Peter Welch

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chair, in communities across the country, our infrastructure is falling apart. This fact was highlighted once again when the American Society of Civil Engineers released its 2017 Infrastructure Report Card which gave our nation's infrastructure a D+ rating. That is not acceptable and we must do better. One area of particular concern is the state of our nation's dams. In far too many communities, darns are in danger of breaching. As we recently saw at the Oroville Dam in California, dam breaches can cause catastrophic consequences to the surrounding communities. Last year, Congress took a positive step to address this issue with the passage of the Water Infrastructure Improvement for the Nation (WIIN) Act. In particular, Section 1177 of the WIIN Act authorized funding for the Army Corps of Engineers to begin working to rehab some of our nation's oldest, Corps-constructed dams that are classified as ``high hazard potential''. As many of you know, the failure of a dam that is classified as high-hazard potential is anticipated to cause loss of life. While Section 1177 is a positive start, it needs to be funded so the Corps can get to work. My amendment would simply direct the Army Corps to use existing funds within its Construction Account to implement this provision up to its authorized level of $10 million. Both parties agree we need to improve our infrastructure. This is a modest proposal to address some of the most outdated, hazardous dams in the country. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that would--it is shocking that it would have to even do this--prohibit spending money on these Afghan uniforms that met the sartorial taste of a general that corresponded to lush tropical forests. Number one, what the general wants for sartorial splendor of his troops is not our problem. Number two, his sartorial taste had to do with tropical forests, which is not what we have in Afghanistan. I am very happy that General Mattis himself was outraged by this, and I applaud him. But it is an opportunity for us to express our outrage as well. We all want to support our men and women in uniform, and we all want them to have good uniforms. But it is not up to an Afghan general to take taxpayer money on a vanity project that ultimately undercuts the security of our troops. So, Mr. Chairman, I believe I speak for everyone. Let's not do it.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, due to travel delays, I was unable to vote on Roll Call 407, 408, and 409. Had I been present, I would have voted Nay on Roll Call 407, Nay on Roll Call 408, and Aye on Roll Call 409.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. What is our policy? We are sleepwalking into an escalation. That has failed us before. We have to have that debate now. Where is the money coming from? $150 billion is just going to magically appear. No discussion about that. And this bill does not acknowledge the absolute vital importance of domestic and diplomatic programs to our national security. I applaud the committee and the chairman and the ranking member for some very good work they did. I criticize us in Congress for putting the straitjacket on them so they can't do the job right.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to acknowledge the good work of Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith in the Armed Services Committee. As my colleague from Alabama said, there is nothing more important than having a secure national defense to protect the American people. But this bill does have problems. Many of them are not created by the Armed Services Committee. They are created by us in Congress. It has been catastrophic for us to have the millstone of the Budget Control Act that is limiting the ability of Congress to make decisions about where to spend more or where to spend less, and two things are happening as a result of that. Number one, we abdicate our responsibility. In some places we should be spending more, but in many other places we should be spending less. The second thing, Mr. Speaker, is that we put in straitjackets our managers at the Pentagon and in other programs because we micromanage where they must spend money. If we are going to give them a challenge-- the budget cap right now is $549 billion; this bill suggests that we spend close to $700 billion--we have got to give them managerial flexibility and stability. The Budget Control Act is the ``Budget Paralysis Act.'' That is on all of us here in Congress. Now, a second thing, this bill, in that context, where we are going to blow through that cap but do nothing about our ability to make decisions on the taxes and spending, means that this gets cut totally out of domestic spending. In my view, General Mattis' view is that is bad for national defense. We plus-up the Defense budget, but we take a hatchet to the State Department budget, not something that you can address in the Armed Services bill, I understand. But the effect of it, as General Mattis said: We have to buy more bullets. So this is a symptom of the problem that we have got to face squarely. The other issue in this bill is that it hasn't given us a policy of what is our exit strategy in Afghanistan.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of our committee, our ranking member, Dr. Burgess, and Mr. Green. Facilitating the approval of these drugs, having the FDA work in a safe and constructive way, and having a quicker turnaround time is all really good. It is really important. I thank them for their leadership. This is something that had to be done. It is going to benefit everyone. I want to talk about another issue that we didn't address but we did debate, and that is the high cost of prescription drugs. In this legislation, on the one hand, we are accommodating a reasonable request by the pharmaceutical industry for a fast and efficient approval process; but on the other hand, we are denying any relief to consumers who are getting absolutely hammered day in and day out with unjustified price increases because of the pricing power of the pharmaceutical industry. Yes, they do do good things, life-extending and pain-relieving drugs, but that doesn't justify grinding consumers into the dust who can't afford the cost of these prescriptions, where it is just within reach that they can provide relief to their family. We know how much pharmaceutical prices have been going up. It is hurting our employers, who are working hard to provide good healthcare to their employees. It is hurting taxpayers. But every single one of us has met a constituent like a mom who is struggling with this choice of trying to afford something she can't afford or risk a loss she would never endure. I am talking about the EpiPen; $600 to get an EpiPen here in the United States. Mylan makes that. They are a Netherlands-based company now. They moved over there for tax reasons. In the Netherlands, you can get it for $100. This isn't justified. The chairman, the ranking member, and I know this. When Elijah Cummings and I met with President Trump, he knows it. He talked about the rip-off pricing. He talked about the possibility of importation of safe drugs from Canada as a way of getting some price pressure on these companies. We have got the committee that can address this. I would like us to do that.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute Jim Volz, a public servant widely admired and respected, who retired on June 9, 2017, after 32 years of public service for the people of the State of Vermont. Jim served as Chair of the Vermont Public Service Board, a challenging and demanding role, guiding Vermont through a period of dramatic change in the State's energy policy. His reputation as thorough and fair, considerate and wise, was essential to the progress Vermont made during challenging times. As evidence of the high esteem Jim enjoys, he was first appointed by a Republican governor and then reappointed by a Democratic governor. Jim was seen by all as nonpartisan and scrupulously fair, with an incisive mind, even temperament, and gracious disposition. Before being appointed Chair of the Public Service Board, Jim served 20 years at the Vermont Department of Public Service--sixteen of those as Director of Public Advocacy. That totals 32 consequential years in the regulatory arena. Vermont's good fortune began in 1981 when Jim came to Vermont to clerk for Justice Franklin Billings on the Vermont Supreme Court. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the grateful State of Vermont, I say thank you to Jim Volz for his career of dedicated service to the people of Vermont.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my Republican colleagues, I have heard a lot of advocacy for the small banks. I am with you. Those folks did not cause the Depression, and we have got to give them relief. But what this bill does is essentially use the good reputation of those small lending institutions in all our communities to create an opening for the bad actors that did cause this enormous recession, and it invites them to go back to their bad old days. The business model of our small banks is to help our folks in small communities. The business model of some of the Wall Street banks is to play casino poker with taxpayer money, and that is what happened. We had institutions on Wall Street that were putting together packages of bad loans that they shorted for one investor, and then they sold them as AAA-rated, pension-worthy investments for pensions for our firefighters and teachers. That is absolutely outrageous, and we are allowing that to occur again. We can help the small banks, and we should help the small banks, but we shouldn't give a free pass. Now, there is one good thing in this bill. I am glad, very glad to see that the Durbin rule continues to exist. That was a crackdown. We finally got some relief for our retailers on the transaction fees on debit cards.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I wish to honor the good work of over twenty- five years of the Good Neighbor Health Clinic in White River Junction. Our community faces the challenge of providing healthcare to folks who don't have it. The Good Neighbor Health Clinic was founded in 1992. It was the inspiration of two dedicated doctors, Paul Manganiello and Peter Mason, who asked in 1991, ``What kind of healthcare do the homeless have?'' The answer was: ``None.'' Those doctors set out to work with other physicians and healthcare professionals to change that by creating a clinic with volunteer staff to deliver services to people without any ability to pay for care. Later, they were joined by dentist Robert Keene, and the Red Logan Dental Clinic was added. For over twenty five years, the Good Neighbor Health Clinics have managed to provide fine, professional primary care to people in our community who can't afford it--free of charge. Just last year, 175 volunteer physicians, nurses, dentists, physician assistants, administrators, and about 50 medical students from the nearby Geisel School of Medicine served 1,253 low income residents, with 2,763 patient visits, a total of 3,267 patient interactions. With the additional help of dental students from regional schools, the dental clinic manages to fill cavities, pull teeth, create dentures, and clean the teeth of over 600 patients a year. And, to help foster ownership of one's own health care, the clinics offer workshops on such topics as diabetes, nutrition, substance misuse, smoking cessation, mental health, blood pressure, and heart disease, among other concerns. In other words, while taking care of immediate needs, this Good Neighbor has been creating a more lasting legacy and a culture of health awareness. People who had been afraid to see a doctor for fear of what they might find out, folks who never trusted the medical system, or avoided the dentist, immigrant farm workers who didn't believe they could find medical care in a place they inhabited only seasonally and where the language wasn't their own, and even those local citizens who thought they didn't have the language to speak about their problems with doctors have found help at these clinics. The voices of patients say it all: ``They make me feel welcome.'' ``They listen to me without my feeling that I'm being judged at the same time.'' And, ``They treat me like a real human being.'' We all know the difference that can make. I believe the Good Neighbor Health Clinic and the Red Logan Dental Clinic are not only giving good care. They are caring, and, by being so, are saving lives in many different ways. I ask you today to join me in honoring the good work and the good people of the Good Neighbor Health Clinic.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, President Trump was elected by rural America. This bill betrays rural America three ways: Health care, 24 million-plus are going to lose their health care, many of them in rural America; Second, it takes healthcare dollars and it turns them into a $7 million tax cut for the wealthiest 400 families in this country; Third, the tenet of rural America is: we are in it together. That means if you are born with a preexisting condition, you have a preexisting condition, we are going to be there for you. This bill turns its back on rural America, the people who stand up for one another and believe we are in it together, you are not on your own.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, President Trump today plans to unravel the Clean Power Plan that, once implemented, would reduce carbon emissions by 870 million tons, the equivalent of 166 million cars. Why? False science, false economics. Some of the best minds of the 18th century apparently are advising President Trump on science matters. This planet is melting. We have had the worst wild weather in centuries; the three hottest years on record. Let's not deny what is before our very eyes, false economics. President Trump apparently believes we have to make a choice: either jobs or a clean environment. The exact opposite is true; 8.1 million people worldwide work in clean energy. It will be 24 million in 2030. Solar jobs in Vermont grew at the fastest pace of any jobs. President Trump believes we either have jobs or a clean environment. He has it exactly wrong. We have both or we have neither. A confident nation faces its problems. It doesn't deny them. Keep the Clean Power Plan intact.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, those of us who support the Affordable Care Act know that the work of improving health care and making it more affordable and accessible is never done. It matters. It really matters to the mothers and fathers we represent and to the children that they love. But this bill, stripping 24 million Americans of health care, a $1 trillion tax cut to the wealthiest among us, making people 50 to 64 pay five times as much as other Americans, obviously, is a giant step backwards. One of those Americans is Linda from Burlington. She left an abusive marriage, but had to leave her health care behind. The Affordable Care Act rescued her, and she has gone on to revive her life and her future. Our community hospitals that do so much good in our communities have gone from red ink to black ink by the help that the Medicare expansion provided. It is a sad day for this institution. We did all of this without hearing from a single patient, a single doctor, a single person. We had no hearings. Mr. Speaker, can we do better than that?

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, and to my friends on the Republican side, you have got the perfect bill. It cuts taxes, $800 billion, largely at the high end. It cuts 24 million people off of health care. And it ends the Medicaid entitlement. What is the problem? Bring your bill up here. Now, what you have is not a healthcare bill. You have a tax-cut bill masquerading as a healthcare bill, and your hesitation is the collateral damage that you are going to do to the people who voted for you will become clear. To the hospitals in rural America we need, that damage will become clear. To the people age 50 to 64, who are going to get hammered, hammered at a point in their life when, more than ever, they need health care, you are going to stick it to them. The people who supported you, the people who believed in you are the people you are turning your back on. I say, bring your bill up here. Vote it. Take ownership of what it is you are doing. I welcome your courage in telling rural America that they don't matter.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, because of flight cancellations due to inclement weather, I was unable to vote on Roll Call 159, 160, and 161. Had I been present, I would have voted: Roll Call 159: ``Aye'' Roll Call 160: ``Aye'' Roll Call 161: ``Nay''

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, due to my participation in a meeting with President Trump at the White House, I was unable to vote on Roll Call 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, and 135. Had I been present, I would have voted: Roll Call 129: ``Nay'' Roll Call 130: ``Nay'' Roll Call 131: ``Nay'' Roll Call 132: ``Aye'' Roll Call 133: ``Nay'' Roll Call 134: ``Aye'' Roll Call 135: ``Aye''

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, this country, since Harry Truman, has had an illusive but desirable goal, and that is health care for all of our citizens. We made two strides: one in 1964, with the passage of Medicare; another in 2010, with the passage of ObamaCare. We should be moving towards Medicare for all our citizens. Instead, this bill does not move forward. It goes back. Number one, 24 million Americans will lose their health care. Number two, Americans who have been living a life of toil and effort all of their lives from the ages of 50 to 64--at a time when they need health care the most--are in danger of losing it with the excessive tax that is being imposed on them by this bill. Number three, our community hospitals, from the prairies of Nebraska to the hills of Vermont, those are critical institutions providing care. They have gone from red ink to black ink as a result of the Affordable Care Act. Every single one of those is in jeopardy, and that is going to deprive our citizens in those communities of access to affordable health care. This bill must be defeated. Let's embrace the goal of health care for all our citizens.

Mr. WELCH

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

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chair, my amendment has one goal: to ensure that rural America is very much a part of the conversation on improving the Veterans Administration. This very good, bipartisan bill that is before us will help the VA improve its ability to recruit, hire, train, promote, and retain physicians and other employees at the VA, but it could be slightly changed to help veterans in rural America. And, by the way, a significant number of veterans are in rural America, including Vermont. My amendment would add two provisions. First, the underlying bill requires the GAO to conduct a study on succession planning at the VA. That is intended to try to better understand the problem the agency has to have a pipeline of qualified candidates to assume critical roles that are open. My amendment would require the GAO to study and analyze succession planning and hiring in rural areas. The vast majority of our country is rural, so we have got to put an emphasis on that. The challenges in rural America are different than in the urban areas. Second, the underlying bill also requires the VA to collect information on hiring effectiveness: the time it takes to fill a vacant position, the attrition rate, the reason staff leaves, investment in training and development, and other barriers to recruitment and training. My amendment would require that study to focus on the rural challenges that are different, significantly, than in the urban areas. The lack of qualified candidates that the VA can recruit and, ultimately, fill open positions with is a real problem. But we have to recognize that that is even more difficult in rural America. In Vermont, we have 50,000 veterans living in the State and only nine VA facilities to help them. These are some of the satellite facilities that are quite small. Our largest facility is White River Junction, the VA Medical Center there that we are very proud of. It provided medical care for over 26,000 of those veterans in 2016. The director there has indicated to me that it is a real struggle to find qualified candidates to fill mission-critical positions. We had, at that facility, a wonderful neuropsychologist--desperately needed--but that person was married, had children, and due to the inability of her husband to find a job within his field of work, they have left the VA there to go to an urban area. This is one variation of the problem we face--to recruit, to hire, and to retain critical personnel--that needs to be addressed in rural areas. My amendment will help us better understand the unique challenges rural America faces dealing with the critical staff shortages at our veterans facilities and sets the stage for us to fix the problem. Mr. Chair, I ask Members to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, after only 24 days in office, President Trump's National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, resigned in disgrace. Why? He had direct contact with the Russian Ambassador, assuring him, in likely violation of U.S. law, that the Obama sanctions against Russia would be reversed. And then he lied about it. There is evidence of Trump campaign officials having regular contact with Russians officials, and we know Russia hacked into DNC files and doled out stolen information with the goal of aiding the Trump campaign. So the question is: What is the Russian connection? Congress must do its job. We should conduct a full-scale, no-holds- barred investigation of the links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. There is a mountain of evidence we cannot ignore. The American people have a right to know, of course. But even more importantly, the enduring strength of our democracy is being tested. Congress must maintain our constitutional protection of checks and balances. Investigate now. Investigate fully.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, because of flight cancellations due to inclement weather, I was unable to vote on Roll Call 86 and 87. I would have voted Aye on Roll Call 86 and 87 had I been there.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mrs. Barbara Whelton of Rutland, Vermont. Barbara is retiring from a distinguished career after nearly a half century of devoted public service. Mrs. Whelton has worked in various capacities for government agencies across the country. From 1970 to 1975, she worked for both the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Rhode Island and the United States Marshals Service, assisting with the Service's nascent Witness Protection Program. Following a stint in the Audit Agency for the United States Air Force in Great Falls, Montana, Mrs. Whelton went to work for the United States Secret Service as a Contact Representative from 1975 to 1980. In 1980, Mrs. Whelton and her husband, Master Chief (U.S. Navy, Ret.) Paul Whelton, relocated to Rutland, Vermont where he was posted as a Deputy U.S. Marshal. Upon their arrival, Mrs. Whelton served as a legal assistant in the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Vermont. Except for a brief turn in the private sector, Mrs. Whelton served in our U.S. Attorney's office for twenty-four years before she was asked to become the judicial assistant to Vermont's sole judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Honorable Peter W. Hall. Mrs. Whelton has been Judge Hall's judicial assistant for the past thirteen years. She has worked tirelessly to ensure that chambers ran smoothly and that Judge Hall and his clerks were fully supported in handling their robust caseload. I can say with confidence that without Mts. Whelton's determined efforts, the administration of justice would not have been as efficient or exacting. I know Barbara's colleagues will miss her sharp wit, her quiet determination, her devotion to duty, her professionalism, and most of all, het friendly demeanor. So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me today in recognizing Mrs. Whelton's many contributions to our country and the states and communities she served during her exceptional career. I wish her many years of health and happiness in her well-earned retirement.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, I wish to introduce President Trump to two Syrian families who made it to safety in Rutland, Vermont, just a week before he slammed the door. The al-Hallak family is from Damascus, and the Khatib family is from Aleppo. These families survived a home being bombed, al Qaeda and ISIS terrorists, and the brutal violence of the Assad regime. They found temporary refuge in Turkey. They have now found permanent freedom in Vermont. These good people endured all of this hardship to do what all parents strive to do--protect their children from harm. Madam Speaker, I wish President Trump were with me last Thursday in Rutland to meet the al-Hallaks and the Khatibs. Do we really fear these families when they have been so rigorously vetted? I wish President Trump were with me to meet the generous people of Rutland. They had good questions about the refugee program--its cost and their security. Yet, Madam Speaker, unlike President Trump, the folks in Rutland never, never wanted to ban Muslims and welcome only Christians.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank my colleagues for their support, the former chairman of the committee and now chair of the Subcommittee on Energy. He is a very important person over there, and there are no words I could convey that would meet the reputation of Mr. Upton. I thank him and Ms. DeGette very much. They have said a lot of the specific content of this bill. This is a situation where Congress passed a good law. There was a provision in it that needed to be corrected, and, lo and behold, Congress is correcting that provision. It is about these security devices that obviously can't operate on no-power mode. They have got to be on. When the bad guys come in, we have got to be watching. That is really what this is all about. It is a combination of the bipartisan commitment that we have had to energy efficiency, especially last year. I do give Mr. Upton a lot of credit for this. We have had a lot of debates in this Congress about climate change, about the science, and aside from--we don't need to get into that--to embrace as we have in a bipartisan way, there are enormous benefits to efficiency every single place we can find it. This efficiency bill originally was applying to all these devices to put them in no-load mode. That was cutting down on use of electricity. It was cutting down on carbon emissions. It was saving people money. But the no-load obviously couldn't apply to security devices. Last year, Mr. Pompeo, when he was a Congressman, supported this, and now that he is going to be our leader in the CIA, he knows you have got to keep that watching device on when the bad guys are lurking around. We are back this year. One of our first bills to be passed and hopefully signed by the President is the extension of the correction that we made sometime ago. I am delighted to be here with my colleagues in support of this legislation, getting this House of Representatives off to a constructive start.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Young for being a great partner in the presentation of this bill. Many of us worked together on rural telecommunications issues, from getting broadband to all Vermonters and folks in rural parts of your districts to improving our wireless infrastructure to ensuring we have adequate choice and competition in cable markets. That is because it is our desire, and mine especially, to ensure that rural America has comparable telecom services to urban and suburban America, just as the 1996 Telecommunications Act requires. Making that happen requires constant effort and focus. We often focus on rural broadband accessibility and affordability so that the next generation of technological innovation does not skip rural America and leave it behind. The promise of innovation, like the Internet of things, should not be earmarked just for urban and suburban America, which is why it is backwards and unfortunate that we are still talking about finding ways to ensure that traditional landline telephone calls can be completed without interruption on a consistent basis, but that is exactly what this bill that I worked on with Representative Young is getting at. Our bill would require the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, to establish rules that require third-party providers--or least cost routers, as they are called, which is the problem in the call chain--to register their companies, for the first time, with the FCC and, therefore, have to comply with FCC service quality regulations, just like other companies. This legislation would make it easier for the FCC to hold accountable third-party providers. The FCC will finally know who they are and make them comply with those quality standards. This is really important in rural areas because we have got companies that do business with urban America. In Vermont, Dakin Farm had rural call completion problems during their busiest times in 2012. That was the Thanksgiving to Christmas holiday period. It really hurt their bottom line. It put them at a competitive disadvantage. When people call in and the call is dropped, they think it is bad service from Dakin Farm or the company that they are calling, when it is not. Those folks have to then deal with the reputational harm that is caused. It is important in rural school districts like Camels Hump in Vermont that rely on these calls when there is a snowstorm or ice storm--and there is one coming tonight--to check whether, in fact, they have got to get their kids to school or not. So it is a big deal when they need it. I appreciate, by the way, the work that Representative Young has done on this. I look forward to this bill passing both Chambers and being signed into law so we can, hopefully, make rural call completion issues a thing of the past.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, on probably the most important issue, we are having the dumbest debate. We say the healthcare bill is good. You say it stinks. We think it is good because we think it is good that kids, until they are age 26, can stay on their parents' plan. We think it is good because people with preexisting conditions ought to have access to health care, and we think it is good that a person who gets sick shouldn't lose their health care. You say it is bad, even though the plan was based on a Heritage Foundation initiative and adopted largely in Massachusetts by a Republican governor. Bottom line, you are the majority in the House; you are the majority in the Senate; and you have got the Presidency. You have got some responsibility to show us the beef. Where is the plan? Now, there is a lot of paper over there, but you haven't shown us a plan. And here is why: because when you put pen to paper, all hell is going to break loose on your side because you have to move beyond the rhetoric to figuring out how you are going to pay to keep our kids on our healthcare plan. You are going to figure out how to pay if we are going to let folks with preexisting conditions have health care. Those don't solve themselves, and you don't have a plan. We are entitled, the American people are entitled, to have it.