Peter Welch

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman. I thank my colleague for this extremely important amendment. Madam Chair, we have a dire situation in Syria, and everyone's heart breaks for the suffering of the Syrian people. Over 100,000 people are getting slaughtered by the leader of their own government. It's absolutely unconscionable. So the questions for us are: What can we practically do? Whatever it is that we do do, does Congress have a say in the ``yes'' or ``no'' of military action? I thank the gentleman for this amendment because there are two questions here. One is as to the policy itself, the use of military force, arming the rebels. Is that a wise policy? Will it make things better or will it make things worse? The second question is: Whatever the policy is, is it the responsibility of those of us who have been elected to represent Americans as Members of Congress--and we all do--to be accountable in making that enormously important and consequential decision that has the potential to send our troops into combat? Let me talk briefly about the policy. The military situation there is chaotic. The rebels are united loosely in an effort to bring down Assad, but distinguishing between the ``good rebels'' and the ``bad rebels'' is impossible. In fact, we are reading reports right now of how rebels who are having disputes with fellow rebels are settling them by beheading them. That's literally what's happening. So the notion that we can have a micromanaged approach and pick the good guys and arm them and not have any reasonable and, actually, inevitable expectation that the arms will get into bad hands, I think, is naive. Also, General Dempsey, who is a hard-headed thinker about military matters, testified and laid out very clearly, if we just want to arm the rebels, that it's going to be like $500 million, or it could be into the billions. If we want to do standoff attacks, which supposedly will be surgical, that could be in the $1 billion-a-month range. If we want to actually have a no-fly zone, it will take hundreds of ships and aircraft in order to implement that--over $1 billion a month. That's a consequential decision that we can't stumble into. Then the second question, Madam Chair, is the congressional responsibility to act. One of the frustrations that, I think, Americans have with all of us is the sense that we are not accountable. Do you know what? If we allow an action to be taken that has the potential to send troops into combat and if we haven't actually stood up and voted ``yes'' or ``no,'' then they are right. We have a job to do under the Constitution. This amendment is really saying to all of us here in Congress on both sides of the aisle that, if the moment comes when that decision is going to be made by the President, he has to return to us for approval, and we have to stand and make our decision. So with regard to that constitutional responsibility, what is more important? We all talk about how much we admire the troops for their willingness to sacrifice--and all of us do--but do you know what? All Americans admire the troops, but 435 Americans in this Chamber have the responsibility to make certain that, when we take advantage of the willingness of these young men and women to serve and to sacrifice, including to give up their lives, we are the ones who must make the decision about the policy. Our responsibility--all of ours--is to make certain that whatever policy it is we are asking them to pursue be worthy of their willingness to sacrifice. That has to be done at the beginning. Once our troops are in the field, yes, we have to support them. Then, once they're in the field, we find ourselves conflicted about having a discussion about how it is they got there. Do you know what? They got there because we sent them there. Sometimes we do it consciously. Sometimes we stumble into it. That's not right. There are 435 of us in this House who are united by a common responsibility to the soldiers and sailors who serve and to the citizens whom we represent. So I thank the gentleman as I see this as an opportunity for Members of this House on both sides of the aisle, who share a common admiration for the people who serve in the military and who share a common sense of duty to the people we represent, to be accountable for any policy that has the potential to send our soldiers into combat.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman. I also thank my colleague from Florida. I appreciate the courtesy that the Rules Committee extended to Mr. Gibson and me last evening when we offered our amendment on Syria. Mr. Speaker, my moment here is to discuss this fundamental question about whether America is going to be taking military action in Syria without any congressional debate. We have a responsibility under the Constitution. Article I, section 8, clause 11 gives Congress the power to declare war and raise and support the Armed Forces. My colleague from Florida rightly said that we have an obligation to support the military men and women. They will do anything that we ask them to do. But this is the moment when we face our responsibility or shirk it-- to give them a policy worthy of their willingness to sacrifice. The idea that we would take military action, and arming the Syrian rebels is military action, it is intended very specifically to take down the Government of Syria--and I want Assad to go, and we all do--but I don't want this Congress to back into a policy, stumble ahead, where we find ourselves engaged in military conflict where we haven't even met our basic responsibility to have a debate about it. We have to decide: Are we going to be men and women of Congress, are we going to do our jobs, are we going to be Congressmen and -women, or are we going to be cowards? It is the coward's path to avoid taking responsibility for a momentous decision that we know at this moment is upon us. Vote ``yes'' or vote ``no.'' But to have no debate, to actually once again stumble into a military action, have we learned nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan? Iraq right now is supporting Assad; it is supporting Iran.

Mr. WELCH. Afghanistan is now, after 11 years, ripping us off as we try to bring our material home. Does anybody on the either side of the aisle support this? Why don't we have a debate? I admire Speaker Boehner for saying he wants to have this House work its will. But I say to Speaker Boehner: give us a vote, let us debate, let us meet our responsibility. There will be men and women that will go into harm's way, stumble ahead, because we did not stand up and take responsibility. We are accountable to the people who elect us.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, climate change is real. The future damage that will be done if we fail to address it is foreseeable and predictable. We are living through an extended period of radical weather. The weather systems of 2012 produced the secondmost damaging infliction to the economy in the history of our country--$115 billion--much of it from Hurricane Sandy, much of it from an extended drought. Sea levels are rising. This is measurable. This is not debatable. It is fact. What we are doing in this Congress is arguing about energy policy, but we are having that argument in the context of denying that the failure to address climate change won't have serious economic and social implications. Sea levels are rising. The damage to our Treasury is rising. The suffering of our people is real. So it is absolutely essential that the House of Representatives acknowledge the reality of climate change and include that in its debate on energy policy.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman. This is not a farm bill. This is a leadership-designed train wreck. We had a farm bill. It was bipartisan. It saved money. It provided farmers with more security. It provided conservation and a way forward. Instead, what we have is the result of a failure of the leadership to work with their committee chair. They came on this floor, and they unraveled intentionally, deliberately and, regrettably, effectively a compromise that was reached by Republicans and Democrats who dealt with tough issues. America needs a farm bill, not something that is designed for political consumption and for farm failure.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it takes food nutrition from working families.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, in 2 days, interest rates on student loans are going to double from 3.4 to 6.8 percent. It is outrageous, it is unnecessary, and it is cruel. Across this country, the things that will happen in Vermont are going to happen to all our kids and their parents. In Vermont, 20,000 kids are going to have their loan's expense go up $1,000. That's when the cost of education has gone up 27 percent in the past 5 years. Vermont has the seventh highest student loan debt in the country. Sixty-three percent of our kids, when they graduate, it's $29,000 that they start out owing. We are first when it comes to debt-to-income ratio--82 percent. It's brutal. What is this about? It's about our priorities. In a low interest rate environment, government borrowing at 2 percent, we are going to charge nearly 7 percent to our kids. That's almost like usury. It is also a reflection of our priorities. There is a way we could extend this, as we should. Why do we shovel taxpayer money to oil companies that have $1 trillion in profits in the past 10 years? It is unnecessary. Around kitchen tables in Vermont, people are trying to figure out who is going to college and how our kids are going to get started.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentlelady. This amendment is not on the level. It uses a word that is important to all of us: work. Of course people want to work, but there is no money for a work program. There is an obligation on the person who has no income, who has children, to somehow magically create their own work program. Any of the work programs have to have some support to get people to be able to move from poverty to work. This is a political statement. It's not a work program. How poor is poor? This is telling folks they're not poor enough. Grind them and their children down; 1-year-old children will lose food as a result of this.

Mr. WELCH. The question facing this Congress is, Will we have a farm bill that respects farm families? This is about individual families that are working hard to try to survive, not to get rich. Market stabilization is exactly what Apple Computer does. If they make and sell more iPods, they produce more. If sales go down, they taper off. Why not give that market signal to our farmers with second-, third-, fourth-generation families in Vermont, the Kennett family, the Richardson family, the Rowell family? All they want to do is produce good, nutritious milk for the people in their community. This market stabilization gets them out of the death spiral, where they have absolutely no control over what that price is. And when it plunges, the only opportunity they have to try to survive is to increase production. The price goes down again. This market stabilization is using the market. It's an ally of the farmer, as it should be. So this makes sense. And what I am so proud of is that America's farmers, from Vermont to California, worked together to come up with something that would help pass that farm on to the next generation, and it saves money for the taxpayers.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government spends more than $6.5 billion on energy costs every year to heat, cool, and power roughly 500,000 buildings and facilities. Currently, the administration is auditing Federal agencies for cost savings and has found billions of dollars that are available in savings. Here's how they work: Energy savings performance contracts allow a public-private partnership where the Federal agency contracts with an energy service company to conduct energy audits and design and implement energy-saving improvements. There is no cost to the taxpayer. The payment to the contractor comes from savings that are reaped down the line. It's a win-win-win for the taxpayer, the economy, and the environment. ESPCs lead to local, nonexportable jobs. In fact, every million dollars of ESPC contracting results in the creation of 10 local jobs. ESPCs have already proven themselves to drastically reduce carbon emissions and water usage at Federal facilities. This is something we can and should do together: save money, create jobs, and improve the environment.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Parents who thought they had equity in their home and were going to be able, after working 30 years of work, to finally take that cruise or that vacation, they're refinancing their home to help their kids. And despite that--which compromises their retirement--their kids are getting out of college in Vermont with an average debt in the range of close to $30,000. It's tough on the kids, it's tough on the parents, it's bad for our economy, and it's just not right. We borrow, the Federal Government, at 1.8 percent, and we're going to charge up to 8 percent for families? We're lending to the banks at 0.75 percent.

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Making College More Expensive Act. Mr. Speaker, what we're doing is just not right. The Federal Government is borrowing money at 1.8 percent. Then we're lending it-- now--at 3.4 percent. If we do nothing, it goes to 6.8 percent. And under this bill, it probably will hit up around 10 percent. We're ripping off kids. I mean, we're making money off of these kids. A confident Nation will invest in the dreams of our young people, it won't crush those dreams. Why are we doing it? You know what? We're borrowing money as a government at 1.8 percent. The Federal Reserve is lending money to the big money center banks at 0.75 percent. But we're going to be charging up to 8 or 10 percent to our kids? I don't get that. Families are sitting around the kitchen table having discussions--if they have three kids, which two can we send to college?

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. To my colleague and my chair on the subcommittee, thank you for your fine leadership and for your leadership on this legislation as well. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 1580. As my colleague mentioned, it is a bill to affirm the policy of the United States to preserve and advance the successful multi-stakeholder model that governs the Internet. It has worked. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The Internet has been a unique and powerful driver of social and economic progress, and it is changing nearly every part of the American economy and society, everything from education to health care delivery to agriculture. This is especially true for rural communities, where communications technology can have an even greater impact in areas where populations are small and distances are vast. The Internet enables connections from even the most far-flung corners of our country to people, goods, and services around the globe, allowing rural America to compete just as effectively in the 21st century digital economy. A critical element of the Internet's success story has been the open manner in which the Internet is governed. Rather than relying on centralized control by governments, the Internet instead adopts a multi-stakeholder model in which all who have an interest can have a voice in the Internet's operation. Lately, however, the multi- stakeholder model towards Internet governance has been under assault on the global stage. At the World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai last December, as my colleague mentioned, the International Telecommunication Union adopted several proposals that could fundamentally alter the way the Internet operates. These proposals undermine the successful decentralized approach to Internet governance and impose a government-controlled management regime, thereby threatening citizens' access to content and information via the Internet as well as the global free flow of information online. I am pleased that Congress unanimously passed a resolution last year urging the administration to preserve and advance the successful multi- stakeholder model. That's what governs the Internet today. That's what we want to govern the Internet tomorrow. I applaud the decision by the U.S. delegation not to sign that final treaty, but efforts to bring the Internet under the control of international regulatory bodies continues. This week, member-states of the International Telecommunication Union will meet again in Geneva to debate issues surrounding global Internet governance. The passage of H.R. 1580 will be timely in, once again, demonstrating the unwavering support of our Congress of the multi-stakeholder Internet governance model. I want to thank Chairman Upton, and I want to thank Chairman Walden, and their staff, for working with us on the Democratic side to address the concerns. Ranking Member Waxman and Ranking Member Eshoo raised these concerns during the bill's markup in the Energy and Commerce Committee. We worked it out. Mr. Walden, thank you. I appreciate the modifications made to the bill, which make it clear that this policy statement will not implicate the legitimate activities of the U.S. Government online or the authorities of Federal agencies. Because of these changes, Democrats and Republicans in Congress once again stand united with the administration in its efforts to resist proposals that would undermine the existing multi-stakeholder approach. I join my colleague Mr. Walden in urging my colleagues on the Democratic side to vote for this bill so we can once again demonstrate that there is support across the entire political spectrum for continuing the multi-stakeholder model that allows the Internet to thrive, which is for the benefit of every American and citizens around the world. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 1286.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, climate change, in my view, is real, it's urgent, and we must make progress or ignore it at our peril. But whether we agree or disagree, whether you're a climate change believer or denier, there are things that we can do together for the benefit of the environment and the economy. We can focus the debate on energy efficiency; we can save money through making our homes and buildings more energy efficient; we can put people back to work and buy American products; and, in the process, we can cut down on harmful carbon emissions and make progress on climate change and strengthen our economy. That is why I've joined with my friend from West Virginia, David McKinley, in introducing the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, which proposes practical solutions to bolster energy efficiency. This bill will speed our transition to a more energy efficient economy--increasing America's economic competitiveness in energy security--and build jobs. By finding areas where we actually do agree and working together, we can make progress on the environment and on the economy.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, today, Vermonters across the state are donning the green and gold in honor of our own Lyndon State College. The Vermont State Legislature proclaimed Green and Gold Day in celebration of all this college means to our state: to the thousands of students who have gone there to learn and earn a degree, to the regional economy that depends on its graduates and its ideas, to the Lyndonville community that is enriched by its college neighbor. Lyndon State College, and its sister schools in the Vermont State College system, provide a lifeblood to our state and deserve this day of recognition and celebration. Lyndon State is found on a hilltop in the small town of Lyndon in the heart of the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont. For over one hundred years, this college has symbolized the aspirations of Vermonters who believe that higher education is a means to better their lives. In fact, Lyndon State College is a leader in serving first generation students in this most rural area of our state. This college delivers for Vermont: 90% of Lyndon State College graduates are employed or continuing their education at graduate school within six months of graduation. Its business incubator program is responsible for job creation and new businesses in the region. The Northeast Kingdom is deeply rooted in tradition and community, and in the coming years economic development will bring significant changes to the entire area. We will depend on Lyndon State to be a key player in these changes. But we will also depend on Lyndon State to continue to help Vermont uphold all that is key to the Kingdom: the value of community, the environment, and lifelong learning. Congratulations to Lyndon State College on the upcoming inaugural of its 15th president, Dr. Joseph Bertolino, and on the completion of another successful academic year. We join you in celebrating the Green and the Gold, and look forward to many years of your continued success.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, the ocean levels are rising. The ice cap is melting. Severe storms, more intense and more frequent. Climate change is real, not that you'd know it in this body. We're still having a debate about the reality. This is a fact-free zone in Congress when it comes to climate change. But we can still make progress, even if we debate the science. We should do things that allow all of us to use less energy. Energy efficiency is good, regardless of what fuel source you use. It creates jobs for the folks who are out of work in the home construction industry, doing retrofits for commercial and residential buildings. It saves families money, and it saves businesses money. There's an enormous amount of advocacy on both sides of the aisle to do this practical, commonsense step. It will have an incidental benefit, as well, of reducing carbon emissions. So even as we have an unresolved debate about the science of climate change, let's take practical steps that are good for jobs, good for the economy, and good for saving taxpayers money.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman, and I thank Mr. Ryan. The focus and goal of this budget, as I understand it, is to eliminate the debt. That's a worthy goal. In fact, we all share it. But this budget, in my view, lacks ambition for other challenges. What about stagnant wages? Middle class declining? Lack of jobs? These are all fundamental issues that face the American economy. The middle class is shrinking. Wages now are what they were as a level of our economy as they were in 1966. Just a week ago, when we voted for the sequester, it was a day when American profits were at a record higher than they had been since the 1950s, but American wages were back at 1966 levels. There is an assertion here that we lack credibility and that we're taxers and spenders. I reject that. But let me remind the folks on the other side that a lot of the policies got us to this debt: a war in Iraq on the credit card, Afghanistan on the credit card, two tax cuts for the wealthy promising benefits to everybody else never paid for, and Medicare part D on the credit card. Then we had the collapse of the economy. Those were not our policies. Those were the policies of a previous President who erased a record surplus.

Mr. WELCH. These are credibility questions, but there's also an economic policy question. There are two assumptions in this budget. One is that austerity will lead to prosperity, that getting the debt down by any means possible and any cuts possible will get us to the Promised Land; it's the pot of gold at the end of the Tea Party rainbow. There is no evidence for that whatsoever. The second is a faith-based conviction that if you give tax cuts to wealthy people that will trickle down to the rest of us. No experience has shown that that can be successful. We should be cleaning up the Tax Code. We should be fighting waste, fraud, and abuse. Whether it's in the Pentagon or in the health care system, we should be doing that together. This budget does not give us that chance.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect bill. This is a disgraceful bill. And this process is not on the level. Yesterday, Wall Street celebrated its highest close in history. And today it's going higher. A few years ago, they came here, hat in hand, insisting on a bailout. They got a bailout. And it was paid for by Main Street, who didn't cause the problem but suffered the consequences, and it was paid for by the middle class, who didn't cause the problem but suffered the consequences. And now we have a budget that is doubling down, grinding down on the middle class. What economic philosophy is at work here? America has always been at its best when it has had budgets that promote economic growth and middle class opportunity. This budget has adopted a notion that austerity is a goal in and of itself. And how will we get to fiscal balance without economic growth and an expanding middle class? Our colleagues say in this budget it will be by putting the heel of austerity on the throat of middle class opportunity. That is wrong. Forty-four percent of the cuts are focused on 14 percent of the budget. That's kids going to college; it's little kids showing up in school hungry who can get a meal; it's TSA workers who are going to get furloughed and who pay their bills month to month. This is disgraceful, and it is also a repudiation of what has made America great--a confidence that we are all in it together. And if we have a budget where we share the pain and we share the opportunity, we'll be the better for it. Wall Street has a second reason to celebrate today because this budget is absolutely doubling down on promoting the well-being of the haves at the expense of the middle class in the great American tradition of middle class opportunity. Profits in this country are the highest they've been since 1950. Wages are the lowest they've been since 1966. We need to stand up for the middle class.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I rise to honor a person whose time was short, but whose contribution was great. Joan Mulhern passed away this past December at the age of 51. Joan graduated from the University of Vermont, and she very quickly made a name for herself as a fierce and extremely effective advocate for the environment in her position with the Vermont Public Interest Research Group. Although Joan then left Vermont to pursue a law degree here in Washington, D.C., and later went on to a very successful and effective career at Earth Justice, Vermont never left Joan. The values with which she pursued her passion for a clean environment and for a sustainable environment were ones Vermonters know well. She was relentless, she was tenacious, she was tireless, she was kind, and she was very effective. As Joan's friends have noted, she would have been uncomfortable with all the tributes that have been paid to her, but she'll have to give us a pass on this one because she certainly lived a life worthy of praise and honor.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman. We have sharp differences in this body on taxes, on spending, on the best path forward to resolve our fiscal situation. Those are fairly legitimate debates, but there should be absolutely no daylight between us on meeting our obligation to pay our bills. There should be no linkage between the obligation to pay our bills and getting our way on contentious issues in dispute among us. This is just like a person with a credit card who buys a refrigerator. At the end of the month when the credit card bill arrives, they've used the refrigerator, they see they're above their credit limit, they don't tear up their credit card. What they do is they stiff their credit card company. We have to pay our bills. That is not negotiable. A year ago August when we went through this spectacle with this linkage, we suffered our first downgrade in the history of the country. That is outrageous. And it's going to cost taxpayers money. If we mess around with the debt ceiling, creating uncertainty as to whether this is a political tool and gimmick, a 1 percent increase in interest rates will cost the taxpayers $1 trillion.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for rollcall vote Nos. 627 and 628, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. It's illegal to be a smart shopper. That's exactly right. You can't make that up. It's illegal. It would be like telling you, if you went into CVS to buy some aspirin, and you knew you were going to use them for a year--you had a family, if you wanted to buy the bottle that had 100 and the per unit price is one-third of what it is if you're going to buy the bottle of 20, it would be illegal for CVS to be able to sell it to you at a lower price per unit. That's what we have in Medicare. Everybody understands you've got to pay for what you're going to get. But the fundamental debate here--and this is what was reflected in the Ryan budget with the voucher plan--is: are we going to try to address what are obvious failures in the system of the delivery of health care, like not allowing for prescription drug price negotiation? That would save $165 billion, and it wouldn't cut a single benefit. Or, are we going to go allow that system that makes no sense continue and instead take $165 billion worth of benefits out of Medicare so that if you go to the doctor, they may treat you for a broken wrist but not a broken forearm. It doesn't make sense. And it certainly doesn't make sense to start talking about benefit cuts before you have the system reform and can get savings that are literally right on the table in front of you. So we can deal with this debt situation that we have in this country. It is serious. Democrats understand that. The President understands it. It's a serious problem. It's a solvable problem. But to solve it we have to have a significant contribution from revenues. The top 2 percent can afford have their taxes go up to the Clinton year rates. That's number one. And number two, we can have reforms in health care that would benefit not just Medicare sustainability but health care expenses, whether you get your health care at work through your employer or whether you're a private-pay person. The nice part of this is that we are all in it together. Thank you for doing this. We can solve this problem. And let's do it.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman from California, and I look forward to returning to the committee and working with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as well. I'm very pleased to be here supporting this legislation. Energy efficiency makes sense. We have brutal arguments here about climate change, about what is the right fuel source. They're dividing us. But the fact is whether you believe in climate change or not, even under the bill that was passed--not this session, but a session ago--we could have met one-third of our climate reduction, carbon emission goals through efficiency. There is an enormous potential in efficiency to make this economy better, to create local jobs, to save people money. This legislation starts down that road, and it's very good. I look and see some of my colleagues over there, even my friend from Georgia. I think we accidentally voted the same on one or two pieces of legislation this year--and I'm not quite sure who made the mistake. But our eyes are wide open on this one with efficiency. We know that this is good for Georgia, it's good for Vermont. And it does not matter what your fuel source is--you can be a nuclear person or a clean energy person--using less is good for the pocketbook, it's good for the economy. I would like to expand on this when we come back next year, find that area where we're in agreement on efficiency and energy and intensify it. When I served on the committee, we did pass HOME STAR. I've partnered this session with Mr. McKinley of West Virginia on a version of that, the HOMES Act, where we would give some incentive to homeowners to retrofit their homes. The evidence is that if you did this in an aggressive way, 95 percent of the materials that are used in retrofitting a home are manufactured in America, so we put those manufacturing jobs back online. Number two, the folks who do the work are the trade folks, who are really still reeling from the housing slump. So they've got the skills and they need the work; we put them back to work. Then your bill at home, as a homeowner--whatever your heat source--goes down. This is sensible and we can do it. It's going to take some decisions on spending. I hope we can get past this notion that every dollar spent is a bad dollar spent. There are times when it makes sense to invest because you get a good return on it, and that's from somebody who does believe that we've got to bring our budget in balance. So I say to the sponsors of this legislation, our leaders on the committee, and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this is a tremendous down-payment on efficiency that will be good for this Congress to work together on and good for this country to get it done.