Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this week the Members of the 114th United States Congress took their oaths of office. Families and friends from around the country came to participate in this great American tradition of representative democracy and to support their loved ones. I was pleased that my own wife and five daughters were here with me as well.

The start of a new Congress is always an exciting time to renew our government and the promise of America, but as we all know, we face tremendous challenges. Political dysfunction and partisan gridlock have made smart and effective government very difficult here.

An arthritic economic recovery has dimmed the financial prospects of too many small businesses and their families. In our time of social fracture, more and more people are feeling directionless and alone.

Mr. Speaker, as I often like to say, there is nothing wrong in America that can't be fixed by what is right in America, but this will require bold resolve, innovative public policy, and a return to our highest ideals.

We must restore our economic vibrancy through responsible government, reclaiming our best traditions, and building a culture of life that respects the dignity and rights of all persons.

Let's repurpose Washington. Let's turn our country around.

Mr. Speaker, I thank our chairman, Mr. Rogers, for his steadfast commitment and hard work on this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, as President Kennedy once said, ``To govern is to choose,'' and the key here is to try and choose wisely.

This bill is a result of a long and arduous and democratic process. It is a result of the extensive effort of the Appropriations Committee, with input from Members, to try and deliver effectively prioritized government services.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't agree with everything in the bill. I don't think anyone here does. But the question is, are we going to move forward and govern a bit more towards something a bit better? And what is good in this bill? First of all, it continues to prioritize the right type of budgeting and reduce spending. The spending levels in the bill are $176 billion below fiscal year 2010 funding levels. Although our deficit has come down significantly through a smarter budgeting process and some tax reform, nonetheless our deficit is still way too high. We have work to do in this regard, and this bill does make significant progress on that front.

There are also important reforms. Some big ones involve the IRS. Their problems that they imposed on the American people have begun to be curtailed here.

Second, the bill also addresses the sad and difficult issue of the emerging need to fight Ebola and its spread.

It positions the U.S. Congress, as well, to curtail the President's executive action on immigration moving forward, which represents a very serious overreach on the part of the administration and a threat to the separation of powers.

The bill provides a pay raise for our troops and important funding for our veterans programs.

Another fact, Mr. Speaker: I am on the agricultural subcommittee. We work very hard to continue our strong tradition of production agriculture while funding new emerging food systems that link the farmer to the family and help beginning and young farmers.

Mr. Speaker, I think we can do better in certain areas, such as providing the right type of development assistance, which truly protects women and children and doesn't entangle us with organizations such as the U.N. Population Fund.

But it is important to remember that in the volatile Middle East, the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt continues to hold with significant commitment from us, and that is an important part of this bill.

On balance, I will be supportive, and I want to thank Mr. Rogers, our chairman, for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank my friend and colleague, Chairman Chris Smith, for his steadfast leadership on this issue, this important bill, as well as on so many other concerns that affect vulnerable persons around the world.

Again, Congressman Smith, you rightly pointed out that Dr. Rajiv Shah, the Agency Director for the United States Agency for International Development, has been steadfast in his leadership on this as well and deserves a tremendous amount of credit.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this important bipartisan initiative to save the lives of hurting people around the world. The United States has a decades-long history on food security, and this act--the Global Food Security Act, also known as Feed the Future-- really does three things: it saves lives; it creates sustainable development throughout the world; and it strengthens our own national security by stopping the underlying problems that lead to international instability.

Americans are the most generous people in the world. This bill continues our tradition of generosity in a smart, whole-of-government approach that combines the goodwill of the private sector as well as charities for a 21st century approach to development aid. Feed the Future is one of the most cost-effective and results-oriented international development initiatives that we have championed to date. It is the right thing to do.

Many of some estimated 800 million people throughout the world who suffer from chronic hunger rely on agriculture to make a living. Back in 2007 and 2008, we launched this response to the global food crisis by helping to bring self-sufficiency to struggling agricultural communities worldwide. By working together with partner countries that are invested in taking responsibility for their own success, what started out as a modest program has developed into a serious global commitment to end hunger and improve nutrition standards, especially for vulnerable women and their children.

In 2013 alone, market-based agricultural productivity initiatives funded by Congress reached more than 12.5 million children with good nutrition and has helped some 7 million farmers leverage new agricultural technologies on nearly 10 million acres of land. Importantly as well, Feed the Future has leveraged more than $10 billion in private sector investment--the majority from African businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very thoughtful measure, which has earned broad-based support from the U.S. agricultural sector, universities nationwide, faith-based nongovernmental organizations, as well as private enterprise. We will never regret the good we can do in helping feed the hungry, and the return on this investment will surely compound to the benefit of future generations in, perhaps, ways we can never measure.

To everyone who has been involved here and to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I want to thank you all for working in such a bipartisan spirit to get this important bill done.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources for his leadership on this issue and for his many, many years of devoted service to this body. We will miss you. All the best in the future. Thank you so much for your service.

Let me also thank the ranking member, Mr. DeFazio, for his support on this important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a feasibility study for the Chief Standing Bear National Historic Trail.

Why is this important? Because, as has already been mentioned, Chief Standing Bear holds a special place in Native American, as well as United States history. Establishing a trail in his name would be an outstanding way to recognize his deep contribution to the well-being of our country.

I would like to provide some additional background on this extraordinary individual who, again, prevailed in one of the most important court cases for Native Americans in our country's history.

Chief Standing Bear was a Ponca chief. In the 1800s, the Ponca tribe made its home in the Niobrara River Valley in the area of northeast Nebraska. In 1877, the United States Government pressured the Poncas from their homeland, compelling them to move to Indian territory in Oklahoma.

Not wanting to subject his people to a confrontation with the government, Standing Bear obliged and led them from their homes to their new reservation in Oklahoma. That journey was particularly harsh and the new land was inhospitable. Nearly a third of the tribe died along the way from starvation, malaria, and other illness, including Standing Bear's own daughter, Prairie Flower, and later, his son named Bear Shield.

Standing Bear had promised Bear Shield that he would bury him back home, back home in their native land in the Niobrara River Valley of northeast Nebraska. Embarking on that trip in the winter of 1878, Standing Bear led a group of Poncas. When they reached the Omaha reservation, the United States Army stopped Standing Bear and arrested him for leaving Oklahoma without permission. He was then taken to Fort Omaha and held there to stand trial.

In the meantime, Standing Bear's plight actually attracted national attention; first, in the predecessor to the current Omaha World Herald, the Omaha Daily Herald, which is our local newspaper back home, and through that, the story became well publicized.

At the conclusion of his 2-day trial, Standing Bear himself was allowed to speak. In doing so, he raised his hand, Mr. Speaker, and he had this to say:

That hand is not the color of yours, but if I pierce it, I

shall feel pain. If you pierce your hand, you will feel pain.

The blood that will flow from mine will be the same color as

yours. I am a man. God made us both.

With those profound words, Mr. Speaker, on that late spring day in 1879, I believe that Chief Standing Bear expressed the most profound of American sentiments: the belief in the inherent dignity and, therefore, rights of all persons, no matter their ethnicity, no matter their color. To the credit of Judge Elmer Dundy, he ruled then that Native Americans were full persons within the meaning of the law for the first time in that trial.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the story of the great Ponca chief is a story of strength and grace and dignity in the protection of the most basic of human rights. I also believe it is a story that needs to be told again and again, understood, and cherished by all Americans of coming generations.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the establishment of the Chief Standing Bear National Historic Trail would honor both his courage and legacy, the legacy of this brave individual, and his contribution to the civil liberties of our Nation.

With that, I urge my colleagues to support the bill and, again, thank the gentlemen for their support as well.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his hard work on this very difficult subject.

Mr. Speaker, several months ago, our best CIA analyst could not have predicted that large swaths of Iraq and Syria would be overrun, conquered, by a group called ISIL, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

ISIL is better financed, better armed, commands more territory, and boasts a larger army than al Qaeda ever has in its dark history. Its twisted form of religion is eighth century barbarism wielding 21st century weaponry.

Mr. Speaker, they kill, they behead, they crucify, they rape, and they fly a black banner of death wherever they go.

Of late, appropriate American leadership has stopped their advance and prevented further humanitarian catastrophe. Now, the question is what to do next. At this point, we are debating a narrow amendment to authorize President Obama to train and arm so-called moderate Syrian rebels.

Mr. Speaker, several months ago, I offered an amendment to stop any potential arms from flowing to the Syrian opposition. At that time, there was no broad strategy. Weaponizing moderate rebels, in a battleground of shifting loyalties and no guarantee of victory, was an ad hoc idea that could have made the situation much worse.

Now, this new amendment is narrowly tailored with appropriate benchmarks and aggressive oversight; yet, in reality, we are trying to manage very low expectations, and I remain concerned. Unfortunately, this distracts us from a more complete discussion of the overall strategy as outlined by the President.

One thing has to be clear and must continually be made clear: this is the world's problem, not America's problem alone. The international coalition must be truly robust, not symbolic, and include regional Sunni Muslim nations who must fight for their own protection.

The broader answer here is a regeneration of Iraqi forces who must also fight for themselves; plus the Kurds must be truly empowered to defeat ISIL near their homes and to set up protective zones for neighboring minority and vulnerable communities. Finally, cutting off the financing and support for ISIL, hopefully, ensures that this rampage will be short-lived.

Mr. Speaker, action has risks, but the consequences of inaction are too grave. ISIL is a threat to all innocent persons and a threat to civilization itself.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 495 I was inadvertently detained during rollcall No. 495 and missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

I thank the gentleman from Texas, my good friend, Congressman Gohmert. I appreciate your yielding, and I appreciate your willingness to engage in the most important dialogues facing our Nation night after night. Thank you again for allowing me to intrude a bit on your time.

I wanted to raise something of the utmost urgency, Mr. Speaker.

Mosul is Iraq's second largest city. For 1600 years, Mosul has been a center of Christian life, and, today, not a single Christian remains.

Now, who could have imagined that 1 month ago--just a month ago-- large swaths of the country of Iraq would be invaded--conquered--by an army of religious fanatics who would fly a flag that is a black banner of death.

After capturing Mosul, this group, known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, commonly called ISIS, issued an ultimatum to the Christians who lived in this city. They said three things: you must depart; you must convert to Islam--or you will die by the sword.

They did more than that.

Mr. Speaker, they did this: this is the Arabic letter for ``N,'' and it is pronounced ``none.'' It is a symbol that stands for the word ``Nazarene,'' which is a denigrating term used to describe Christians in the area by some. In their brutal campaign against Christians and other religious minorities, ISIS spray-painted this letter on the doors of the remaining Christians' homes, their businesses and their churches, except they didn't do it in gold. They did it in red--blood red.

Leave, convert, or die.

Mr. Speaker, Iraq's Christians have just as much right as anybody else to be there. That community has traditionally served--even in a minority status--as a leavening influence, oftentimes trying to build bridges where there were ethnic or religious tensions.

People all around the world, fortunately, are recognizing the grotesque injustice that is happening. Even though we are busy here, debating all types of other concerns, nonetheless, in a land very, very far away, people are being told that they must leave their homes--their ancestral homelands--and go to who knows where or they will die.

Fortunately, there is a movement that is now happening. Many people around the world are taking that red symbol of death that was painted on those Christians' homes, and they are turning it into this gold symbol of solidarity, saying that, if we are going to find peace in the world--if we are ever at least going to find a bit of stability--we are going to have to come to some deeper awareness of understanding of the nature and dignity of all human persons and of that most sacred right of religious liberty: to be able to express one's faith tradition, particularly an ancient faith tradition which has existed in this area for 1600 years.

We must find a way to elevate that value. So, in the midst of this chaos, this horror, this grotesque injustice, there is a little bit of glimmering light, in that people all around the world are starting to use this symbol on Facebook and social media.

Mr. Speaker, all I wanted to do tonight is say I stand with them in solidarity.

I yield back to my good friend from Texas.

I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to commend Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for bringing this bill to the floor. I am a proud member of this subcommittee. Their work is quite remarkable. And it is one of the subcommittees that tries to achieve a harmonious balance of bipartisanship in a very difficult and divided environment. I want to thank them both for that.

Mr. Chairman, most Americans may not realize, even though this is an Energy and Water bill, that there are important components of our national security buried within this bill. There is our nonproliferation regimen by which we help secure fissile materials and the technology that could potentially go with the development of nuclear weapons capability and it falling into the hands of the wrong people. This is very, very important work.

My amendment seeks to move $25 million from the mixed oxide fuel program and move it into the defense nuclear nonproliferation accounts, such as the global threat reduction initiative and other similar accounts.

The reason I am offering this is I am very concerned about the future of the mixed oxide, the MOX, fuel program. So is the Department of Energy. So is the administration. So is our committee. Everyone is very concerned about the potential viability of this program which we have already spent $4 billion of taxpayer money on.

This bill currently calls for about $350 million to be spent. The judgment of the committee is that it is necessary to do this, to put it on what I call a ready standby phase so that if the Department of Energy can come back to us and tell us that MOX has some viability in the future, that we will be ready to move it forward without spending enormous new amounts of money, versus what the administration has suggested in terms of putting it into cold storage.

If they determine it is viable, then we would have to spend a lot more to ramp it up. If it is not determined to be viable, then the cold storage route may have been the more prudent thing to do, which, as I recall, the administration wants to spend about $175 million on, if I have that correct, on the mixed oxide fuel plant.

Well, this causes a real dilemma for me because, again, we have got a situation in which our other accounts in the nonproliferation area are coming down. So it would seem to me prudent, if I was making this decision on my own, to actually move some money from an uncertain future in the mixed oxide fuel regimen into the nonproliferation accounts, such as the global threat reduction initiative.

However, one more caveat. On our nonproliferation reduction initiatives, there is also some uncertainty as to whether or not the Department of Energy can absorb the capacity of new money. It is not clear on how we would apply that. So there are some significant dynamics here that I think lend itself to further consideration.

Now, I am very grateful to the chairman in hearing me out, having heard these concerns when we are debating this on the committee as well as the ranking member's sensitivity to these whole dynamics.

I am going to withdraw this amendment. But I would ask that as we are moving forward--not in the next year, but in the next few weeks, as we complete these appropriations bills, that we urge the Department of Energy to give us some clarity about the real trajectory of the mixed oxide fuel, the MOX, program. And if we determine that its future is not viable, we need to stop wasting money now. We need to pull it into other areas that make more sense, that are higher public goods, that help stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the fissile materials that would go into them.

This is not a simple policy debate. I get that. We are trying to make judgment calls with a lack of information here. But it seems to me that if you are prioritizing something, it is the nuclear nonproliferation initiatives and reframing that for the 21st century. It is time that we do that.

The Department of Energy has suggested to us that they are ready to work hand-in-glove with us on thinking through a dynamic, new robust policy for nonproliferation.

With that, I would hope that the chairman will give assent to my request and continue to work aggressively with me on how we creatively construct this moving forward.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your understanding of the importance of this debate.

I ran a simple calculation. If we are going to consider this an important jobs bill, that is $233,000 per job that we are about to spend. That is a hefty, hefty price for a jobs bill.

Saying we have completed 60 percent of it at $4 billion, but we are not sure of its viability in the future is like saying we don't know where we are going, but any road will do. I am worried about that.

Maybe it becomes viable, maybe it still maintains a status in terms of our nuclear proliferation regime, but maybe not. We have got to get to this answer because we don't want to waste any more money, or we need to invest properly, moving forward, in the future.

That will be something that will actually help us reduce the probability of fissile materials spreading internationally.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I believe this amendment is absolutely consistent with the underlying portions of the bill that reaffirm that the policy of the United States should be that we will not enter into armed conflict in Syria.

Madam Chair, along the Syrian-Turkish border there is a family--a mother, a father, and six children. One of the children is named Elias.

Elias, one day, in his home town in Syria, was walking to school. He had his hand on the schoolroom door. Then all of a sudden he felt another hand come across his face and everything went dark as he was blindfolded and kidnapped by a Syrian rebel group in the name of liberating the Syrian people.

Fortunately, the family was able to get Elias back, but they had to flee to a refugee camp from their hometown in Syria. Perhaps they are the lucky ones, because 160,000 other Syrians are dead.

Let's make no mistake: the current President, the ruler of Syria, Assad, is responsible for many of these deaths. Assad is a brutal tyrant. But many innocent Syrians, like Elias and his family, fear the rebel armies even more than Assad.

The rebel movement is a battleground of shifting alliances and bloody conflicts between groups that now include multinational terrorist organizations. Some of the most violent and the successful rebel militias are linked to al Qaeda.

Now, sending our weapons into this chaotic war zone could inadvertently help these extremists, jihadists who would be all too eager to seize American weaponry. And it has already happened.

The horror show now unfolding in Iraq suggests that we have already, unintentionally, aided sociopathic zealots. The murderous leaders of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria have seized American Humvees and weaponry from the disintegrating Iraqi army.

Madam Chair, a CIA analyst on acid could not have imagined this nightmare scenario a week ago. Our best foreign policy analyst could not have seen the ferocity and speed of the collapse of large portions of Iraq.

What we are witnessing is the development of a multinational quasi- emirate, ruled with a ruthless interpretation of Shari'a law. The ISIS marches under the black flag of death.

Madam Chair, the naive notion that we can deliver weapons to vetted, moderate opposition groups at war with other rebel militias gives no guarantee that our weaponry won't be seized or diverted, making an already terrible civil war even worse.

The ad-hoc arming of Syrian rebels, absent a broader multinational strategy in the region, is a recipe for disaster, for further disaster.

Look, I understand this is a complicated situation. It is a hard situation, and there are no good options here. But we cannot afford to do something that may make the situation worse.

In my judgment, the potential benefits from this policy do not outweigh this very significant risk. Just talk to the people in the refugee camps. Talk to Muslim families, Christian families who have had to flee their home. Talk to them. I think we should all remember Elias and what his family has had to go through.

Madam Chair, at this time I yield as much time as he would like to consume to the Congressman from New York, Representative Chris Gibson, Army Iraq war veteran, Purple Heart, professor at West Point.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank both the chairman and the ranking member for this respectful dialogue.

These are tough judgment calls. I understand that. In my judgment, the risks do not outweigh the potential rewards here.

Until we have a strong, significant multinational strategy to contain this contagion, I believe an ad hoc policy--which it appears to me we now have--by sending weapons into this area, potentially could make this situation worse.

As the gentleman from New York, Congressman Gibson, pointed out, it is the responsibility of Congress to potentially revisit this issue if we need to reassess the situation, and it becomes much clearer and necessitates U.S. action; but now, to me and my conscience, it is important to say no.

Last year, we had a very strong bipartisan vote that demanded that the United States would not enter into a military conflict in Syria. The American people spoke loudly and clearly, and I think this is simply an extension of that understanding.

I understand the differences of opinion here in judgment, and I very much appreciate the time and respect accordingly.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Fortenberry

Amendment No. 21: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Fortenberry

Amendment No. 1: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, we just heard an extensive debate about the future of America's defense policy. I want to commend the chairman for including an important amendment that I offered that does address a serious, serious issue.

It is very hard to react to something that has not happened yet. Frankly, we are in a race between collaboration or catastrophe in regards to nuclear security and the threat of nuclear proliferation around the world. This technology is spreading very, very rapidly.

With the Department's effort at cost savings and reorganization, it is important that our nonproliferation efforts not slip, not become a second priority. It may be easy to do that because, again, when things don't happen, it appears that we are secure. This is one of the most grave difficulties facing not only the United States, but all of humanity.

So I am very grateful that in this bill we now have an effort to demand that the Department explain its important reorganization efforts and how it is going to address the future of nonproliferation issues as we work toward nuclear security, robust force strength, and deterrence. Nonproliferation goes hand-in-hand with those important national security elements.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 44 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, May 22, 2014, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, when pressed last week by a reporter about the tragic events on September 11, 2012, in Benghazi, Libya, the former spokesperson for the National Security Council said this: ``Dude, this was like 2 years ago.''

Now, this juvenile and unprofessional response has only added to the concern that we do not--still do not--have a full understanding of what occurred that night. What we do know is that our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans are dead.

Now, several congressional committees have looked into this question and have concluded different things, and there are many lingering questions still unanswered. They have reached different conclusions. But these lingering questions are made worse by the fact that we now know that emails from the administration may have been withheld from Congress.

This is the reason that we need a select committee, to probe deeply and get clear answers with a singular goal in mind: to restore the public trust.

I thank my friend and colleague, Congressman Terry, for his steadfast commitment in trying to find some creative resolution for this problem.

Mr. Chairman, he is very right in outlining this timeline of frustrations that we have had in dealing with the VA and in simply trying to get a hearing to discuss innovative ideas that are potentially out there to resolve this very difficult situation that we have in giving veterans the highest service that they deserve.

I did want to mention to my colleague and thank Chairman Culberson as well for working with me on getting some language in the current bill that, hopefully, gets us out of this dilemma and reframes it.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to read the language that is in this bill.

It reads:

Alternative Financing:

The committee is concerned about meeting the need for

access to high-quality veterans' health care facilities,

including in rural areas where access to facilities,

including clinics and hospitals, is more limited. The

committee directs the Department of Veterans Affairs to work

collaboratively with other executive branch agencies with

substantial construction portfolios, private sector

contractors and other nongovernmental experts, together with

the appropriate congressional committees, to explore the

feasibility of employing new funding mechanisms to meet the

need for such facilities, including but not limited to

private development leaseback arrangements, and to provide a

report on their conclusions to the committee no later than

September 30 of this year.

So it is right around the corner. We did not want this to linger any longer.

A bit of a new development I should bring up as well is that the VA Secretary did appear before our committee. I laid out some of these concerns. He appeared to be open to new ideas and suggestions, but we wanted to fortify this by putting this language in the underlying bill. Hopefully, this gets us some resolution quickly. If we don't resolve this, there is something called ``opportunity cost.'' Veterans who deserve the highest quality care may not be getting that care over the longer term when we could be doing something creative right now and innovative to build out, potentially, a new facility or rehab older ones to modern standards so that we can ensure they get the best and highest quality care. This puts us, hopefully, on a pathway to creating new and innovative ideas to simply move past the old way of doing things, which makes us wait and wait and wait for who knows how long.

I want to thank my colleague for, again, bringing awareness to this issue.

I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.

And, by the way, on housing. As the Secretary pointed out, the VA does this on housing as well.

Mr. Chairman, there are creative options out there that do not give the government a longer term budgetary risk, but they nonetheless help us move past a process that seems to be very stuck--simply putting money under the mattress until we finally get enough someday way into the future when we can get the veterans the services that they need.

We discussed not necessarily the specific language. We, in working with the committee, came up with this. Again, I want to thank Chairman Culberson for his leadership in helping craft this. The Secretary expressed a general openness toward creative thinking about alternative models that are already being deployed, as you rightly recognized, in clinics as well as in veterans' housing. I did not raise the issue about meeting with us, but hopefully, again, this conversation and this language will help further that cause.

Again, I want to thank my colleague, Lee Terry, for his steadfast commitment to this important issue.

Mr. Chairman, I think we should all be on the same page. Everybody shares the general goal and mission as to how to get this new hospital potentially in a much better situation either with a new facility or with something that is rehabilitated to modern standards. We have got some innovative ways to do this.

I yield back the balance of my time.