Peter Welch

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. To someone else, it is a dodge. That is all it is. It is us trying to fool the American people with a game of three-card Monte where we are pretending that the problem that we are decrying had somehow mysteriously evolved out of nowhere. I respect the concern of the authors of this bill about our debt. What I don't respect is the failure of Congress to address it.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I respect the motivation that underlies this bill. We have got a debt in this country that is too large, and we have got to address it, but this is a nonresponse. The job of addressing the debt belongs to Congress. It can't be outsourced. The Secretary of the Treasury has no more authority to address the debt than the Secretary of Agriculture or Education or the Democratic National Committee or the Republican Campaign Committee. This is a job that has to be done, but it is our job to do it. Asking the Secretary of the Treasury to come in and talk about when that date certain will be on default when we set that date when we pass budgets means that we are asking somebody else to do our job and asking somebody who actually doesn't even have the authority to do the job. That belongs to Congress. Every time we vote on either a tax cut or an appropriation bill, it has clear implications for how that will impact on the debt ceiling. It is debatable because there are fluctuations as to when we will hit that date. But it is absolutely certain that, when we appropriate money or we pass tax cuts, in one case spending will go up, and in the other case revenues will go down. What we have done is gone along in a kind of la-la land where we think we can cut taxes, we can raise spending, and then we are astonished when a year or so later there is actually a bill that comes due. This is not the debt management bill. It is not the fiscal responsibility bill. It is the debt mismanagement and fiscal irresponsibility bill. Think about the things that we have done. Mr. McGovern has been talking about it. But we had a war in Iraq, a trillion dollars. Nobody paid for that. We voted to spend a trillion dollars on tax cuts. We can have an argument about tax policy. But you know what, revenues went down. Congress voted to spend $800 billion on the prescription drug program, something that had bipartisan support. Not paid for. And then just a few weeks ago we passed tax extenders that are going to reduce revenues by $2 trillion. Actions have consequences. The consequences are ones that are inevitable and foreseeable as a result of the actions of this Congress. This Congress, instead of assuming its responsibility, tries to outsource it.

Mr. WELCH

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

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentleman from Texas for his gracious remarks. He spent a fair amount of time in the Green Mountain State, so he knows about these mobile homes. I am going to go back and tell folks that you are still the good guy you were when you were spending more time in the Green Mountain State. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I am a strong supporter of the good work that is represented in H.R. 3700, and I congratulate Chairman Luetkemeyer and Ranking Member Cleaver for their hard work on this, as well as Chairman Hensarling and Ranking Member Waters. This bill is a really solid, bipartisan improvement over the status quo. This amendment would extend some of the benefits of H.R. 3700 to folks who live in mobile homes, and that happens to be an awful lot of Vermonters who are working real hard trying to make ends meet. The idea of a bricks and sticks house is a dream for them, but they love the mobile home they have, and they have economic challenges in that home. I think that is true not just in Vermont but really across rural America. What this amendment would allow is for the Section 8 housing vouchers to be used for some of the obvious expenses that are associated with owning a mobile home, Mr. Chairman. Right now, only the land rent is what can be included in the voucher. But in addition to that, obviously, you have got the true cost of the mobile home that the owner pays for the housing. In addition to the land rent underneath the home, mobile homeowners often pay a number of other costs, including utilities, insurance, and financing for their mobile homes. People renting apartments where it is not a mobile home, all of those are factored into the rent. So what this amendment would do is allow those costs to be included in the calculation for Section 8 that in our view put an unnecessary and unfair limitation on what can be considered. Compare that to the housing cost vouchers that individuals in rental units get. All of those are included in the rent. So this amendment would address that issue by allowing the property taxes on a mobile home, as well as insurance, utilities, and financing, to be included as components of the housing costs eligible for a voucher. It would make a huge difference in affordability for Vermonters and for Americans across this country who are working hard every day and whose option for safe shelter is a mobile home. Mr. Chairman, I urge that my colleagues support this amendment. I thank my colleagues for the bipartisan, solid work they have done on this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. But the reality is we are building a structure of inequality, bill by bill, brick by brick. Denying class action access to the courts for everyday Americans injured by similar or the same corporate misconduct is to deny them a basic American right. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to vote against this legislation and stand up for access to justice.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, the 114th Congress will be remembered as the Congress that tried and tried again to unravel the extraordinary and great achievements of that American President of a century ago, Theodore Roosevelt. President Roosevelt was a Republican. He believed in capitalism, he believed in profit, he believed in commerce. But he understood something that this Congress seems to forget: The axiom that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, applies to Wall Street and to large corporations as much as it does to oligarchs and despots. Mr. Speaker, this legislation does end any realistic opportunity for consumers who are hammered by corporate negligence or irresponsibility or outright deceit from joining together to get the justice they are entitled to by using the only practical means available to obtain it, the class action lawsuit. Instead, this legislation would deny class action status to all consumers affected by the exact same corporate misconduct--say, faulty brakes--unless they suffered the identical injury, a broken arm, but not a broken leg. In a case of current moment, of real corporate misconduct and actual deceit, Volkswagen lying about its emissions control and, really, fudging the numbers on its mileage, the 3,000 Vermonters and 11 million Americans would have to file individual suits unless each suffered the same exact economic loss. What is the justification for building this barrier to access to the courts? There is none. But the proponents of this legislation are advocating, idealistically and ideologically, the underpinning of so much other legislation for Americans who are seeking safety, who are seeking opportunity, who are seeking justice. Think about it. Repealing the ACA, Affordable Care Act, with no replacement for those 17 million Americans who are now covered; unraveling Dodd-Frank, leaving Wall Street to its old ways that led to the collapse of the economy in 2008; denying Puerto Rico, at the last minute, the option that every other municipality or State has if there is a credit situation to go into bankruptcy, all in service of hedge fund billionaire investors from Wall Street. Starving the FTC and the SEC of their budgets so that they are no longer able to provide protections to consumers and small investors that they are entitled to. Teddy Roosevelt, capitalist that he was, would never have stacked the deck so high against everyday Americans. You know, we are talking a lot in this country about income inequality that is real. We can debate the causes.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the extraordinary public service of Susan M. Hudson, Clerk of the Vermont Public Service Board for 39 years. Mr. Speaker, the Vermont Public Service Board is Vermont's utility regulatory commission, a quasi-judicial board that supervises Vermont's public utilities: electric, natural gas, telecommunications, and statewide energy efficiency. The Board regulates their rates, quality of service, siting, and financial management. It reviews the environmental and economic impacts of proposals to purchase energy supply or build new energy facilities--including conventional sources and a growing number of renewable energy plants in an increasingly complex regulatory field. The process the Board administers often requires public hearings, evidentiary hearings, and other forms of inquiry and investigation to ensure that high-quality service is provided by the utilities at rates that are just and reasonable. In short, the Vermont Public Service Board plays a crucial role in the lives of Vermonters. It is a role that it could not have hoped to play well without the sustained energy and focus that Sue Hudson has brought to so many facets of the Board's work. Sue Hudson has had a remarkable and steady career at the Public Service Board. Her service has spanned the terms of six Vermont governors and 24 different Board members. She kept the wheels of regulation aligned and in good working order through major transitions in the utility industry and the Board structure. Through all of these changes, Sue Hudson remained the public face of the Board to countless citizens, developers, and utility personnel as they visited the Clerk's office to make filings, ask questions, and review documents. While many of the cases she processed were highly contested and involved significant public controversy, Sue Hudson's calm demeanor, fair disposition, and credibility as a Vermonter through and through have been a major asset to the Public Service Board in the performance of its responsibilities. Sue Hudson is a longtime resident of Hardwick, Vermont, where she is a fully involved member of the community. Her husband, Dan Hudson, looks forward to spending more time with her. She has two wonderful daughters and two grandchildren. As busy as Sue Hudson has been helping Vermonters to navigate the regulatory process, she is also an avid and accomplished golfer and tennis player. And she has always found time to be very involved with her church community. Through her professionalism and dedication, Sue Hudson has made a significant contribution to civic life in Vermont. On behalf of all Vermonters, I ask the House of Representatives to acknowledge Sue Hudson and her remarkable service to the people of the Green Mountain State.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, the Food and Drug Administration has an extremely important job to make certain that our food is safe, but it is often misguided and overreaches in some of its regulations. The FDA is considering a standard that would severely impact artisan cheese producers. They have proposed a safety standard that seeks to limit the level of nontoxigenic E. coli found in raw milk cheeses. The problem is there is absolutely no scientific connection between meeting that standard and improving food and safety. Yet, there is a very practical, burdensome impact on our artisan cheese makers. It is why the ICMSF, the leading global food safety body, the European Union, and many U.S. food safety experts have argued that monitoring raw milk cheeses for nontoxigenic E. coli is absolutely unwarranted. In spite of that international consensus, the FDA is forging ahead, and it is going to do real damage to our artisan cheese makers. Artisan cheese makers already have rigorous protocols in place to ensure safety. That is why I led a bipartisan, bicameral group of colleagues in sending a letter to FDA raising concerns with this standard: FDA, do your job, but get it right.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, this bill is missing a great opportunity where we have common ground on energy efficiency. Mr. Upton and Mr. Whitfield are great chairmen of the subcommittee and the standing committee and made an honest effort to try to include all of the possible things that we could do on energy efficiency, but we came up short. The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy--and that is made up of a lot of private sector companies that are trying to meet the demand that their consumers, corporate consumers, and individuals have to get more bang for their energy dollar by using less and saving more--has said that this bill will not reduce energy consumption in the United States. It will increase it, at a cost of about $20 billion through 2040. Why are we doing that? Energy efficiency is the area where we agree. There is a lot of contentious debate about climate change; we are not going to resolve that today. But we have bipartisan agreement that we should use less energy. It is good for our customers, and it is good for the economy, and it is good for the environment. We came up short. Many of the costs in energy efficiency could be saved with building codes language, which Mr. McKinley, an engineer on the Republican side, introduced along with me. That is not in this bill. There was a number of other bipartisan amendments that could have been offered. One by Mr. Kinzinger, the Smart Building Acceleration Act, should be in the bill. One by Mr. Reed, the Smart Manufacturing Leadership Act, should be in the bill. So energy efficiency, that is the place we can work together, and it is the place where we save money by using less energy and improving our economy and improving the environment as well. The second area is the renewable fuel standards. We have a huge debate in this Congress. If you are a corn farmer and you are from that district, the renewable fuel standards work for you because it increases what you get for producing corn. Everywhere else, you are getting hammered. The cost to farmers who have to pay grain bills is higher. The cost to consumers who have to buy food is higher. The cost to small engine owners who have to get more repairs is higher. And it is bad for the environment. That has been determined, I think, to be a well-intended flop. Many of us had amendments that were going to let this Congress vote on the renewable fuel standard. It was denied by the Committee on Rules because the Congressional Budget Office has said that if we actually passed an amendment eliminating the renewable fuel standards, drivers of pickup trucks and cars would get higher gas mileage, and, therefore, there would be less revenue in the transportation bill from the gas tax, and we might have to pay more to farmers as a subsidy. Now, what is going on here when we can't take a vote on a proposal that would have the effect of saving the driving public money on gas? You know, I am willing to take that vote. I am willing to take the heat for saving drivers in this country money because they can get better mileage without ethanol in the fuel. Mr. Speaker, there has been a real effort here on the committee to make progress. My goal is that we keep at it and try to improve this bill as it goes along the legislative path.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Neal said, this transportation highway bill used to be a solid, bipartisan bill that invested in the future of this country. This Congress has set different expectations. I think if we are candid with ourselves and with the American people, we have become a low-expectations Congress. I guess it could be said that this bill meets, but certainly doesn't exceed, the low expectations that prevail in this body. It is true that it will have a 6-year bill authorization with 3 years of bubble-gum-styled funding. That is going to give some certainty to the agency of transportation in Vermont, so it is true that this is better than when we were doing 3-month extensions and 5-month extensions on ``pension smoothing.'' You know what? America deserves better. America needs more, and we can provide it. We have jobs to create, work to be done, workers ready to put shovels in the ground and to get America moving again. It is within our power, both sides, to make that happen. But it can't happen if we are so fearful to even discuss revenue measures that we don't have hearings on them. We have had good proposals from Mr. Blumenauer, a bipartisan proposal with Mr. Renacci and Mr. Pascrell, the Delaney proposal. There are solutions out there that are going to invest in this country, generate jobs for this economy, increase the gross domestic product, and make our economy more competitive and our highway system safer.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Chairman, one of the major challenges for a comprehensive transportation bill is to have it facilitate the creation of livable communities, and we have, across this country, more and more communities that, as part of creating that space for good transportation, want to include and have included bike paths. Biking transportation has become a real attraction for younger people who are moving into urban areas. It is something that has taken cars off the road and has put people on bikes. People are getting exercise and are finding beautiful ways to get around their communities. It is something that adds to the overall quality of life in communities across the country. It used to be that biking was seen as something that just individuals would do. It is now seen, as a result of transportation policy, as integral to a livable community approach. In the current legislation before us, the Federal match would be reduced from 90 and 95 percent to 80 percent. This amendment would propose to keep the status quo, keeping that Federal contribution at 90 to 95 percent. It makes a huge difference in our communities to get that extra boost as it makes a difference as to whether or not they can proceed on some bikeway improvements. So let's keep what we have. We have a good thing going. With this amendment, the ability to keep it going will be even stronger. In Vermont, bike commuting has increased by over 70 percent from 2005 to 2014. Vermont has 19 bike and pedestrian facility projects across the State, totaling $38.9 million. There is a lot of local money in that. By the way, the young and old and middle-aged are all getting out, taking advantage of those things. Burlington has proposed a fully integrated bike network, and this amendment would help that city in Vermont complete that goal. The benefits to biking are tremendous. It is good for the environment. It is good for us when we get on bikes and get a little exercise. It is a good healthcare benefit. It is good for taking cars and congestion off the road. There are incidental benefits and economic. It has been demonstrated in Vermont that there are significant revenue gains to local businesses by having as robust a bike system as we can have. In summary, biking is integral in Vermont and in the Nation. Earl Blumenauer is the patron of biking in this country. It is a really big, important component, and I urge the passage of this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH. Madam Chairman, I have one comment. We have a budgetary issue because we don't have as robustly funded a transportation bill as we need. I appreciate the comments of the chairman of the committee, but that problem is something that is going to be hamstringing every activity we do, whether it is mass transit or bikes. My hope is that, by the end of this process, we are finally going to put the money into our infrastructure--every component of it that we need. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), my friend, who we all know in the United States House of Representatives is the champion of bikers everywhere.

Mr. WELCH. Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to my remaining time.

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman from Oregon, and I reiterate his strong arguments. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, there are a few reasons why this agreement deserves our support: First, it is good public policy. This finally unleashes the shackles of the sequester that have prevented Congress from making decisions and, instead, just had across-the-board cuts. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) is going to have an opportunity for his Appropriations Committee--Republicans and Democrats--to do its job. Second, it averts enormous increases in Medicare part B premiums. Third, it keeps Social Security disability funds solvent through 2022, and there are a number of other things. The second major reason why this is so important is this: It is an agreement. We have finally come together, through the leadership of Speaker Boehner and Leader Pelosi, to legislate. We have been part of a legislative body that is on strike, that hasn't legislated. We cannot underestimate the power that is unleashed by the capacity of this Congress to give certainty to the American people and to our agencies as to what comes ahead and what they have to do. Secondly, what Speaker Boehner did--and I am so indebted to him, as all of us should be--is that he took out of the hands of those of us in Congress two weapons which, when used, are very destructive, and those are: the threat of shutting the government down, and the threat of defaulting on America's full faith and credit. We can't do that. And Speaker Boehner, to his credit, when there was the Planned Parenthood dispute about funding and he was in favor of cutting funding, he opposed shutting down government to achieve that goal. We have suspended the debt ceiling through 2017, which means this body is going to have not just the opportunity, but the responsibility to do its job. Finally, what we have seen here, when Speaker Boehner reached out to Leader Pelosi, is that he had in the minority leader a willing partner who was willing to sit down, work hard, and reach an agreement. That sets the foundation for progress ahead. I wish the best success to Speaker-to-be Ryan. He has willing and able partners in the whole Caucus to make progress for America.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. Raising the debt ceiling has absolutely nothing to do at all with increasing government spending. It only has to do with whether America will pay its bills for obligations already incurred. Many of those obligations, by the way, are for expenditures that I vigorously opposed: trillions of dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, unpaid for, and trillions of dollars in tax cuts for the very wealthy that are unpaid for. But the United States of America, in good times and bad, through Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents, in Republican-led and Democratic-led Congresses, has always paid its bills--always. We have done it for two reasons. First, it is the right thing to do. A promise made is a promise kept. An obligation incurred is an obligation honored. Mr. Speaker, a confident nation keeps its word. A confident nation pays its bills, not some of them. It pays all of them. Second, running from our creditors, stiffing them, picking and choosing whom to pay among them is as fiscally reckless as it is dishonorable. This new theory that America can actually consider it feasible as an option to default is extremely dangerous and very costly. Mr. Speaker, in 2011, when this tactic was first seriously considered and we came on the brink of default, it cost U.S. taxpayers $19 billion in unnecessary interest charges. That is $19 billion that could have been used to fix our highways or invest in scientific research, or it is $19 billion that your side might have preferred for tax cuts, or we could have split it. But that would have been half for tax cuts and half for investment. Yet we squandered that at the expense of the American taxpayer. The use of the debt ceiling as a tactic to get your way on another issue is playing financial Russian roulette with America's credibility, with the well-being of the American taxpayer and the full faith and credit of the United States of America to meet all its obligations. We have maintained that bond with ourselves and our creditors for over 200 years, and this bill asks us to abandon it now. How can it be that the party of Ronald Reagan can propose this legislation? It was Ronald Reagan who said that denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar. He is right. How can it be the party of Paul Ryan? The chair of our Ways and Means Committee said that just refusing to vote for the debt ceiling, I don't think that is a strategy. Will the debt ceiling be raised? Does it have to be raised? Yes. Reagan was right then, and Paul Ryan is right now. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out something that the proponents of this legislation would prefer to keep in the dark. The entire reason the debt ceiling must be raised now is to accommodate the budget that they passed over my strong objection on March 25, 2015. The Price budget, supported by 228 Republicans and opposed by 182 Democrats, projected an increase of our debt limit of nearly $2 trillion. Today that bill has become due, and the folks who supported that budget are running for the hills on acting on the debt ceiling that is required to accommodate the budget that they passed. Mr. Speaker, this House now, as a result of the will of the American people, is led by a Republican majority. It is a majority that we in the minority have an obligation to do our best to work with. However, it is a majority that is raising questions that have never been raised before.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, they are using debt default and government shutdown as a tactic to get their way on an issue of concern to some of them. I admire Speaker Boehner that he put the country first and he put the House first in not letting this government be shut down over a real dispute on Planned Parenthood funding. But we have got to get past this, and the Republican majority has to make a decision whether it is going to govern or it is going to empower those who believe that default and shutdown are legitimate tactics to resolve legitimate debates that we have among us. Mr. Speaker, we cannot now--we cannot ever--default on our obligations and our commitment to the American taxpayer to be fiscally responsible by paying our bills.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that I inadvertently voted ``Yes'' on Roll Call 503. I intended to vote ``No.''

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, there are two issues that are very contentious: abortion and fetal research. I support the right of a woman to choose. I support medical research that is legal under our laws so we can get cures for diseases like Alzheimer's and diabetes. I also respect those who disagree with me, but this bill is terrible. Here is why: It is unfair to women who are not part of this debate and whose access to Planned Parenthood is about getting preventive health care, 16,000 women in our State. The second reason is that this bill, as designed, is destructive to the institution we represent. Here is how it is designed: One, take the money away and then investigate. In a fair society, we do it the opposite way. Second, it eliminates access to care for innocent people, who have nothing to do with this, as I mentioned, 16,000 in Vermont. Three, it is a prelude to the shutdown, resorting to the tactic of, unless you get your way, we are shutting down the entire government. Four, it is part of the ``dump the Speaker'' campaign, as though, if the Speaker resists a shutdown, his job should be taken away. Bad for women. Bad for the institution.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman, and I want to thank my colleagues. Mr. Frelinghuysen, I agree with many of the points that you made. This is a vote of conscience for all of us. The question is not whether we trust Iran. We don't. The question is not whether we want Iran to have any pathway to a nuclear weapon. Proponents of this agreement--I am one--and opponents of this agreement--there are many, my friend, Mr. Stewart--don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. This question about trust, we have got to step back a minute. One of the fundamental challenges that a strong and confident country faces is to secure its national security. That requires the Commander in Chief, whose fundamental responsibility is to exercise his judgment about what will work to increase our security, to enter into negotiations with adversaries; and there may be no greater adversary to the United States, to our allies, particularly Israel, than Iran. Keep in mind, President Kennedy negotiated with the Soviet Union after one of their leaders said they will bury this country, and he did that, and it turned out that he was right to limit nuclear proliferation. President Nixon went to China when it was Red China, an absolute adversary of this country and our way of life, and it has worked to the benefit of the national security of this country, and President Reagan did the same. The fundamental question here is not at all about whether we trust Iran. We don't trust Iran. It is not about whether you negotiate with people you trust. You have to negotiate with people that are your adversaries. The question is whether the terms and conditions of this agreement that the President is recommending, along with our very close allies-- Germany, France, Great Britain, and Russia and China--will improve our national security and that of our allies, particularly Israel. My judgment is it will. Number one, there is no pathway for Iran to have a nuclear weapon under this agreement. Number two, this is not based on trust. It is based on distrust and strong verification provisions that will give us a heads-up if there is any effort of Iran not to comply. Third, we have the opportunity to snap back the sanctions all of us supported that brought Iran to the table. We don't have to get a majority vote; we can do that unilaterally. Then, finally, we do have to ask the question of not whether this is the perfect agreement--undoubtedly, there could be a better agreement that might give more satisfaction and security and peace of mind to all of us--it is a question of this agreement or no agreement. That is the question that we face. The weight of the opinion and judgment is that, if we repudiate this agreement, the sanction regime that we constructed on the leadership of President George Bush and President Barack Obama would dissolve. What happens then? Iran gets the money and they have no restraint on their ability to get the bomb. I urge us to support this agreement in the national security interest of the United States of America, Israel, and our allies.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, two of the things a proud and confident and responsible nation will do--no matter how challenging--are, one, to invest in its future and, two, to care for its veterans. This bill pretends to do both. Actually, it does neither. Yes, it will keep the highway bill on life support for another short- term extension. It used to be 5 months. Now, it is going to be 3 months. Yes, it will allow the VA to make internal fund transfers to keep our hospitals open through September, but once again, in another act of serial irresponsibility, Congress is ignoring its duty to do its job of passing a long-term transportation bill. It leaves our communities and States in suspension. It recklessly adds unnecessary construction costs to our taxpayers and lets potholes get deeper and bridges more dangerous. We need a long-term transportation bill--6 years, not 3 months. Regarding the VA, do we meet our obligations to provide for the health care of our veterans through internal fund transfers? Our veterans and our VA need a fully funded budget. It needs funds, not fund transfers. Veteran healthcare demand shot up 10 percent, but the budget is only up 2.8 percent, shackled by mindless and destructive sequester caps. We should end them. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not written to address problems; it is designed to deny they exist. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not an example of Congress doing its job; it is yet another example of Congress evading its responsibilities. I will vote ``no.''

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to address this issue that Mr. Pompeo and this bill present to this House. This question of GMO labeling and biotechnology is a good thing. Biotechnology has done a lot of good things for this country and for consumers. This is not a question about whether the science says that GMO foods cause medical issues. That is not the issue. The question is whether consumers, when they purchase food, have a right to know what is in it. What Mr. Pompeo and this legislation are suggesting is that, regardless of what consumers want, they won't be told. This bill does two fundamental things. One, it says to those States that this is not about a small group of activists. This is States like Vermont, Maine, and Connecticut with massive bipartisan votes, Republicans and Democrats saying that they wanted the right to have these products labeled, and then the consumer can decide whether he or she wants to purchase that product. It is the market that ultimately decides. This legislation would basically block all State laws that require mandatory GMO labeling; so if the State of Idaho, with its Republicans and Democrats in the legislature responding to the demands of its constituents, wanted to label it, they wouldn't be able to do it. It effectively blocks the FDA from creating a national labeling standard. That is the irony here. If you are talking preemption, you at least have to talk about a national standard that has credibility and provides information that consumers want. In this case, we strip from the States the right to do what they believe is in the interest of their citizens and don't substitute any serious label that would apply across the board. This claim that this would create a patchwork of different State laws is not addressed when you don't even offer a national standard. Next, it would allow ``natural'' claims on GMO foods and block State laws that prevent such claims. This legislation fundamentally takes away from your State and mine the ability to do what they believe is in the interest of their consumers: let them know what they are buying. By the way, what is the problem with letting consumers know what they are buying? They are the ones that decide what products they want to consume. The issue here, again, to repeat, is not about the science of whether GMOs cause health problems, but there is a significant issue about GMO products requiring significantly more herbicides in order to produce, and the use of herbicides--glyphosate has gone from 16 million pounds to about 280 million pounds since the introduction. Those farming practices do have an effect, and a lot of consumers are really concerned about that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).