Todd Rokita

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman. Reclaiming my time, I thank Congressman Mooney for his expertise in this area, coming from the State of West Virginia. Again, I would say he is an excellent member of the Budget Committee and takes his job seriously, and I welcome him to continue with our discussion here. Mr. Speaker, if I can inquire how much time we have remaining.

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn our attention now to another hard-charging member of the Budget Committee, someone else who is new to Congress and who is bringing that energy, along with great ideas, to the discussion. A lot of his ideas are found in this budget. Congressman John Moolenaar of Michigan was a chemist, or perhaps is still a chemist. He worked in the private sector prior to joining us here. He is an example of a team that created the jobs that better our economy, that allow us to crawl out of this deficit and debt that we are facing because of our overspending, and his experience will allow us to be part--allow the conversation to illustrate the solutions that come with raising our GDP level back to where it used to be not just a few years ago so that we can have a better economy now and a better future for our children. Before serving in Congress, John Moolenaar served on the Midland City Council and in the State legislature. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Moolenaar).

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Moolenaar points out some of the obvious and perhaps maybe not so obvious problems the budget faces and what we face as a Congress. Really quickly, before introducing a veteran member of the committee, I want to illustrate a little bit what, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Moolenaar was discussing. Here you see, in a pie graph form, what our Federal Government, what your Federal Government spends its money on. I have taken the liberty of dissecting or pushing out two pieces of that pie to show you, really, from a year-to-year perspective situation, what we get to vote on as Members of Congress. It is defense discretionary, as we call it, and there is nondefense discretionary. In terms of the fund centers and the lines in the budget, we can dial those up or dial those amounts down year to year, Budget Control Act deals and all that notwithstanding. But it is the rest of this pie that Mr. Moolenaar indicates that is so alarming, because the rest of this pie, I can't, Mr. Speaker, you can't, Mr. Moolenaar can't dial up the spending or dial it down year to year by our vote on the budget or our vote on appropriations bills because the funding formula for those programs is found in the underlying law. So Congressman Rokita doesn't get to decide how much Social Security an eligible citizen receives year to year, or what the Medicare services are going to be, or what the costs or payouts for them are going to be, or determine right now what the one-size-fits-all Medicaid program looks like. That is all determined by the underlying law. This spending, until we reform these programs, is on autopilot. It just goes on and on and on and on, and that is why these programs too need to be reformed. So we have taken the extra step in our House Republican budget and outlined solutions for the other committees, for Members of Congress, for the American people, that would work to not only pay down the deficits but then our debt over time after we come into balance, recognizing, being honest with the American people about what is causing our debt. If you see from this pie graph, it is only about 40 percent of our budget year to year that we can dial up or down simply by a vote on the budget. Over 60 percent is on autopilot. So you can't possibly pay off our deficits and our debt until you address the underlying cause--what is driving our debt--and that is these entitlement programs of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the interest we owe ourselves and other countries for this debt we are racking up, and a smorgasbord of other mandatory spending, mostly welfare programs. The Republican budget not only recognizes that, not only tells the American people the truth, but then offers solutions of what could solve the situation over a reasonable amount of time. A fellow who has been integral to making sure that these good ideas have stayed in our budget now for the fifth time in the last several years is a gentleman I have come to know as a good friend, a trusted confidant, a fellow whom I have said from this microphone before represents the people in his district in Georgia so very, very well, and not only that but represents America so well because of his excellent oratory, his good ideas, and his intense work ethic, which we need more of, frankly, around here, Mr. Speaker. I yield to the gentleman from the great State of Georgia, Mr. Robert Woodall.

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. As much as I appreciate his comments about the work we have all done on the Budget Committee, they are certainly undeserved with regards to me. It was a team effort from the beginning. It continues to be a team effort. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman from Georgia is exactly right, though, that every Member of this Chamber--and that is Republican or Democrat--can be proud of this budget. This honestly and accurately solves this country's Federal Government fiscal problems. And they should also be proud of the fact that, as the gentleman mentions, other ideas are going to be accepted in regular order and be voted on. And it really doesn't get more American than that. That will be an honor that has continued to be our tradition, and I see no reason that that won't continue. If the gentleman would, I would like to hear his thoughts on the Medicare part of our budget. The gentleman heard me reference the fact that the autopilot spending, these social programs need to be reformed. And I want to be very clear not only with my colleagues, with the gentleman from Georgia, but also with the American people, Mr. Speaker, that we are not cutting, we are not slashing, we are not ending Medicare or these other programs, as I know perhaps there will be some scare tactic language presented. I hope that is not the case. I continue to hope. But the fact of the matter is, we save and we strengthen Medicare. I yield to the gentleman for his comments in that regard.

Mr. ROKITA. If the gentleman will yield, that is so very important and critical to understanding our reform efforts because of the fact that our proposed changes don't even have to affect anyone who is on these programs or near to being on them. Our modeling, our reform, our ideas would start in 2024. So the younger guys--men and women, of course--in America, those of the age group that the gentleman from Georgia referenced, would have time to prepare. And it is not like these changes would be draconian. They would just reflect how we live now and how long we live in the 21st century. Again, the main part of our reform is giving people choice. We believe and we know from data and from experiences in the States-- those laboratories of democracy that I referenced earlier, the notion of Federalism, where the best government comes from those that govern closest to the people--that if you give people a choice, no matter their socioeconomic background, now matter how old or young they are or how smart or simple some may think they are, they can make the best choices for themselves in all facets of their lives. And that includes health care. Once we do that, once we have folks invested in the decision-making process, you will see costs naturally go down. That is a large part of our plan. Let people choose what works best for them, what works best for that time in their lives, and you will see them take an ownership interest just like they would an ownership interest in any other thing that they have a vested interest in, whether it is repairing their automobile, buying an automobile, or even their health care. It will work the same way. That is a good portion of our plan. Again, anyone who is on these programs or near to be on them can take the promises that were offered, the deal that was given, and can continue on with their lives and planning for their future. The gentleman from Georgia, I, members of the Budget Committee, and previous Congresses now for 4 years in a row have talked to the American people about this idea of down the road let's change the system, not so it goes away, but so that it can be strengthened and saved so that it can be around for those in the future. I think what every parent and every grandparent ultimately wants is a better life for their children and grandchildren. Now, if we contrast that for a minute with the President's idea, you see a much different picture. First of all, in order to fund his government-controlled health care plan, Mr. Speaker, he basically takes from Medicare. The President's health care law makes drastic cuts to the Medicare program without improving the long-term solvency of that program. In addition to the reductions already proposed in the law, ObamaCare created the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a Board of 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who will cut Medicare in ways that would deny care to current seniors. That is not the way forward. That doesn't save and strengthen these popular programs. That is what will end up destroying them for future generations. Some may ask--I know the gentleman from Georgia has heard this question--well, didn't the President's health care law improve Medicare's solvency? No. It absolutely did not. The President's health care law raided Medicare to fund ObamaCare. Advocates of the President's health care law claimed that the law both improved Medicare solvency and paid for the new entitlement at the same time, but this claim is contradictory. Medicare's chief actuary testified before the House Budget Committee that the Medicare savings had been double counted. The House Republican budget stops the raid on Medicare and ensures that any current law Medicare savings are devoted to saving Medicare. So that is what I mean when I say and when the gentleman from Georgia says that this is an honest budget. It is truth telling to and for the American people, but it also offers the solutions that can honestly and responsibly get us out of this situation. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman from Georgia again. He is not only a blessing to his State, he is a blessing to this Congress and to this country for his integrity, his hard work, and for his oratory. Thank you, sir, very, very much. Mr. Speaker and Members of this body, please pay attention to the House Budget Committee tomorrow as we mark up this bill, hopefully not for 12 hours, but maybe so. We will be there for as long as it takes. And be ready--be ready and be proud--to vote on the floor of this House next week for a budget that offers honesty, real solutions, a balanced budget for a stronger America. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman for his leadership. The gentleman is exactly right. If we act now, no one who is on or near to be on any of these programs has to be affected. We can easily take care of the promises that were made and that these folks, again, who are on these programs or near to be on these programs have rightly relied on, and that is because we are still the world's reserve currency. We are not Greece. If we make these reforms now, we are talking about the reforms affecting folks a generation ago, those in my age bracket or younger, who would have time to prepare for the new situation. People who are having kids today, who will live probably past 100, they will have the time, under a new program that reflects the realities of living in the 21st century and, frankly, how long we live in the 21st century. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack), a good friend of mine, the former mayor of Rogers, Arkansas, a decorated military officer who is also a great friend and a great leader in this Congress.

Mr. ROKITA. Well, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, you see why he was elected mayor of Rogers, Arkansas. You see why he has been a leader in our U.S. military, and you see how and why he leads on the floor of this House. I want to, again, thank Congressman Tom Rice from South Carolina for speaking today, and Congressman Mark Sanford, former Governor of South Carolina, now Congressman of the First District, for speaking today. Again, I thank Congressman Steve Womack. With the time we have remaining, I yield to a good friend of mine who came in at the same time as Steve Womack and I in a wave of 87 new Congresspersons, the new crew, as I call it, my good friend, Rob Woodall, also a member of the Budget Committee, to put some icing over what we have learned over the past hour.

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the gentleman for showing not only Members of Congress, but the American people, this chart that you have right there. I think you are hitting the nail on the head. This is exactly the problem. If I could just add a few things to it?

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor on behalf of a lot of colleagues who can't be here right now and on behalf of our colleagues who are going to speak to talk about the budget of the United States Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon after our legislative business for the day because it is the concern of many of us--and perhaps it is the concern of all of us who ran for office, who got elected, who honorably serve in this body--to say--to make sure, perhaps--that our priorities are in order. And, Mr. Speaker, if you simply look at any number of ``debt clocks'' that run on all kinds of different Web sites, including one that continues live in my office, you see perhaps--I hope it is clear to you, Mr. Speaker--that our priorities are not in order. We are over $18 trillion in debt as I take the microphone right now. Mr. Speaker, that is not the half of it. Over the next several decades we are scheduled to have over $100 trillion in debt. And that is not acceptable. In fact, I can't think of too many things that are more immoral than the present-day majority, than our present-day citizens leaving this burden to future citizens, people who do not yet exist. Talk about taxation without representation. But that is what we are faced with. That is what we do every day around here when our budget is not in balance and our priorities remain out of order. To be clear, Mr. Speaker, we are able to get to this point, as very few other countries are, because of the fact we are the world's reserve currency, because of the fact that we continue to be able to print money, and because of the fact that, despite all our problems, when compared in a relative fashion to all the other countries of the world, we simply aren't as bad yet. But over time, that can very easily change, Mr. Speaker. The solution to this isn't all that complicated. We have to stop spending more than we take in. We have to keep growing our economy. We have to simplify our Tax Code so that it can actually generate more revenue than it is doing right now. Of course, we have to reform what is driving the debt, and that is our spending. That is what the Republicans--in this Chamber, at least--are trying to achieve. We are trying to put our priorities back in balance. Washington doesn't have a revenue problem, Mr. Speaker; Washington has a spending problem. In terms of revenue, we take in over $2 trillion a year--and these are rough figures--but we spend generally over $3 trillion. That is simply not sustainable. That simply can't go on if we are to have any credibility on this issue and if we are going to remain a strong country, best of nations in the 21st century, and continue to win. So the House Budget Committee, and specifically the Republicans on the House Budget Committee, are about getting our priorities in order. And frankly, to our credit, for the last 4 years, Mr. Speaker, we have done just that. Every year since 2010, we have proposed balanced budgets that, if followed, would have led us on a path to prosperity, would have made it clear that we are best of class in the world again and the best investment going. All we had to do is take the steps outlined in that budget and it would have become so. This year, we are going to try again. We are going to balance this budget. We are going to have a markup in a week or so. We are going to propose and present ideas to the American public. Most of these ideas they have seen before over the last 4 years. There may be some new ones. We are still writing our budget. We are still taking input from Members and non-Members alike. But one thing the American people can count on: it will be an honest budget, it will be credible, it will balance, and it will fulfill the promise we explicitly and implicitly made over and again to future generations that their generation will be better off than the generation before it. Isn't that what we are all about? Isn't that what we are supposed to be about? But as I speak with you here today, the facts tell a different story. In fact, the current generation is the first one in American history that is destined and will, by any objective measure, leave the next one worse off. It has never happened before in American history. It is happening now. I know several of us on the Budget Committee refuse to let that happen on our watch, and so we come to you tonight with several ideas. I want to first recognize a very good friend of mine, a professional who came from the private sector and practiced accounting as a certified public accountant for over 25 years. He has added tremendous value to all the work we are doing on the Budget Committee. Aside from budget issues, he is a tremendous asset to nearly every issue that is debated on the floor of the House. I yield the floor, Mr. Speaker, to my good friend, Congressman Rice of South Carolina.

Mr. ROKITA. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROKITA. Well, if you go back to World War II, the gentleman rightly points out, Mr. Speaker, you see that our debt level crescendoed, obviously as a result of that war. What is different about that period in our history from our current situation is the fact that, as the gentleman knows, World War II, one way or the other, was going to be a one-time event. Thankfully, because of this country's courage and the men and women who served for our country, it ended the right way. As a result, the event ended, and we immediately began paying down our debt. Some might say: Well, we have been there before. What is different this time? Why can't we solve the problem this time? Well, we can solve the problem because, number one, we are Americans, but what makes the situation different, Mr. Speaker, and what the gentleman alludes to is what is driving our debt. What drove the debt in World War II, again, was a one-time event. What is driving the debt now is not scheduled to end, has no end really in sight, unless we reform the programs that are driving it. That is one of the things that is strikingly different in terms of the current path we are on from where we have been before, and that is why we have to arrest what is driving the debt, and that is our social entitlement programs. There is also another difference between now and World War II, and it is exemplified in this chart that I have, and that is who owns our debt. Of course, back in World War II, the gentleman will remember the bond posters that you could see all over the country, where we asked our private citizens to finance the war. Now, as you can see from this chart, the people we are asking to finance our debt not only are our own citizens but--increasingly and alarmingly more so--other countries, who by the very definition of being other nations don't have our best interests top of mind. That makes this a very different situation as well. We are increasingly, over time, becoming beholden to other countries to finance our spending problem. Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue yielding to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. ROKITA. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman again. The gentleman hits the nail right on the head. Middle class economics is a term, and it is just that. Watch what the President does to see how he affects the middle class.

Mr. ROKITA. Not what he says, exactly right. I also want to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to what the gentleman said on his poster board there about the eighth point, create a sustainable Federal budget, and the gentleman talked very articulately about the need for that. It seems obvious, quite frankly, I would think, to every American family that must do this inside the walls of their own dwellings, but for some reason, it escapes the Federal Government. I draw the House's attention, the Speaker's attention, to the wording that appears after that comma. It says, ``including entitlement reform''--``create a sustainable budget, including entitlement reform.'' We touched on this a little bit earlier in the hour that we have. At this point, I am worried, Mr. Speaker, that some who are watching this discussion may think: Well, wait a minute. Wait a minute. I put my hard-earned money into these programs, being Medicare and Social Security, primarily, every 2 weeks or whenever my paycheck comes, and I see the government taking out a lot, and that is my money. That is my property. What is Congress thinking? What are these two gentleman from South Carolina and Indiana and others who are going to speak here in a minute saying when they said entitlement reform? I put in; therefore, I should get out. I want to take just a minute to address that because, of course, in a very real sense, that is what every working American has done. In another equally real and more important sense, we haven't. We haven't, and that is what is driving our debt. Now, the gentleman had a pie graph up earlier that easily showed--and he will put it back up--the fact that most of our spending at the Federal Government level is on programs that are on autopilot. Right? We, as Congressmen, can't vote on these priorities through the budget mechanism itself. We have to affect the underlying law. That is to say Congressman Rice and Congressman Rokita don't get to determine, through the budget process, year after year, what someone's Social Security check is going to be, what Medicare services people are going to get or not get. That is not done necessarily through the budget. We talked about the need to reform those programs in the budget document, but it is not done through the budget language only. You have to reform that underlying law. Two-thirds of our budget, again, as the chart shows, is on autopilot. It goes year after year after year and gets worse after worse, and that is what is driving our debt. Now, to my point about have we paid for those programs or not, this is a chart that describes the average American working couple. This is a Medicare example, so this is not Social Security. This is Medicare. It shows that a couple making a combined $71,500 a year, on average, over a lifetime, has put in roughly about 30 percent of what they are taking out of Medicare. Let me say that again. They are putting in 30 percent. We are putting in, the average American couple, putting in 30 percent of what we are going to take out of Medicare. The rest, Mr. Speaker, goes on the deck, and that is the crux of the problem. If you go to the second set of bars, you see that the problem only gets worse, as a percentage of the amount we are putting in is only going to go down. That is what makes this a moral situation, a moral case that we are making the children of tomorrow pay, so that we can have more on our plate now, quite frankly. It is just not Medicare. Social Security is in a much better position than this, but it is on the same trend. It is not just our health care and our social entitlement programs. It is the highway trust fund, for example, which I hope we address, not only in our budget document, but throughout this Congress. To date, the President hasn't done that. So that is really the problem here. I yield briefly back to my good friend from South Carolina, Congressman Rice, and then move swiftly to Mr. Womack from the great State of Arkansas.

Mr. ROKITA. Yes.

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

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor State Senator Dorothy S. ``Sue'' Landske, a woman who was fully committed and dedicated to public service for close to a half century. She was known as a woman of warmth who gave indefatigably to those she represented and served. Sue began her career in public service in 1978 when she was elected Lake County's Township Assessor. She held that position until 1984 when her effort to represent the people of Indiana's 6th Senatorial District proved successful. While in the State Senate, Sue wrote and ushered to passage several significant pieces of legislation including bills to give free tuition to Purple Heart recipients, establish objective guidelines for creating legislative and congressional districts, and promote women entering the engineering field. In the final years of her senatorial tenure, Sue served as assistant president pro tempore and chair of the Senate Elections Committee. It was in the election law and administration capacity that I, as Indiana's 59th Secretary of State, worked most closely with her, particularly on Indiana's best in the nation Photo ID at the polls law and the groundbreaking Vote Centers law. She was an excellent lawmaker and a good friend. She was also a fellow ``Regionite,'' one of several colorful names given to residents of our shared home area of Lake County, in the northwest corner of Indiana. Service to the community extended beyond her elective service however. A veteran and Colonel of the National Guard Reserves, Sue also remained active in several community organizations. Her commitment to community service was widely recognized and she was a two-time recipient of the prestigious Sagamore of the Wabash Award, a high civilian honor granted only by the Governor. She received that award in both 1980 and 1983. She was also named Outstanding Republican Senator, Lake County Republican of the Year, Jay Cee's Citizen of the Year, and Business and Professional Woman of the Year. Despite her extraordinary service and recognition, Sue's true source of pride remained her loving family. She and her husband William, who also devoted his life to public service, celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary in 2007. She leaves her husband, daughters Cathy, Jackie, Pam and Cheryl, and cherished grandchildren. I offer to all of them, their extended families, and all Hoosiers who share the grief of her loss, my sincerest condolences.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the chairman for his leadership throughout this entire push. What do I mean by push? Madam Speaker, I mean the fact that for the last 7-plus years No Child Left Behind--the current Federal law of the land with regard to K-12 education in this country--has gone unrenewed. And for many of us, in a very real sense, that is just as well. Because after a decade of living under No Child Left Behind, and more importantly, our children being taught under No Child Left Behind, we realized where its shortcomings are and where we need to go next. So we have worked on this product. And unlike the Democratic substitute, Madam Chair, that we are just now hearing about, this product has been 4 years in the works. In fact, it is so well-tuned and so well-reviewed that it passed this House in the last Congress. Now, finally, with a Republican Senate, we have a chance to move real reform that puts power back in the hands of our parents, teachers, local leaders, and local taxpayers so that we can again make the child the most important thing in the school. We are sort of shooting with real bullets here. Again, we can get a product to the Senate. We can get that product to conference and then to the President's desk. So we are not talking in thin air here. Yet this Democratic substitute really does just that. Introduced just a few weeks ago during our markup, it seems to be an amalgamation of every idea that most parents and most teachers and most local taxpayers and entrepreneurs have found to be wrong with education ever since the Federal Government has been involved. And when I say wrong, it comes with a good deal of data and a good deal of evidence that says no Federal bureaucrat knows our kids better than that kid's teachers and parents and local school administrators. So the whole theme of the Student Success Act is to trust those people, knowing that they care about their kids just as much and, in probably every case, more than we do here in Washington. As the father of a 7-year-old boy with disabilities and a 5-year-old boy, I know that is how I feel. We need to act now to reverse the Federal mandates under No Child Left Behind and to stop the Obama administration from coercing States into adopting its preferred education reforms, including adoption of these Common Core standards. If we fail to act, the Secretary of Education will continue imposing his will on schools unilaterally. In essence, Madam Chair, a national school board. We have been working on this effort, like I said, for more than 4 years. Our goal from the beginning has been to roll back the role of Federal Government and return to State and local leaders the responsibility to deliver a quality education to their students. Now, some may say the Student Success Act certainly isn't perfect-- and, as we know, no piece of legislation is--but we have heard over the years the concerns, I would say, of every type of stakeholder involved in this debate, and we found the right way forward with the Student Success Act. Everything in the Student Success Act is significantly better than anything in current law. And so the question is to my colleagues--certainly my Republican colleagues, but also my Democratic colleagues: Do you want to move the ball forward or not? Do you want to do something, or not, for our children? Or, do you want the Department of Education to become this Nation's school board?

Mr. ROKITA

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

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

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chair, in closing, I would like to say that the whole theme, the whole purpose of the Student Success Act is the fact that we trust teachers, parents, local policymakers, local taxpayers more, thinking that they can do a better job than anyone out here in Washington, D.C. The arguments the gentlemen make are certainly good ones. Standards are a good thing; they should be made at the local and State level. The government that governs best is the one that is closest to the people. That is what the Student Success Act, in large part, is about. The gentleman from West Virginia indicates that he is the grandfather of a special needs child. I am the father of a special needs child. As one of the authors of the Student Success Act, I think these standards can be well adopted at the State and local level, and that is where they should be adopted. With that, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering his amendment, even though I am opposed to it. Mr. Chairman, States should have good textbooks for students that cover the material thoroughly, fairly, and most importantly, accurately. But there is no Federal role in determining what those books are or judging the quality of them, frankly. All the arguments the gentleman makes can be taken care of at the State level and at the local level. I fail to see how they would get any better result in any of his examples by having some Federal bureaucrat hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away from the situation do any better job with it. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government already is prohibited from weighing in on things like curriculum and standards. There is absolutely no role for the Federal Government in approving or overseeing the adoption of textbooks. I think that is a bad idea. It leads us on a slippery slope to even worse outcomes. So it is in that spirit and that vein that I must oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues, all of them, Republican and Democrat, to do so as well.

Mr. ROKITA. I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, again, for his concern, but I fail to see how this Capitol can do any better a job in solving the problem than the gentleman's State capitol or at the local level. The government that governs best is the government that is closest to the people, and that serves this situation well. Having nothing further to offer on this, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.