[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 204 (Tuesday, December 12, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H6851-H6855]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               TECHNOLOGY REVOLUTION HAPPENING AROUND US

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 9, 2023, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Madam Speaker, last week I promised I was going to do 
something a little more positive tonight. It is complicated because I 
basically have a compulsion. Being from Arizona, I sit on an airplane 
10 hours a week; 5 there and 5 back.
  I use these news aggregators, and I collect articles. Afterwards, my 
staff and I do follow-up and research. I just gathered up some of them 
the last couple days. These are positive things happening in our 
society, but one of the number one reasons I am going to show them is 
they are things that actually could make our lives better, make us 
healthier as a society and assist with, as you know, my fixation on the 
debt.
  Before we start to actually focus on the debt and deficit--and I am 
going to try to minimize my sarcasm, but you have got to give me a 
moment here--we should be very proud of ourselves. We did something 
very special today that we have never done before other than in the 
middle of COVID.
  Over the last 2 months, our borrowing has increased so much that we 
are at $80,600 a second. We did it. I am so proud of us. I knew we 
could actually spend ourselves into oblivion. We did it, we crossed 
$80,000. We are at

[[Page H6852]]

$80,000 a second, and we are only a few ticks away from getting to $7 
billion a day.
  When I think about the fussing that goes on here on the floor where 
we are knifing each other for this or that, unless it is covering 
almost $7 billion in savings, that day we actually went negative. Just 
a point.
  Interestingly, the data shows since the beginning of the fiscal 
year--we are 2 months and a week or so into it--Social Security is 
number one. Social Security is always going to be number one.
  I have gotten picked on a little bit for bringing my charts showing 
that we are going to have $1 trillion this year in gross interest. Some 
folks say, well, that is not fair, you are paying interest to the 
Social Security trust fund. Okay.
  Well, guess what? Even if I use what they call net interest, which is 
only the interest we pay out to people who bought U.S. bonds, interest 
is still, so far this fiscal year, the second biggest expenditure in 
this government. Social Security is first, interest is number two, then 
defense, then Medicare, then Medicaid. Just a little bit of fiscal 
housekeeping there.

  All right. As a body, as Members of Congress and our staff, I need 
all of us to start thinking. We live in a time where there is a 
technological revolution happening around us. How do we use that 
technology to make people's lives easier, better, and give them more 
time?
  I am going to start with one example that I think is so incredibly 
obvious. I chair the Oversight Subcommittee for the Ways and Means 
Committee, so I have the IRS. We have come up here a number of times 
just enraged that during the Inflation Reduction Act Democrats moved an 
additional $80 billion to the IRS. They tell us, well, it is for 
collection and customer service.
  What would happen if I came to you today and said, have you ever 
tried calling the IRS and sat on hold forever or got their response 
saying: Hey, could you call back another day? Or, give us your phone 
number, and we will get around to calling you back? I am going to give 
them credit here; they tried an experiment.
  The IRS actually did an experiment this last tax season, and it 
served 13 million people, and it was a chatbot. Most people say: Oh, I 
don't like AI. However, think about this: When you call an airline 
today, most of the time do you think you are actually speaking to a 
real human? What if I could call the IRS and actually have the phone 
picked up right then, and I can ask a certain question: What do I put 
on this line? I have this issue, where do I find the document for this? 
Is there a YouTube video I can watch on how to fill out this form?
  The experiment worked. It was actually incredibly positive. I have 
had their technology people in my office multiple times, even last 
week, and I am told it is going to get expanded for this next tax 
filing season. You are going to get the phone answered.
  What happens if the ability to do a chatbot at a government agency 
could mean better and faster customer service and, let's be honest, 
save a lot of money because you don't have to hire as many government 
bureaucrats? It is a moment where those of us who are very concerned 
about that additional $80 billion going to the IRS could actually say: 
Okay, there is an argument. We have got a real customer service 
problem, how about using technology? Well, the experiment is working.
  How do I get my brothers and sisters here when we do our oversight, 
when we think about our job of making government faster, more 
efficient, more affordable, and less borrowing--oh, less borrowing--to 
say what other agencies could basically get rid of buildings full of 
people answering the phone and move to technology that is crisper, 
faster, better, cheaper, more accurate, and can actually give you the 
link so that you can see the video on how to fill out the form.
  That is where this discussion is going. There are positive things 
happening, or at least possibilities if I can get this body to think.
  Let's actually go on to one of the other ones that I am absolutely 
fascinated with. I have actually worked on this for years. There is 
this thing called carbon capture. Most of the left despise it because 
it would allow you to continue to use, particularly, natural gas, and 
yet there are breakthroughs in the technology right now to capture the 
carbon, sequester it or convert it into other products.
  I actually have functionally a whole library of MIT and others who 
have had breakthroughs on how to do it. This one is about facilities 
being built.
  There are even crazy experiments going on around the country and in 
the world on what they call ambient carbon capture. Where the concept 
is what happens when you can actually start to capture the carbon right 
at the point source, turn it into another fuel, sequester it in the 
ground, use it for extraction of other hydrocarbons. There is a 
solution here. The problem is it doesn't fit the narrative of my 
brothers and sisters on the left.
  However, if you actually look at the math, particularly with 45Q, 
which is an incentive to capture this carbon--look, one of the biggest 
emitters you have in the country is making concrete. Okay. What if you 
would grab the carbon and put it in the concrete? Yeah, the concrete 
turns gray, but it is the sequestration of it. There are positive 
economic growth solutions for our brothers and sisters on the left who 
have climate change concerns, but yet we talk past each other.
  I have saved article after article on topics, including speaking 
about new technology that could capture carbon and water out of thin 
air. This is ambient carbon capture. It is out there. It exists.
  How do you get this body to start reaching this century of 
technology? Instead, we often sound like it is still the 1990s.
  It is here. We have actually had some of these experts, some of the 
researchers, the one on MIT's breakthrough from almost 2 years ago. I 
bring this because this is a particular subject area where the left 
wants one thing, we want one thing, and I argue there is a technology 
that actually solves both of our problems.

  Part of my point tonight was instead of just talking about the 
dystopian terror I have of the speed and growth of debt--and the fact 
of the matter is that no one wants to have the conversation with me 
that from today through the future most of our debt is going to be 
healthcare costs, and if in 9 years we start to backfill Social 
Security, it is demographics.
  What do you do to create as much economic growth, as much prosperity 
as possible?
  One of the number one things we have to do in time is start to talk 
about not how you finance the price of healthcare, but, rather, how to 
disrupt it.
  I am going to jump around a little on this. The ACA--ObamaCare--a 
decade ago, wasn't a healthcare bill. It was a financing bill basically 
saying you cover this, and here is how you get subsidized and here is 
who has to pay. The Republican alternative was a financing bill, here 
is who has to pay and here is who gets subsidized. Medicare for All is 
a financing bill, they are not about what you pay. What is the actual 
cost?
  What if I came to you and said, let's actually think about the things 
we can do to make our society healthier, make our society so we don't 
need the same level of healthcare services?
  The next board I am going to show you is a fairly radical thought. 
Let's actually walk through this because I have been collecting 
articles on this concept for a while.
  This last year, somewhere close to 100,000 of our brothers and 
sisters in America died of a drug overdose. Number one was fentanyl. 
Come to Phoenix, Arizona, in Maricopa County, Arizona, we have three 
people who lose their lives every single day due to fentanyl.
  What if I came and said, hey, there is a healthcare solution. Turns 
out we are on the cusp of having a vaccine. I am not an expert on this, 
but I have read the articles, and apparently fentanyl, because it is a 
synthetic, is remarkable at capturing the receptors in your brain and 
just dramatically changing your brain chemistry.

                              {time}  1845

  It turns out there are scientists all over the world working on the 
concept of filling those receptors. If anyone is industrious enough, 
google right now or use your search engine ``vaccine for cocaine.'' It 
is a different formula. It is a binding to a protein.
  I started following this a couple of years ago when there was an 
article

[[Page H6853]]

about a vaccine for alcohol addiction. We scream at people and say: 
``Just tough it out. Go to your meetings.'' You should do both of 
those, but what would happen if you could start to remove the high from 
some of these incredibly addictive drugs? Remember, these things are 
chemicals. They are not plant-based.
  This world is so much more dystopian. What change would happen with 
the homelessness in our urban areas if this was available? How many 
people out there could you help back into society?
  It is a tough conversation. There are some really tough ethical 
questions where you have someone who comes in off the street. They are 
addicted to fentanyl. There is a fentanyl vaccine available.
  Do they have to be able to choose it themselves? Probably. When are 
you in your right mind that you can make that type of decision?
  This is on the cusp. This is projected to be here potentially next 
year. Are we intellectually, ethically, and financially ready to deal 
with the opportunity of a disruption of something that is tearing many 
of our cities and communities apart?
  This is optimistic. This is loving people. This is also trying to 
figure out a way to take on human misery.
  How many times have you had an idiot like me come to the floor of the 
House and say maybe we should start to think about policy if there are 
now going to be vaccines coming that actually block the receptors for 
these types of drugs? Would that be good for society? If it would be 
good for society, how do we carry it out?
  I think this is just moral, besides the fact that if you actually 
look at the 10-year cost of it, it may actually be a huge economic 
benefit and saver to municipal governments, city governments, State 
governments, and also our Medicaid subsidies. It just may be the right 
thing to do.
  There should be hope. There should actually be excitement about these 
sorts of things.
  As we walk through a few more of these--and forgive me. There are so 
many subjects here. I am going to bounce around on this one only 
because this is one I have been collecting for years.
  A couple of years ago, I came across an article by some scientist who 
actually had been focusing on methane. For those of you who care about 
math, methane apparently has a substantially higher impact, according 
to formulas we are given, but a much shorter life span in the 
atmosphere.
  The capture of methane was going to cost a fortune. Some of the early 
Biden administration rules are that they wanted costs upstream and 
downstream of the production of natural gas.
  Scientists wrote this article saying: Did you know that clay, when it 
is also adjusted, I believe it was with copper oxide--you get the joke 
here if anyone actually has a scientific brain. Clay and kitty litter 
with copper oxide acts like a methane sponge. It is incredibly 
inexpensive.
  I proposed it to some of my Democratic colleagues who claim to really 
care about climate change, methane, and all those things. They just 
looked at me like I was a heretic because I was giving them a solution 
that didn't require massive government subsidies.
  Here we are, a little bit later, and the articles continue on with 
the ability to do the capture, and even the ability to use that methane 
capture in agriculture, and the fact that there are actually even some 
new attempts to do it. You don't have to bankrupt us.
  Is it enough to come and give speeches about how much you care about 
climate change and then not actually understand the science that makes 
it so you can do something without crushing people's livelihoods, 
crushing your retirement, and leaving your future generations in debt?
  Call my office. We have dozens of these articles we collect. We 
subscribe to some really crazy blogs and scientific publications. In 
this place, does anyone actually read the literature?
  This is supposed to be a happy, optimistic speech, so forgive my 
exasperation. Let's talk through some of the other things that are 
going on.
  I know everyone was reading and enthusiastic about the first CRISPR 
drug that made it through the final bit of its process and apparently 
is heading to the streets now. The FDA has approved it for sickle cell 
anemia. It is incredibly painful. This drug will be outrageously 
expensive, and we need to find, for just basic morality's sake, how we 
make it available. The point here is that it works, finally.
  We have talked about CRISPR and the ability to alter a genome and add 
some gene sequencing. It is here. It has been done. It is approved. It 
is available. One of the miseries in our society actually now has a 
cure.
  We have proposed ideas of a healthcare bond, the ability to be able 
to buy the units, cure our brothers and sisters, and then use the 
future healthcare savings, because they no longer have that affliction 
in the future, to pay it back.
  If someone else has a better financing mechanism other than just 
borrowing money, let me know, but get ready. There are dozens of these 
types of pharmaceuticals--genetic, bio, other things--that are in the 
pipeline that we have almost a moral obligation--if it ends misery and 
also allows our brothers and sisters to once again fully participate in 
society and the economy, we have to deal with these.
  This is optimistic because we actually have been trying to find a 
cute way to say cures are the solution. This is where I often get in a 
fuss. I am going to spend a bunch of time at the end on diabetes.
  A fuss I have with a number of our Democratic Members--we go at each 
other pretty hard here because their version of morality is to put up 
more clinics to help manage misery.

  I keep looking at them and saying: Will someone read the scientific 
literature? We are on the cusp of cures. What is more moral? To spend 
money to build more clinics, or to spend some money to get more 
economic growth because you have ended the misery?
  How do I get this body to see that vision, that it is great 
economics, great growth, and also moral?
  Let's walk through just a few other of these things. This is another 
one I am really interested in. It is in phase 1 right now. How would 
you feel about a vaccine for breast cancer? This is a brand-new board. 
I only have a couple of the scientific papers on it, but so far, it 
looks like it is working.
  What would this mean for society? What would it mean for testing? 
What would it mean for mammograms? What would it mean for expenditures 
in the future? What would it mean for people like my wife who have gone 
through some misery here?
  Is this the right thing to pursue? Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, 
but they are well into their phase 1, and their early data is great.
  Think about it. You see, I am trying to create thinking here. What 
happens if one of the ways we reduce future debt and spending is that 
we ended misery, disease? Cures.
  These are the sorts of things I wish we actually brought in front of 
our committees and talked about, that we actually had staff who would 
understand the basic science.
  I have brought versions of this next one to the floor for about 3 or 
4 or years. We even had a debate yesterday in the back of the room here 
when we were doing a piece of legislation that I thought was purely 
theater and saying: What is the simplest thing you can do tomorrow 
that, by the end of next year, you could have a major change in 
spending on healthcare?
  People look at you and don't know. What if I told you 16 percent--and 
this has been peer-reviewed multiple times--16 percent of U.S. 
healthcare spending is associated with people not doing their 
pharmaceutical maintenance?
  It is someone like me. I have hypertension. Can you believe that? As 
long as I take my calcium inhibitor, I am most likely not to have a 
stroke.
  Someone that takes a statin, those pharmaceuticals are incredibly 
cheap. They have been around for 50 years. It turns out--and this board 
is now 3 years old. Our latest number is over $600 billion. That is 16 
percent of U.S. healthcare spending in a single year.
  You are not going to get all that, but what happens if you could get 
10 percent, 20 percent of it by just a pill bottle cap that beeps at 
you in the morning or a text message you would get on your phone 
asking: Did you take your statin? It is worth thinking about.
  How many people do you know who don't follow their regimen on 
insulin?

[[Page H6854]]

  We have technology to help each other stay on the program within a 
year by just saying that we want a pill bottle cap that beeps if it is 
the type of thing you use for maintenance.
  For grandma, it is the type of thing that if she has to take these in 
the morning and these in the afternoon, it drops the pills in the cup. 
It already exists. It has existed for years.
  We have done presentations to the committees around here saying the 
day is here. We all agree this is real. Why is it so hard?
  We had someone come to present us with a package, saying: Do you 
realize there are certain pharmaceuticals that are so incredibly 
expensive? Put them in sterile blister packs, and when someone has gone 
through their treatment, don't throw away what is left. If it is in 
sterile packaging, why can't it be given to a Medicaid system or 
helping the poor?
  We just don't think here. We are so used to saying we will just spend 
more money. Please, give this some consideration. Is this Republican or 
Democratic? It is neither. It is just technology.
  It would be a partial solution. If it is 16 percent, that means this 
is, like, 34 percent more effective than the piece of legislation we 
jumped up and down and made a big deal about passing yesterday on 
suspension. One is theatrics; one is actually a solution.
  We need to learn math. Here is where I start to soak myself in 
kerosene and play with matches. It is math. The math will always win.
  I have no intention of hurting someone's feelings, but we really 
should start to talk through some of this. This has been incredibly 
well vetted. It is in article after article.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. Speaker, 5 percent of our brothers and sisters are actually over 
50 percent of our healthcare spending--actually a little over 50 
percent of all healthcare spending.
  These are folks with multiple chronic conditions. Many of them have a 
miserable life, but our ability to change this 5 percent here is a 
remarkable savings on debt and spending, and the morality of people 
having a decent life.
  Why is it so hard to focus on this?
  We actually have article after article that we have been collecting 
on the ability to use AI to discover cures. This is happening all 
around us.
  Why haven't we updated our policy?
  Why haven't we worked with the FDA, saying, hey, AI can reduce parts 
of your population statistics. So you go into your phase 1, you get 
certain data back, you can use AI to model your populations. You can 
cut the time bringing solutions and cures to market.
  The ability to actually change what the concept of telehealth is. Is 
telehealth grabbing your phone and FaceTiming someone, or is it the 
things you have on your body?
  Is it the wristwatch you have?
  Soon we will have blood glucose and oxygen and heart rate and those 
things. You will functionally have a medical app on your body.
  You should be allowed to take that data, run it through, and if it 
can be certified by the FDA, it should be allowed to prescribe.
  Now this is heresy I just said, but the fact of the matter is if you 
update it on your body--or like that flu kazoo I came here and showed 
on the floor years ago; the thing you blow into. It is a breath biopsy 
that within a couple moments says, hey, you have this virus. We are 
bouncing off your medical records.
  So it bounces off your phone: Here are your medical records. You are 
not allergic to this antiviral.
  We are going to order that antiviral, and maybe Lyft or Uber drops it 
off at your house in a couple hours.
  That would be a good thing, except for the fact that we functionally 
keep that illegal, and if we don't make it illegal, we make it so it 
can't be reimbursed.
  It is a solution. Remember, part of this discussion is what did we do 
to change the cost and the ability to be healthy, not who is going to 
subsidize your healthcare premium, your insurance premium.
  We have article after article. There are actually some miracles 
happening here in starting to understand cell dynamics, which is a big 
deal if it starts to come around in the next few years.
  Remember, we have a certain misery in this country we have to deal 
with.
  This sort of goes back to my fentanyl vaccine. We may be able to walk 
into a fifth year of life expectancy falling, particularly for prime-
age males.
  It is bad enough you live in a country that in about 18 years we will 
have more deaths than births, but what happens when life expectancy in 
this country is shrinking?
  We are going to get to one of the reasons for that.
  How about this. What would happen if there was a universal flu 
vaccine; instead of playing this game every winter saying, did they get 
the mixture right?
  Well, it is only about 30 percent effective because it turns out that 
the genome of the flu that actually started to circulate wasn't the one 
they expected.
  What if they figured out a way to do the snip on the protein?
  Have you ever seen the data of the economic impact of a major flu 
season; how many people don't go to work?
  It is really good economics. I will argue, it is embracing science in 
a way that is good for all of us.
  Look, I have article after article of these breakthroughs that are 
actually not in the lab right now. Many of them are actually being 
tested.
  Why can't we get this body to say, hey, that one should be getting an 
XPRIZE, because if they can bring that to market 1 or 2 years sooner, 
think of the misery we can end. Oh, and it is really good for the 
budget deficit.
  Hey, this one we need to work with the FDA, if we actually have to 
move someone over here to be able to do the review process instead of 
it being piled up on some overworked bureaucrat so it sits there for a 
year.
  We need to think through the fact of the timing of a cure. The faster 
it comes is moral, and it is also great economics.
  Let's actually now go where it gets even more uncomfortable.
  The amount of mocking I took a couple of years ago, and then the 
science actually turned out right, but I never got that reporter--and, 
look, the DCCC is always going to attack us, but you would think they 
would actually see the morality in ending misery in people's lives.
  Diabetes is the single most expensive disease in America. It is 33 
percent of all healthcare spending. It is 31 percent of Medicare; 31 
percent of Medicare is associated with diabetes.
  A few months ago, we actually had a Healthcare Innovation Summit 
downstairs. We actually got six Members of Congress to show up. We 
invited all of them, but six showed up to meet the company that looks 
like they have a cure for type 1 diabetes. The other company sitting 
next to them looks like they had a path for type 2. There are four or 
five companies.
  If type 1 is an autoimmune disease, what happens if you could teach 
your body not to attack itself? That one is actually, I think, heading 
towards its phase 1.
  If these things are so expensive in society, why can't we actually 
fixate on them?
  Of the $327 billion spent on diabetes in 2017 by insurance and 
government, we are going to knife each other around here for a few 
hundred million, maybe several billion dollars in savings. Incremental 
changes here on just helping our brothers and sisters if we could get 
to a cure for diabetes.
  Now here is where it gets politically even trickier.

  Researchers exploring the use of gene therapy to show promising 
results for diabetic retinopathy.
  Madam Speaker, I represent a Tribal population that apparently, I 
have been told, is the second highest per capita population of diabetes 
in the world.
  It is not a poor Tribe. They are incredibly well managed. They are 
prosperous.
  As we have learned now, because of the GLP-1s, obesity really has a 
huge genetic component. The hormones you produce to know you are full 
are different between you and I.
  What happens to our brothers and sisters who are going blind because 
of diabetes? We are on the cusp of a cure there.
  I would actually go even more creative.
  If anyone is willing to read something that is a little bit complex, 
about 6 months ago, the Joint Economic

[[Page H6855]]

Committee Republicans--a couple of them have Ph.D.s in economics--wrote 
a response to the President's budget. But we took it further.
  We said, think about what we could do for society if we were willing 
to actually do something about obesity in America.
  Remember I just showed you that 5 percent is 50 percent of healthcare 
spending? Some of the data from the economist came back and said, hey, 
almost half of healthcare actually has an association with obesity in 
America.
  This is where it gets tricky, but math is math.
  In that, they did very conservative math. They were coming up with 
saying, hey, at the end of 10 years, that is $5-plus trillion dollars 
of savings. And if you did the multiplier effects, you might actually 
be able to work, family formation, labor force participation, life 
expectancy. You start to add in those other benefits, it could be 
several trillion dollars, besides the basic morality.
  So how do you get there?
  How do you come here and actually have a conversation without someone 
accusing you of nasty things because you showed you cared?
  Well, we have some new categories of drugs, the GLP-1s. One 
apparently goes off-patent next year.
  Could we actually, as a policy here in Congress, encourage a co-op? 
Make the one that is off-patent, add competition, crash the price?
  The fact of the matter is, someone like me who comes and fixates on 
the debt--and the Democrats over there fixate on wanting to tax people 
more--for the last couple months, I have come here and shown you the 
academic literature over and over that says you can raise rich people's 
taxes all you want; you hit the economic ceiling and you get about a 
point and a half; maybe if the sky opened up, you can get up to almost 
2 percent of GDP.
  Over here we have talked through almost everything we were able to 
cut, and there are only a couple of percent of GDP that we could ever 
cut and survive, just get the vote.
  The problem is if you take away the fraud of crediting back the 
administration the student loan money, if you add it all up, we 
borrowed almost 8.4 percent of the economy last year. So borrowing last 
year was 8.4 percent of GDP.
  Did you hear my math? If taxing rich people only gets you a couple 
percent of GDP and the cuts we want to talk about--and many of the cuts 
I am absolutely going to vote for, but it is only a couple percent of 
GDP.
  Does someone see a problem in the math? It has to happen through 
policy.
  Is having a healthier society that needs dramatically less healthcare 
moral? It is surely great damn economics.
  The point of tonight's presentation is actually clear: There is hope. 
We have calcified intellectually. The left somehow thinks there is a 
path to tax your way to prosperity.
  I have tried to show repeatedly that if we did every tax the 
Democrats talk about to save the Social Security trust fund, you get 
close, you still actually have very substantial cuts.
  I mean, we have tried to model it, but let's say it covered 
everything. You have just used up all your gun powder.
  If two-thirds of all future borrowing is functionally Medicare, where 
do you get the cash for that, because you have used it to shore up the 
Social Security trust fund.
  That is actually part of the intellectual vacuousness of this place.
  It is, we will just tax more. There is not enough money, but we are 
not going to tell anyone that because it doesn't fit with what we said 
on the campaign trail.
  How many times have some of my brothers and sisters on my side said 
it is foreign aid? Then you show the chart that every dime of foreign 
aid is about 11 days of borrowing.

  Remember, we are on the cusp of borrowing $7 billion a day. We are 
over $80,000 a second now. We are going to have to change through 
policy.
  I have done videos on how you could have a revolution on 
environmental data by crowdsourcing the data. I even made a whole 
cartoon. It is on YouTube somewhere about crowdsourcing environmental 
data; that if you did that, you don't need the current enforcement 
mechanism. If you have enough data, you will catch the bad actors. It 
would open up the economy, promote growth, and you would catch the 
clowns that are breaking the rules.
  I have shown that to people in here that have said, oh, but that 
would cut a whole bunch of jobs at the EPA.
  That is the point. It is better, faster, and better for the 
environment and a hell of a lot cheaper and fairer.
  I guess my rambling in my closing, Madam Speaker, is that there are 
solutions. There is hope, but they are only going to come about if we 
have intellectually a fairly dramatic change in how we have sort of 
calcified on policy, because all these things are disruptive.
  All these things are going to have armies of lobbyists who do not 
like them because you are changing their business model, or armies of 
bureaucrats showing up in your office explaining that you are changing 
the laws.
  That is the point.
  There is hope. It just requires us to change.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________