Peter Welch

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) not just for his remarks on this bill, but for his leadership on this issue and other issues in the committee over the years. It is a good day when we can come together to do something constructive. This legislation finds that spot, energy efficiency, where we can join in embracing the enormous benefit of creating ways where homeowners and business owners of commercial buildings can figure out how to cut down on their bills. Whatever fuel source they use, if they have got a lower bill, that is a good thing. To achieve that goal, we have to put Americans to work, a lot of tradespeople who have got real skills and need a place to use them. They are the ones who retrofit these buildings, commercial buildings and homes. There is an incidental benefit: We reduce carbon emissions since we are using less fuel. This is tremendous. I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for all the good work that they did. Madam Speaker, seeing no other speakers here, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for his excellent work. Today is a very good day in Congress and in our country as we send to the President's desk bipartisan legislation that will: one, lower energy bills for families and businesses; two, create good jobs in manufacturing American-made energy efficiency products; and, three, improve our environment by reducing carbon emissions. I am hopeful that the common ground we have found in this bill sets the stage for further cooperation by both parties and by both Chambers in addressing many of the challenges facing our country. I want to thank Chairman Upton and Chairman Whitfield, and I want to thank Ranking Member Pallone and Ranking Member Rush for working with us to advance this important legislation. Thank you, especially, Representative McKinley, for partnering with me this term and last on this issue. Your background as an engineer and as a small business owner has provided much-needed expertise to our committee, and I am grateful to you for your partnership and leadership on this issue. The bill before us today, as Mr. Whitfield said, advanced by Senators Shaheen and Portman in the Senate, also includes some very good ideas from many Members of this House, those from Representatives Cramer, Doyle, Latta, Loebsack, Castor, and Kinzinger. Thank you all for your contributions to this good, bipartisan bill. Madam Speaker, I have long believed that energy efficiency is an issue that lends itself to looking past partisan differences to find common ground in our Congress. We may disagree on the causes of climate change and of the best fuel mix to meet America's energy needs, but we can all agree that using less of whatever energy source is more. We can all agree that creating demand for American-made, energy-efficient products will create good jobs, and we can all agree that cutting the energy bills of homeowners, businesses, and the Federal Government is a very good thing. Vermont has been a leader for a long time in energy efficiency. We were the first in the Nation to establish an ``energy efficiency utility'' to provide assistance to homeowners and businesses that were seeking to lower their energy bills. In 2013 alone, the work of Efficiency Vermont yielded a lifetime customer savings of $206 million for Vermonters. That is real money. The bill before us today takes an important step towards making America more energy efficient. It includes the Better Buildings Act, also known as Tenant Star, which will drive private sector innovation in the energy efficiency sector. Homes and buildings consume 40 percent of our energy in the United States. That is 40 percent. In commercial buildings, owners report that tenants consume up to 50 percent or more of the total building energy. One of the challenges facing commercial buildings has been the issue of ``split incentives.'' Building owners and tenants are not always on the same page when it comes to energy performance. Part of the problem is that only one party is paying the energy bill. The other part of the problem is that, while we recognize energy-efficient buildings through our ENERGY STAR program, we have no similar recognition program for tenant spaces. Our bill creates a voluntary Tenant Star recognition program for separate spaces in commercial buildings. When we combine ENERGY STAR buildings with Tenant Star rentals, we can optimize energy efficiency and shorten payback periods. A good example of this synergy can be found in the ENERGY STAR-certified Vermont Innovation Center, located in Burlington, Vermont. The Vermont Energy Investment Corporation is located in this building as well as my own district office. The VEIC took aggressive action to optimize the efficiency of its tenant space in the building. It converted the overhead fluorescent lighting to highly efficient LEDs and applied 6 inches of spray foam insulation to the exterior walls. Making these improvements in an ENERGY STAR building optimized an already efficient tenant space. The VEIC expects to save nearly $11,000 a year in energy savings. However, there is no recognition program for these improvements, and we don't know what else VEIC could be doing to increase energy savings. Under this bill, we will study the best ways to optimize commercial tenant spaces and to recognize such spaces with a new Tenant Star label. By combining energy-efficient tenant build-outs with ENERGY STAR buildings, we will double down on a successful program and optimize energy savings in commercial buildings, all through voluntary action. In addition to Tenant Star, this legislation includes two other important efficiency provisions. First, the bill makes much-needed changes to energy efficiency standards for large water heaters used in demand response programs. These water heaters act as residential energy storage devices and allow utilities to curb energy demand during peak hours. Mr. Whitfield, thank you again for your leadership on this. Second, the bill will require the disclosure of the amount of energy consumed in federally leased buildings and begin benchmarking their energy use. In the coming weeks, I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass additional bipartisan energy efficiency bills, including a more expansive version of the McKinley-Welch-Shaheen-Portman legislation before us today. We should also pass legislation to encourage performance contracting in Federal buildings and streamline the Federal green schools efforts. Madam Speaker, energy efficiency is not a partisan issue. I am encouraged by the steps we are taking today and look forward to working with my colleagues on additional initiatives that cut energy bills, create jobs, and improve the environment. I urge Members to vote for this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased that the House is taking up again bipartisan action today to address the serious issue that impacts families in each of our districts: prescription drug abuse. Vermont, like Tennessee and many States around the country, is grappling with a serious opiate epidemic. In addition to alarming increases in heroin abuse, admissions for treatment of prescription drug abuse increased 361 percent between 2005 and 2013. As we have experienced in Vermont, we are most effective in dealing with this public health crisis when stakeholders--providers, public health officials, law enforcement, distributors, and pharmacists--come together to tackle the problem head-on. Today, the distributors of prescription drugs, along with local pharmacies, are experiencing unpredictable enforcement from the DEA. This has led to disruptions in the supply chain which limit patient access to prescription drugs for legitimate uses, as was evidenced by my colleague's story. The Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act will encourage collaboration between law enforcement, members of the supply chain, and public health providers and officials while ensuring patients have access to the treatment their doctor has prescribed. It has been a pleasure to work with Representative Marino, Representative Blackburn, and Representative Chu, who has been a major leader on this, and I thank them for their efforts and their leadership. I also thank Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Pallone for making this issue a priority of the Energy and Commerce Committee. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 471, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu), one of the lead sponsors of this legislation.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on Roll Call 119, 120, and 121. I would like to indicate that I would have voted ``No'' on roll call 119, ``Aye'' on roll call 120, and ``No'' on roll call 121.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, David Goudy has made the Montshire Museum of Science in Norwich his life's work. Over the three decades of his vigorous and enlightened service, David has led the Montshire Museum from a fledgling enterprise to a nationally recognized center for science learning. Under David's leadership Montshire Museum has developed their capacity for high-quality science education. He helped form the Montshire School Partnership Initiative that supports science education in the region's rural K-8 schools by building capacity and infrastructure for high-quality science programs. Montshire Museum has become a national model, attracting research and program support from numerous private foundations and federal agencies including the National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Education (DOE), National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA), National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). As Montshire's executive director, David was instrumental in creating the partnership between Dartmouth College and the Montshire Museum, known as the Dartmouth-Montshire Institute for Science Education, a collaborative effort drawing upon the resources of these two leading institutions to better serve the educational needs of Vermont and New Hampshire. During David's tenure, Montshire became an official interpretive site for the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge in 1995. David's leadership extends beyond the Montshire Museum. He currently serves on the executive committee of the New England Museum Association and key committees of the Association of Science and Technology Centers. He serves as an evaluator for the Museum Assessment Program of the American Alliance of Museums. David has been recognized with the first annual New Hampshire Corporate Fund Award for Excellence in Nonprofit Management, and represented Montshire at a White House reception with President Clinton recognizing Montshire as the first recipient of the National Award for Museum Service. Mr. Speaker, David has provided the Montshire Museum with many years of remarkable service and his lasting legacy is immediately clear to anyone who visits the museum. While we will miss his exemplary leadership, the Board of Trustees is fully committed to maintaining the high standards that he has established for the Montshire's educational programs, exhibits, facilities and visitor services.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. If I may, Mr. Garamendi, you are so right. One of the upsides of this really tough economy is that interest rates have gone down, and a lot of folks have been given a little breathing room by being able to reduce their interest rates on their mortgage from 7 or 8 percent down to 3\1/2\ percent. That is real money in their pocket.

Mr. WELCH. Why not allow students and parents who have cosigned on students loans that same opportunity to save a few bucks? They will pay those loans back. So I salute you.

Mr. WELCH. That is exactly right.

Mr. WELCH. Well, I thank you for your leadership.

Mr. WELCH. Thank you for doing this. One of the things that we have to recognize in Congress is that policies really make a difference. Wages have stagnated; people haven't had a raise in 15 or 20 years; and there are a lot of reasons for that. Some of it is globalization. A lot of it has to do with the weakening bargaining power of unions that were so helpful in improving living standards for everyday Americans, not just for the members of the union but for others who benefited by the commitment of unions to good jobs, good wages, and safe working conditions. There are pressures with globalization that have reduced bargaining power. It has made things cheaper to buy but has really helped contribute to lower wages. The bottom line is that we need policies in order to focus attention, as you are saying, on the middle class and improving their purchasing power, giving them what the middle class has always had: a wage or a salary where, at the end of the month, they can pay their bills, set aside a little money for college, set aside a little money for a vacation, set aside a little extra money for retirement. That is a basic contract that we should be making. We have got a variety of things where we have created policies and undercut the capacity of the middle class to sustain itself. The tax policy is out of control. It is really outrageous when we have been passing these Bush tax cuts that are skewed very heavily toward high-end folks with the notion and the assertion that it will create jobs through trickle-down economics. It hasn't worked. When we have entered, in some cases, into trade agreements, it didn't take into account the environmental and labor standards that are so essential to having a level playing field. American workers are willing to compete, but it has got to be on a level playing field. Then basic things that a confident nation always invests in, even in tough times, like education and the future. We grew up, and those ahead of us had the GI Bill. They came back from serving their country and got a free education. But you know what? They paid it back, and then some, with their productivity. We established Medicare and Social Security that has provided a safety net for older people. We are trying to make inroads now into providing a secure health care system for everybody through the Affordable Care Act, but we have a big challenge in bringing down those costs. We have an opportunity to invest in, as you were saying, not just the higher education, but job training for people so that they have the skills that we need to compete in a modern economy. And the infrastructure that you mentioned, how is it that in this country, where we have extraordinary engineers, extraordinary needs, and bipartisan agreement that we have to rebuild our roads and our bridges, extend broadband throughout the country, including in rural areas of Vermont and, by the way, rebuild our schools, rebuild our hospitals, all of these are institutions that are essential to the well-being of local communities that are where the middle-class people live, so I really appreciate your focus on this. What is frustrating, I think, for America and for a lot of us in Congress is that our focus on policy is how many more tax cuts should we give to folks who don't need them, how much more should we spend on things that don't reward investment and hard work, and for how long are we going to continue this disinvestment in science, in research, in medical research, in infrastructure, and in education. I am pretty amazed, as I know you are, that young people getting out of college, on average, have a $30,000-plus debt. Many have accumulated debts in the range of $100,000, and a lot of those debts are shared by their parents who have cosigned. They pay higher interest rates. A lot of those parents who have finally paid down their house and were looking forward to maybe taking a 2- or 3-week vacation, maybe a cruise, suddenly find themselves saddled, along with their kids, with these very high monthly payments for education. So there is a bipartisan desire, I think, to help the middle class, but we are in a debate about what the solutions are. Essentially, one argument is that no taxes, no regulation, will somehow lift all boats. I don't think I have seen evidence that that is the case. Another argument is you have got to make sensible, prudent, disciplined decisions about how and where to invest in the future of this country. So, Mr. Garamendi, I salute you for your advocacy here and for speaking so eloquently on this issue that I think is the issue of our time.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, because of flight cancellations due to inclement weather, I was unable to vote on Roll Call 2, Election of the Speaker. Had I been present, I would have voted for Representative Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Section 4: ``The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.''

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, at the heart of this issue are two questions: First, is climate change real? Is it a threat to our economy, to jobs, to our environment, and to our security? Speaking for Vermont, climate change is real. In the past 5 years, Vermont has had 10 Federal disaster declarations from severe weather, including Tropical Storm Irene that did nearly $1 billion worth of damage. Our farmers, ski area operators, and maple sugar producers are all trying to contend with the changing climate. Also, we know that that oil is the same. This is not sweet Texas crude. Tar sands produce about 20 to 40 percent more carbon emissions than that Texas oil, and extracting it is going to produce about 27 million metric tons of carbon emissions. The second question is this: Should Congress now or should Congress ever pass a major piece of legislation without any committee hearings, particularly when that legislation is only about oil going through our country, not to our country? And this legislation includes a special provision that exempts a foreign corporation from contributing to an environmental cleanup fund all our domestic corporations are required to pay into. On the issue of jobs, these are good jobs, about 2,000 jobs. But if this Congress would do its job, we would pass a surface transportation bill that would create 200,000 jobs and put those 3 million men and women in our labor unions to work on good things that are going to rebuild this country. Mr. Speaker, this is the wrong bill, it is passed in the wrong way, and at exactly the wrong time. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady. One of the big challenges that this institution faces is to restore its credibility with the American people. This process that we have gone through, where, at the end of the negotiations between our House and Senate negotiators, two provisions of great significance were inserted into the bill--one that would provide relief from Dodd-Frank provisions to Wall Street banks, the other which would allow individuals to increase donations to $2.5 million per cycle--had no hearings. They had no debate. No one has had any input on what the implications are of these actions that are very significant when it comes to campaign finance and when it comes to the integrity of Dodd- Frank. We must legislate in the light of day and not use a piece of legislation that is of vital concern to the American people to attach provisions that have nothing to do with that particular bill. It is why so many people--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--think that the political process is not on the level. So why put these provisions in? We could pass these bills without it. These provisions would then be allowed to have hearings in committee, and then we would be responsible to vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on the campaign finance provision, on the Dodd-Frank provision, where our constituents would be able to hold each and every one of us accountable as to what our view was.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am in full support of this postal naming. At this time, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California, Representative Capps, the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), my good friend who is the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation. At this time, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California, Representative Hahn, the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I fully support this legislation. At this time, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida, Representative Wilson, and I thank her for sponsoring this legislation.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, it is a combination of humility and pride when we hear about the lives of these brave young Americans. That is the second wonderful person from Missouri, but all of us, in our States, have people that have served America this way. What strikes me here is Sergeant Fisher went from Iraq to Afghanistan--he didn't have to do that, but he had a need to serve--and the inspiring story about his selfless commitment to serving this country when he had behind a loving family and a wife, and he sacrificed all. If he were here and were asked the question, ``Was it worth it?'' you know he would say it was because he loved his family, he loved his country, and he was willing and did give his life for his country. So as a person here standing on the floor, as an American hearing about the bravery of this young man, I want to thank Representative Wagner for bringing this to the collective attention of the House of Representatives, and we fully support this legislation. It is a small honor for a large sacrifice. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I support this, and I can't add to the excellent words of my colleague from North Carolina. It is an amazing thing when we are naming post offices to hear about the brave lives--in this case of a very young woman with a bright future who gave her life for her country. So I am delighted to join in Representative Wagner's legislation to make this name permanent so that we can all remember and revere the memory of this brave soldier. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.