Thank you, Chairman Casey, and thank you to all witnesses for being here.

We do need to see more local control, because truth be told, the people that are in my community, I know their needs much better than anyone else.

We have not been able to do that. Families with children, without, it has been 20 years, and we spend more, there are more participants in it.

we were borrowing 20 cents on every dollar that we spend. Now it is up to 30 cents

So are you saying that you would be able to generate consistently 20 percent of our GDP in federal revenues, where that's not been the case other than just a couple of years when rates have been, you know, higher?

I think that is what we have got to look at, not thinking that the efficacy of a program is dependent upon the number of people that are enrolled in it but rather the efficacy of a program being how many people got off the rolls and ended…

We have got to have metrics that honestly say what is happening. I am disappointed that we have not been able to do better with it.

We need this evidence. If we do not have this evidence we cannot scratch our heads and wonder why are there still people not achieving upward mobility in our country.

I plan to introduce the HAND UP Act, which would direct USDA to maintain a clearinghouse for evidence-based practices for SNAP employment and training.

we currently are in peril because of everything we spend here in the Federal Government, just a little over four years ago when I got here, we were borrowing 20 cents on every dollar that we spend. Now it is up to 30 cents, and that is…

I'm out of time here, and I might note that our current spending is now not at 20 percent. It's about 25 percent of GDP.

I've got another question regarding Medicare. Go ahead? Okay. So I've been probably the most outspoken Senator that we've got a broken health care system.

When I was here earlier, the discussion was about the fact that 20 percent of GDP is maybe some magic number in terms of where we should be generating revenue.

And with as hard as it's been to hire people, it's a very tricky area when you start messing with fringe benefits.

So are you saying that you would be able to generate consistently 20 percent of our GDP in federal revenues, where that's not been the case other than just a couple of years when rates have been, you know, higher?

When I was here earlier, the discussion was about the fact that 20 percent of GDP is maybe some magic number in terms of where we should be generating revenue.

I've got another question regarding Medicare. Go ahead? Okay. So I've been probably the most outspoken Senator that we've got a broken health care system.

I'm out of time here, and I might note that our current spending is now not at 20 percent. It's about 25 percent of GDP.

And with as hard as it's been to hire people, it's a very tricky area when you start messing with fringe benefits.

I'm out of time here, and I might note that our current spending is now not at 20 percent. It's about 25 percent of GDP.

And with as hard as it's been to hire people, it's a very tricky area when you start messing with fringe benefits.

So Dr. McBride, do you think we can generate 20 percent of GDP in federal revenues without depressing the economic growth rate?

When I was here earlier, the discussion was about the fact that 20 percent of GDP is maybe some magic number in terms of where we should be generating revenue.

I believe that freedom and choice are, you know, so important in any of this.

Thank you for that, and anybody listening out there, get with your respective Senators within your states and support that idea.