Bruce Westerman

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Perfect policy is rare or even impossible. Good policy requires hard work, sound science, good data and data analytics, common sense, and a little bit of give-and-take. Mr. Speaker, this is good policy, fair policy. Most importantly, it will provide for a better way of life for Americans. I urge support for S. 2012, as amended. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), our distinguished, hardworking, and, above all, compassionate and fair majority leader.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support for the inclusion of H.R. 2647, the Resilient Federal Forests Act, in the House amendment to S. 2012. The House passed H.R. 2647 with 262 bipartisan votes last July, and it has been waiting for Senate action since then. When we passed the bill nearly a year ago, we knew we were facing a severe wildfire season. We were correct. More than 10.1 million acres of forest land burned across the country, the largest number of acres ever recorded. Over 4,500 homes and other structures were destroyed. Mr. Speaker, these fires destroyed valuable resources, and emitted in the order of magnitude of 100 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere while burning up the equivalent renewable energy stored in our forests of 20 to 30 billion gallons of gasoline. Tragically, these fires also claimed the lives of seven firefighters who worked courageously to stop the spread of these wildfires into communities. When the House passed H.R. 2647 last summer, we hoped that the passage would spur action from the Senate. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. We have waited patiently for the Senate to offer its own legislation so we could sit down and negotiate a compromise. However, that has not been the case, so we should again ask the Senate to act on forestry reform. H.R. 2647 is premised on a simple idea: that the Forest Service and the BLM need to do more work to restore the health and resilience of our Nation's forests. We understand the problem clearly. Our forests are overgrown due to years of neglect. This problem cannot be solved immediately, but we have an obligation to our rural communities to do everything we can to help mitigate the problem. In drafting this bill, we included provisions which would allow our Federal land management agencies to be able to shorten lengthy environmental review periods when they already understand the environmental impacts of a proposed management action. This bill also encourages and rewards collaboration between diverse stakeholder groups. The Natural Resources Committee recognizes the chilling effect of unnecessary litigation and how that can prevent needed restoration work from occurring in our Nation's forests. The committee heard testimony from a variety of experts who testified about how restoration work is not being proposed by the Forest Service for fear that it will be litigated. My bill takes the simple step of requiring anyone who litigates a forest management project to post a bond if they are challenging a project put forth by a collaborative effort. It is not unreasonable to ask a litigant who threatens an urgently needed project that is put forth by a diverse group of stakeholders to have some skin in the game. This bill also recognizes the reality that we must rethink the manner in which we fund the fighting of catastrophic wildfires. The Forest Service is burdened with having to transfer funds from other accounts in order to cover the cost of wildfire suppression. Just last year, the Forest Service was forced to transfer $243 million from other agency accounts during 1 week in August in order to pay for firefighting costs. These transfers disrupt the very work that reduces the risk of wildfires in the first place. H.R. 2647 addresses this issue by allowing catastrophic wildfires to be treated like any other natural disaster. The Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior would be able to access FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund to help fight wildfires when all appropriated accounts are exhausted. This provision was drafted in a fiscally responsible manner to ensure that fighting these fires does not become a drain on our budget. Mr. Speaker, this bill will not make a difference in the health of our Nation's Federal forests overnight, but it provides urgently needed tools to help our land management agencies to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires in our communities and to be good stewards of a treasured national resource. I urge my colleagues to support the House amendment to S. 2012 so that we can go to conference and work out a solution to the many problems facing our Nation's Federal forests. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, Jesus said: ``Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.'' This poignant verse is inscribed on the headstone of Arkansas and American hero and Hot Springs native Chief Petty Officer Adam Brown. Adam's story is a story of loyalty and dedication to the American way of life, and it is an inspiring testament to overcoming adversity through faith. True to the Navy SEAL creed, Adam's strength and leadership abilities were forged by adversity. Although Adam's eagerness for risk led to trouble in his youth, his determination to do the right thing, fueled by a love for his family, faith, and country, led him to become a member of the elite SEAL Team Six. On March 17, 2010, while conducting a raid on an enemy stronghold in Komar province, Afghanistan, Chief Petty Officer Adam Brown selflessly placed himself in the enemy's line of fire to protect and assist his brothers in arms. Though his brave actions relieved the fire on his teammates and ultimately led to the capture of the stronghold, Adam was struck and killed by enemy fire. Many Members of this body as well as countless others have read Adam's inspiring life story in the best-selling book ``Fearless.'' Mr. Speaker, during this week before Memorial Day, it is my hope that this piece of legislation will not only serve to honor Chief Petty Officer Brown, but that it will also honor all of the men and women from Arkansas' Fourth Congressional District who have laid down their lives in defense of the United States of America and freedom. As we remember the fallen, let us also remember those who gave mentally, physically, and emotionally, people like Lieutenant Colonel Hugh Mills, Jr., who survived his helicopter being shot down 16 times and who was awarded three Silver Stars for his heroic actions in Vietnam. I thank Chairman Chaffetz and Ranking Member Cummings and the Oversight and Government Reform Committee for their attention to this piece of legislation.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of my amendment for a budget neutral increase in funding for Army surface-to-air missile systems. The Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Missile Segment Enhancement, or the MSE, is the next generation of the battle-proven PAC-3 interceptor for the Patriot air defense system. Along with its earlier generation PAC-3 interceptor, the Missile Segment Enhancement is the world's most capable air and missile defense missile. PAC-3 missiles are high-velocity interceptors that destroy incoming targets with direct body-to-body impact. This hit-to-kill impact produces a tremendous amount of energy that defeats tactical ballistic missiles carrying weapons of mass destruction and/or submunition payloads, cruise missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles and aircraft. The MSE missile provides a 50 percent improvement in altitude and 100 percent improvement in range over earlier PAC-3 interceptors and is required to address advance air and missile defense threats. MSE capability is in great demand across the deployed force. In fact, the MSE missiles have been on the Army's unfunded request top priorities list. Additional missiles have been on the Army UFR the past 2 years and have been funded by Congress. This amendment would allow approximately 20 new missiles to be purchased in fiscal year 2017, which would put the total at 105 missiles, which is still below the fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016 levels. If we add these additional 20 missiles, the unit cost of the missiles would go down as well because of the quantity of scale in the program. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to commend the Material Management and Minimization program for the work that they have done, but as was stated before, the House Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations said: A significant portion of the highly enriched uranium minimization efforts going forward will involve multiyear research and development activities. To better align research and development-related activities with resident expertise for managing such activities within the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, the recommendation shifts funding responsibility for the development of fuel for high-performance research reactors and for demonstrating and commercially deploying domestic-based technologies for the production of the medical isotope Mo-99 to defense nuclear proliferation research and development. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is the appropriate place to offset the funding for these additional missiles. These missiles are critical to our Nation's defense. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to emphasize that, even with these additional 20 missiles, we will still be below the numbers for FY 2015 and FY 2016. This is an unfunded request and high priority for the Army, and I encourage a positive vote on this amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize 43 years of service to young men in Garland County, Arkansas, by Coach Jerry Clay, whose 269 wins as head coach at Fountain Lake High School and Lake Hamilton High School are sixth all-time on the list of most wins in Arkansas high school football. Good coaches have the ability to teach their players to win consistently on the field. Great coaches teach their players to be winners in life. Jerry Clay is a great coach. Not only has he coached 14 conference championships and had teams compete in six State championships--winning two--many young men he coached have gone on to excel in virtually all areas of society, from doctors, to businessmen, to true American heroes like SEAL Team 6 operator Adam Brown, whose life story was chronicled in the best-seller book, ``Fearless.'' I will forever be grateful for the investment Jerry Clay made in my life as my coach, and I wish him many happy years in retirement.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 5046. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his work to combat the Nation's opioid epidemic. This legislation is important to the whole country and will especially have positive impacts in Arkansas by freeing up new grants for funds for drug courts. Drug courts have a positive impact on people's lives and are integral to countering our Nation's opioid epidemic. Drug courts in Arkansas have a strong record of success. Last week I visited with Judge Berlin Jones in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. His Jefferson County drug court has a recidivism rate of only 4.9 percent. Drug courts have also saved billions of taxpayer dollars, on average, because it costs $14 a day to send a person to a drug court whereas incarceration costs $58 per day in my State of Arkansas. Taxpayers also save money because these individuals can return to the workforce and provide for their families. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 5046 to counter this epidemic ruining our families and communities.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in honor of two legends in the National FFA program. Marion Fletcher and Troy Buck have been leaders in the Future Farmers of America for more than 50 years each. Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Buck have taught students the values of hard work, morals, and leadership. The love these men hold for agriculture education is evident in the numerous awards and recognition that have been bestowed upon them. They have lived lives of service and dedication to Arkansas, to agriculture, and, most importantly, to the youth of our great State, modeling to us the FFA motto of ``learning to do, doing to learn, earning to live, and living to serve.'' While I congratulate them on their impending retirements, I can't help but feel a loss for future generations of students who will miss out on the opportunity to learn from two men who impacted my life and the lives of countless others. Thank you, Mr. Buck and Mr. Fletcher, for your wisdom and mentorship.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourns to meet at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, May 3, 2016.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mid-America Science Museum in my hometown of Hot Springs, Arkansas, for being awarded the 2016 National Medal for Museum and Library Service. Mid-America has not only made a difference in the lives of local families, but it has impacted generations of Arkansans. The museum's focus on bringing science education to the masses in a fun way has made it a leader in the State and Nation. Mid-America's recent expansion continues its mission, bringing science to life for generations to come. The museum's 2016 national medal confirms what we in Arkansas have known for many year--that Mid- America is a world-class museum, providing world-class educational experience to Arkansas' next generation.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor two heroes from the Fourth Congressional District of Arkansas. Nicholas Brown of Hot Springs and Michael Tharp of Hope were awarded the American Ambulance Association Stars of Life awards this week. These men are both veterans who served their Nation with valor before returning home to Arkansas and joining the private sector. But their sense of duty brought them back to public service, with both men now working as emergency medical services professionals. They are first responders saving lives in their hometowns every day. I congratulate Nicholas and Michael on this award and thank them for their service.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama for his important work on this issue, and also the gentleman from Ohio. I rise today in support of H.R. 4557, the BRICK Act. This legislation delays an unnecessary EPA rule that imposes overly strict emission standards on American brick kilns. Manufacturers shouldn't have to deal with the hassles of an overzealous regulator in the first place, but they should at least get to have their day in court fighting this unreasonable regulation before incurring millions of dollars of expense to comply. Since 2003, brick manufacturers have reduced emissions from kilns by 95 percent. However, EPA decided to impose another Washington mandate on small businesses, which they may not even be able to meet. Shuttering U.S. brick factories will lead to higher costs for American consumers, making it even more expensive to open a business or raise a family. Additionally, manufacturers will shed good-paying jobs in places like Malvern, Arkansas. And, once again, our manufacturing needs will move offshore to a place that pollutes much worse than we do here. Not only is the EPA out of touch with reality on this issue, they exhibit no common sense when they regulate jobs away from America and send them to countries that pay sub-par wages and have sub-par pollution control technology. They have a lose-lose proposition. Mr. Speaker, this is the same EPA that negligently released millions of gallons of toxic mine water into the Animas River, tried to cover up and minimize their actions, refused to take responsibility, and resisted being held accountable. If anyone needs more regulation, it is this out-of-control Federal agency, not hard-working Americans. Mr. Speaker, for the sake of our environment and economy, I urge the House to pass the BRICK Act to keep the air cleaner and to save good- paying jobs here at home.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the subject of this Special Order.

Mr. WESTERMAN. I would again like to thank the gentleman from Alabama for his comments. Mr. Speaker, you have heard from three freshmen Members today. Next I would like to yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), a more seasoned member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. WESTERMAN. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his thoughtful input, his training, and his expertise. This is the kind of expertise that we need to rely on here in this body. Next, as Congressman Brat talked about the laboratories of democracy being the States, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer), who spent a career working with States all across this country and may possibly have a better understanding of more State policies in more regions of the country than anybody else, certainly, that I know.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was trained as an engineer. In my engineering training, we were taught that, before you can solve a problem, you have to identify and define the problem. If you solve the wrong problem, you accomplish very little. I serve on the Budget Committee. On the Budget Committee, we take an in-depth look at all of government. As we examine the programs and as we examine revenues and expenditures of the Federal Government, we see many issues that are of great concern to the future of our country. We see threats to our safety and our security. We see overreach and hassles created by the very government that is here to serve. Mr. Speaker, there is a gargantuan issue facing our country that threatens all our futures. Our gross national debt, fueled by out-of- control spending, continues to grow and is past $19 trillion, which exceeds our gross domestic product. Today, while much of the country focuses on primary elections, several of my colleagues from the Budget Committee, including Chairman Price, wish to have an open and honest conversation about this issue of debt and spending that you are probably not going to hear much about anywhere else. We not only hope to bring attention to this issue by defining the problem. We will propose real solutions to restore fiscal order so that Americans can thrive and Americans--not the government or any one person, but Americans--can make America all that she can be. If we delve into the major fiscal issues facing our country, it becomes obvious that we have an enormous spending problem. I have a chart here. This chart shows us where we have been, where we were in 1965. It shows where we are today with the numbers through 2015. It also predicts where we will be in the future in 2026. The spending represented by the red on these pie charts is what is called mandatory spending. If you want to think of it this way, this spending is on cruise control. This spending is on programs that were put in place by previous Congresses. Really, if we didn't even meet anymore, this spending in the red will continue to go on. The spending in the blue is the discretionary spending. That is the money that is spent by appropriations that are done in Congress every year. The 12 appropriation bills that we hope to get back to regular order this year and pass each of those 12 bills out of the House and out of the Senate and put them on the President's desk relate to the spending that is highlighted in blue on these pie charts. The omnibus bill from last year, that affected what is in the blue. It didn't affect what is in the red. As you look at these charts, you can see that in 50 years we have had a little bit of a flip-flop. In 1965, we were right at two-thirds of our spending was discretionary, which was controlled by the appropriations process, and right around one-third of our spending was mandatory. But over that 50-year period, we have seen tremendous growth in spending. We have seen that now over two-thirds of our spending is mandatory and less than one-third of our spending is discretionary. So, when Congress meets and we debate these appropriations bills, we are only debating about one-third of the spending that takes place by the Federal Government. The real story is what is projected to happen in 2026, just 10 years from now. Over 50 years, we saw $17.8 trillion of increased spending in our gross debt. That is $356 billion a year. But in just 10 short years from today, the Congressional Budget Office projects that our gross debt will be $29.3 trillion. That will be a growth of over $11.2 trillion in a 10-year period. That is over $1 trillion per year that we will see in spending growth between now and 2026 if we stay on the path that we are currently on. Mr. Speaker, I hope to explain today why we can't stay on this path. There are a lot of issues to look at. My colleagues on the Committee on the Budget will look at the path that we are on, and they will look at different areas of this spending. We will provide solutions to how to avoid the future financial crisis that is only getting worse. We are already in a financial crisis. When we look at what contributes to our national debt, to our gross debt, $645 billion this year will go to debt all because of mandatory spending. Our national debt, our gross debt, will increase $1.1 trillion. It is at about $19.3 trillion this fiscal year. Only part of that can be controlled through discretionary spending. We have to start addressing the issues with mandatory spending if we truly want to address the fiscal condition of our country. This next slide breaks it down in a little bit more detail. Remember, red is mandatory spending and blue is discretionary spending. We see that under the discretionary spending, the part that we debate so vigorously in this Chamber, the part that makes all the headlines, most of that, or about half of that, is in defense, and then the rest of it is nondefense discretionary spending. There are five areas--just five areas--that over two-thirds of everything spent in this country go to. As we saw on the previous chart, by 2026 those five areas will make up over three-fourths, will make up 78 percent of every dollar spent by the Federal Government. Those five areas are: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the debt, and kind of a lump category of other mandatory spending. Right now Social Security is the largest expenditure of the Federal Government at $882 billion per year. If we look at Social Security and Medicare, these are programs that working Americans have invested in that are very important but are headed to insolvency. We have to fix them to preserve them for all of us who have contributed to them. The people who project the numbers show that by 2030, on the course we are on, Medicare will be insolvent. By 2034, Social Security will be insolvent. Mr. Speaker, the young people in our country should be alarmed at this. By 2034 and 2030, these programs that we have all contributed to are projected to be insolvent if we don't change course. If we look at Medicaid, it grew by double-digit percentage points last year, a lot of that because of the Affordable Care Act. If we look at other mandatory spending, these are our social welfare programs. These were programs that were put in place with good intentions but are getting poor results. Finally, the one that probably should concern us all the most is our interest on the debt. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that by 2025, if we don't change course, interest on the debt will be a larger expenditure than Social Security. As our debt continues to balloon and grow, the interest that we must pay on that debt will also balloon and grow, and that is why mandatory spending will become such a large part of all the spending and really make our discretionary spending somewhat minuscule compared to the gargantuan size of mandatory spending. I want to talk about just a couple of these areas. Some of my colleagues will talk about other areas as we move forward. If we look at some of our social welfare programs and our Medicaid program, again, these programs were put in place for people who were truly in need. They were put in place for a hand up instead of a handout, but oftentimes they have become just the opposite of that. Some of these programs, instead of helping people out of poverty, they trap people in poverty. Now, Medicaid is a unique issue because it was put in place for aged people, for disabled people, for blind people, people that we would all agree we need to help out and lend a helping hand, but now there are a lot of able-bodied, working-age adults--these are people 18-65 years old who are not disabled--who are receiving Medicaid benefits. We are seeing a lot of increase in cost there. We are seeing a lot of increase in cost in social welfare programs, such as SNAP. One area where we can address our budget, where we can address this looming fiscal crisis, is in our social welfare programs. Let's look at what has happened just in the SNAP program. Since 2000, increased enrollment in SNAP programs has grown 171 percent. To say that another way, for every new job added since 2000-- and that is 4.3 million of them--30.4 million people have been added to food stamps. That is seven people being added to the Food Stamp program for every new job that has been created in this country since 2000. Again, instead of lifting people out of poverty, many of our welfare programs are actually trapping people in poverty. If we look at some of the numbers on SNAP, 57 percent of able-bodied adult households have no earned income. These are people receiving the food stamp benefits. What is even maybe more alarming is 75 percent of the people receiving SNAP benefits, 75 percent of childless adult households have no earned income. That is 17.3 million people. That is a 252 percent increase since 2000 in this one demographic of childless adult households who have zero income who are receiving SNAP benefits. Only 50 percent of parent households have earned income. So what happens? What happens if we change the scenario? What happens when you move people from welfare to work? Well, Kansas tried a program. They tried a program to restore work requirements for able-bodied, childless adults in 2013, and they saw fantastic results from that. They saw a 50 percent immediate decline in enrollment when they enacted work requirements for able-bodied, working-age adults on this program. They saw a 68 percent long-term decline in enrollment, and they saw a 168 percent increase in work participation rates among the enrollees. They saw a 133 percent increase in average income of able-bodied, childless adult enrollees. They saw a 55 percent increase in average income of able-bodied, childless adult enrollees. Mr. Speaker, a number that we can't ever forget is that only 2.9 percent of full-time workers live in poverty. If we want to pull people out of poverty, we need to create an environment where people can work, where they can pull themselves out of poverty. We have also found that in these social welfare programs like the SNAP program and like Medicaid, where you have got able-bodied, working-age adults on those programs, that the populations overlap. So if you are able to get people back into the workforce and help the SNAP program, you are also going to cut costs out of the Medicaid program. You get a double bang for your buck when you get people back in the workforce. We need to train people. We need to assist people to get back to work. That is what these programs were originally put in place for. We have got to get back to that. It has been said many times before, but I think it is worth reminding, that the best social program is still a job. Again, only 2.9 percent of full-time workers live in poverty in this country. If we implement work requirements for programs like SNAP, for people who are receiving Medicaid benefits, it will be on those who are able-bodied, working-age adults. We are not going to put this requirement on disabled people. We are not going to put this requirement on elderly people in nursing homes who are dependent on Medicaid. We are not going to put it on children or blind people. This is for able-bodied, working-age adults. We could save billions of dollars in the Medicaid program by doing this. We can start to address these fiscal issues with one solution of requiring work for people who are receiving benefits that were put in place to help them get back to work. It worked in Kansas. It has worked in Maine. It has worked in other States. It can work all across our country. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Brat), a very capable and well-meaning and well-serving individual.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his comments. This is an American problem. It is not a Republican problem or a Democratic problem. It is a bipartisan debt that we all created, and it is going to take bipartisan solutions to fix this debt. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita), the vice chair of the Budget Committee.

Mr. WESTERMAN. I thank the gentleman from Indiana for his remarks. I thank him also for his leadership on the Budget Committee. I thank him for his passion to see a better future for our kids and for our grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, having served in a State legislature before coming to Congress, I served in one where we had to balance our budget. And in our State legislature, our single largest expenditure was, by far, Medicaid. Medicaid exceeded all the money that we spent on public education, higher education, and the Department of Corrections combined. We spent more money on this one Federal State program than we spent on all of education, and that we spent on our prison program. Mr. Speaker, there is an inverse incentive for States to be good stewards of Medicaid money. In my State, we received $2.37 of Federal money for every $1 of State money that we spent. What my colleague from Indiana is talking about is giving States incentives to manage these programs. If the States had incentives to manage the programs in a better way right now, their hands would be tied by CMS. The Federal Government won't allow the States to create programs and manage their Medicaid population the way that the States could if they had the opportunity to do that. If we give these laboratories of democracy across the country the ability to innovate and the ability to meet the needs of the people that they serve, then they will do that. Government has always been most effective when it is closest to the people. I served on a school board. I know that I had a lot more interaction with my constituents on the school board because I lived in the same community with them than I did as a State legislator or even as I do as a Member of Congress. We have to be able to give States more flexibility. We have to let them innovate and let them learn from one another across the country to use ideas that work one place and adapt them for another place. That is how we bring fiscal stability back to our Federal budget, by allowing States to manage their State budgets better. As we look at these mandatory spending programs, as the gentleman from Indiana mentioned, the large part of this mandatory spending-- nearly half of it--is all associated with health care. That is Medicare, which is $634 billion in 2015; Medicaid, $350 billion in 2015; and then other programs that make up about $47 billion. Those, combined, are greater than the one single largest expenditure, which is Social Security, which we obviously need to reform, not to punish people but to make it sustainable, to make it last for those who really need the program, and to make it last for all Americans who have invested in that program. The same thing for Medicare. If we refuse to make changes, if we continue to let the status quo be the current reality, then we will see all of these programs shrink and become insolvent over time, and at the same time we will see our Federal debt continue to bloom, and we will see the amount of interest we pay on the debt continue to grow. Now is the time for us to take action. Now is the time for us to not only produce a budget that balances, but to enact that budget and to follow that budget. Again, I would like to thank all the members of the Budget Committee who spoke on the issues today. We will be speaking on them more as we move forward. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 2406.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment that is a commonsense amendment that prevents discrimination against hunters on public Federal lands by preventing the Forest Service from creating their own hunting laws that are in conflict with State laws on neighboring State and privately owned lands. Mr. Chairman, for many people, the public lands on the national forests are the only place they have to hunt. There are many traditions and many different ways that people enjoy hunting in the outdoors in my State as well as others. We already have similar language in the bill for national forests in Louisiana, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Arkansas, and I support adding the Mark Twain National Forest in Missouri to this bill.