hobbs, and that is where I grew up. Dad was able to find a job almost immediately in the oilfield. He got in at the lowest level, a roustabout, making $2.62 an hour. Now, to them, to my family who had made $200 for a full year's work and $50 for the next year's work, $2.62 an hour was the absolute pinnacle. They never moved from Hobbs. They stayed there and raised their six children on $2.62 an hour. And, of course, it graduated through the years. That is why I am passionate about this export ban. Because right now we have people in my home county who are being laid off because our oil is sitting in the pipelines. The pipelines going to Houston are filled up. And so companies are having to shut down wells. They are having to stop production. Now, some of the countries in the Baltics have come to Eddy County, which is one of the counties I represent, and they have said, ``We would buy your light, sweet oil. That crude oil is better than what we buy from Russia. We would stop buying from Russia and buy from you,'' except we have this ban in place. We can't ship oil out of this country. Now, we have to understand that 95 percent of the world's consumers are outside the United States. So when we have this self-imposed problem, this self-imposed restriction on sending a product that is very needed out there, know that we are penalizing American jobs. The President has been very, very ardent in his willingness to create Iranian jobs because he insists that Iran should be able to export their oil while all the time saying that he is opposed to the idea of this bill. We are going to consider this bill tomorrow, and I think in my heart that we are doing things that would benefit people like my parents, people who did not have the option to move to New York and be on Wall Street. They didn't have the option to move to Albuquerque or Dallas. They were where they could get to, and they were able to find work and raise a family. That is the people that I am fighting for, the people that don't have other choices. Now, the oilfield provides very good jobs. In this current energy revolution that is taking place in the country, this explosion of shale oil production, truck drivers in my hometown were receiving $100,000 a year to drive a truck. If you wanted to work overtime, you could get up to $120,000. That is the sort of job that is now available to people like my father. If he were still working, those jobs would be out there. But it is not just the people in the oil and gas industry. It is the people who work in the convenience store at the corner. They are busy 24 hours a day, and the local convenience store operator may have to pay $15 an hour just to attract people in. It benefits everyone, regardless if they are in oil and gas or not. In New Mexico, oil and gas provides about 40 percent to our State's budget. I tell teachers on the other side of the State: With no oil and gas, you should be vitally interested in this export bill because, if we put people back to work in the oil industry, that money goes straight to the State government, and it helps pay your salary. Up and down the spectrum, people are benefited when we have a vital energy economy. If we are going to allow our light sweet crude to be exported, people wonder: Are we going to run out of energy? Absolutely not. It is not going to get more expensive. Back when my father was working for Humble, which later became Exxon, they had a company philosophy. They were the largest energy company in the world. They simply said this area, the Permian Basin here in New Mexico, is going to run out of oil in the late 1980s, so they sold every producing well in that area. They simply moved out. Just a couple of years ago, a discovery was made in southern New Mexico--keep in mind, some of the majors moved out, said there was no more future in this area; it is going to be out of oil--and a discovery was made that is going to produce more oil from that one field than has been produced in New Mexico through the whole of New Mexico in all of its history, from one field that was discovered recently. We have this kind of thing where people are saying, well, we have got to worry and we have got to think about the future and save it for the future. No, there is as much oil out there unused as we have used in New Mexico. So let us have New Mexico jobs. Let us continue to export now instead of allowing the oil to fill up the pipelines and shut down jobs. That is the main reason that I am supporting this. Obviously, I appreciate the fact that energy is national security. The low energy prices now are rebuilding the manufacturing economy. As we drive the price of oil down--and keep in mind that the consumers benefit from that. Gasoline had gotten to over $4. Now, then, it is right down in the $2 range. So it benefits the consumers. It is also attracting back industries that manufacture. That is essential for that kind of business. If you are going to manufacture, you need affordable, reliable energy. Firms are moving back here in order to produce. That is creating even other jobs that don't even seem associated with the energy business. So, again, you have many, many reasons for supporting this energy export bill, and I urge my colleagues to do that.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, a nation, like an individual, is judged by the way it speaks for those who can't speak for themselves and by the way it treats those without total capacities. It is in this regard that our Founders brought this Nation together with the core principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--life being the first of those. It is a constitutional requirement that I think that we have to speak for the unborn. When we see the atrocities in the videos, the callousness of the organization that is trafficking in body parts from dead babies, we should react in horror and remove the funding for that. The greatest argument the other side puts up is that they provide women other services. This chart shows the Planned Parenthood locations in New Mexico versus those providing other services. We simply seek to move the funding from them to here. The coverage from our State is much broader and much better and would be a voice for those unborn who can't scream out for their own sake.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for bringing this subject up. It is a subject that all of us in the West deal with every year. A couple of years ago, we had Tom Tidwell in New Mexico. He was there at a time when the Forest Service was in the process of burning down 255 homes in Ruidoso. The fire almost burned completely out of control and burned the entire town down. That is what the agency was surprised and frightened by. These fires are caused by a lack of management. And instead of addressing the problem by reducing the number of trees in the forests, the Forest Service is saying, and Tom Tidwell himself said, that our policy is going to be to reintroduce fire into its natural habitat. Introducing fire into the forest at this stage, with the years of no attention, with the years of fuel buildup, with the decades of drought that have put them in an explosive position in much of the West, is absolute lunacy. And yet this was the highest ranking Forest Service employee saying that we need to reintroduce fire into the wild. I am sorry, but we need to clean up the forest first, then the fire can keep the forest healthy--but not until then. These raging wildfires are a natural conclusion to the management policies for the past decades, and so we can't start and act like that policy has not been in place. Another policy that the Forest Service is engaged in is letting fire achieve management objectives. If I were to take a look at, say, one of the large fires out in Grant County, in the Gila Wilderness area of New Mexico, you can see the daily reports where they are talking about, well, the fire is 300 acres, it is 600 acres, and it is achieving its management objective. Well, there is one truth about New Mexico: If the wind is not blowing today, it is going to blow tomorrow. Letting those fires go, while they are supposedly monitoring them, and the fire then gets the push from the wind and grows from 300 or 800 acres to 10,000 to 30,000 acres is, again, a natural conclusion to the management policies of this Forest Service. It is time for us to revise the way our forests are managed. Mr. Westerman has a bill that is exactly right, H.R. 2647, and we should pass that bill, and that process should go forward. Let's start cleaning the excess timber out of our forests. It is much simpler than what everybody wants to make it. It is much simpler than the Forest Service would allow. So again, I appreciate the fact that you are bringing this issue up. I appreciate the fact that you have yielded time.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chair, Washington recently issued the advanced notice of rulemaking in which they declared they were going to consider raising the royalty rates on oil and gas production on Federal land. Now, there is several reasons that we would want to consider that before we implemented it, and so our amendment simply says let's stop the process. First of all, what it does is it is going to drive the royalty rates up on Federal lands. It will be one more impediment to producing the oil and gas that fuels this Nation's economy. Secondly, small businesses, small independent producers are already under pressure to try to just stay in business, and it would increase their operating costs. For a small State like ours, rural States, the small businesses, these local producers are sources of prosperity that are desperately missing from the rural parts of the country. If we are going to have an economy that is healthy, if we are going to have an economy that provides jobs for the future, then we need energy that is both affordable and a predictable supply. Nothing is better than producing our own. When we have to import oil from other nations, some of those nations are unstable politically. Some just don't like us as a country; and so why not produce our own energy, providing our own jobs and providing revenues to the Federal Government? Anytime you increase taxes on a given item, then you are going to see less of that item, and oil and gas is no exception. Let's let the department think about this just a bit more before we rush into a royalty rate which will decrease America's energy supply and make us more dependent on foreign oil. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my cosponsors on this amendment: Mr. Tipton, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Lamborn, and Mr. Zinke. I appreciate their presence here. The gentlewoman raises a significant question whether or not revenues would increase or decrease. We have got a couple of charts here showing exactly what is happening. First of all, the average number of leases that the BLM issued during each administration, we can see back in the Reagan administration the highest level. It decreases down to--you can see the relative position of the Obama administration. If the administration were really interested in revenues, it seems like they would be producing the permits at a little faster rate. Then this chart shows the oil production; the increase in oil production in blue is shown here on private lands while the decrease in oil production on the public lands is being shown in the red. Again, if the administration were very interested, it seems like they would modernize not the royalty rate, but the way in which they approve these wells. Sometimes, wells go for 6 months or a year without being permitted, where States can offer 30-day processing of the permits. The same is happening with natural gas. Again, we just see the blue on private lands where natural gas production is increasing, dramatic decreases in production of natural gas on Federal lands. Again, it looks like, if the agency were worried about the revenues, they would seek to modernize and update their procedures first. I yield to the chairman of the committee.

Mr. PEARCE. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chair, the assumption that the royalty rates are abnormally low in the United States simply ignores the fact that we have lease sales on top of the royalties. Many countries fail to have those. The United States has the most extreme environmental regulations, so the regulatory burden gladly borne by the oil companies is an additional cost that many nations do not have. In addition, we have got income taxes paid by the companies, and many countries don't charge that on top of the royalty. What we are hearing from our friends on the other side of the aisle about the sweetheart deals, I think, take a look and see actually how much the oil and gas companies are paying. In our State, they have contributed to two of the largest permanent funds in the world held by our State. I think oil and gas companies are paying their fair share by a lot. What other industry is paying truck drivers $100,000 a year to drive a truck for a contractor? I think that those sorts of computations are simply ignored by the GAO. Again, I would urge Members to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado bringing this amendment. In the West, we are finding that our States are being burned up. They are burned up because the forests are simply full of fuel that has not been cut or logged for the last 20, 30 years. These are internal decisions that were created by an inappropriate listing of the spotted owl, declaring that timber reduction was the reason the spotted owl was going extinct. A couple of years ago, the Fish and Wildlife Service reversed that, saying: Oops, logging had nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter. Now, the damage is done. Our forests are chock- full of fuels. It has been extraordinarily dry through the West. Small sparks set off tremendous blazes. The wind always blows in the West. We find these raging while fires that weren't in existence 30, 40, and 50 years ago because nature was pretty well in harmony. The idea of the gentleman is simply to put more money into the fuels reduction account. That is a commonsense solution that will save us in the West, save our valuable resources, save our valuable forests, and it will make sense for the country. I support the amendment and would urge its adoption.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies. I want to thank the chairman and Ranking Member Fattah for their efforts to forge a truly bipartisan bill to fund critical programs within the Departments of Justice, Commerce, and the scientific community. This diverse bill provides a wide range of support, from continued scientific research in space to the funding our law enforcement officers need to keep our families and communities safe. It is truly a diverse, vital bill. Chairman Culberson, please permit me one point of clarification in the bill. The NASA budget includes a space operations account. This account provides funding for everything from space communications to research on the International Space Station to supporting space launch complexes. I would like to specifically discuss the space communications function within this account. Regardless of age or mission, NASA must be able to communicate with the system it has in orbit. The space and ground networks that comprise NASA's space communications system are the foundation for all of NASA's orbital work. The network provides constant, real-time communications for all aspects of our space mission, from the unmanned probes at the very edges of our solar system to the ISS and Hubble Space Telescope. Without this capability, our Nation would be jeopardizing the safety of our manned operations and depriving the world of the discoveries made by our space systems. It should be a commitment of the House to ensure that the funding for our space operations ensures strong support for the infrastructure and support needed to maintain strong and capable space communications. Again, I thank the committee for its work in crafting this legislation and strongly supporting space communications in the past. It is my understanding that the committee has provided the space operations account with nearly $130 million more than it did in fiscal year 2015, and that it intends to support a robust level of funding for the space communications component within this account. Is that understanding correct? I yield to the gentleman.