Peter Welch

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and honor my friend Paul Costello, who has served since 2000 as Executive Director of the Vermont Council on Rural Development (VCRD), part of the National Rural Development Partnership established by Congress. Although Paul is retiring from VCRD, his legacy will continue in the projects and initiatives that he has inspired in rural communities across Vermont. Throughout his years as Executive Director, Paul has established himself as a respected neutral facilitator of community conversations. Paul has a unique ability to unite diverse viewpoints and lead people to consensus, action and success. He is dedicated to the ideals of democracy and to the promotion of social and economic opportunity for all Vermonters. He is a patriotic enthusiast for civic engagement, energizing all who venture into his orbit. Among his many activities, Paul coordinates the annual VCRD Governor's Rural Summit to build federal and state cross-agency action plans. Each year he facilitates multiple community visits with teams of state, federal, non-profit and private leaders to help rural communities evaluate and prioritize opportunities, develop action plans, connect to resources and rally to action. Over the past twenty years, Paul has produced and facilitated numerous Vermont Policy Councils and Community Development efforts including the Vermont Forest Products Council, the Vermont Agriculture Viability Council, the Vermont Council on Culture and Innovation, the Vermont Council on Planning, the Vermont Rural Energy Council, the VT Creative Communities Program, the Council on the Future of Vermont, the Vermont Working Landscape Council, the Vermont Working Landscape Partnership, and the Vermont Working Lands Coalition, the e-Vermont Community Broadband Project and Vermont Digital Economy Project, the Vermont Higher Education Food Systems Council, and the Vermont Climate Change Economy Council. Most recently, Paul has chaired the Governor's Covid-19 Local Support and Community Action Team. A native Vermonter, Paul obtained his B.A. and M.A. at the University of Vermont and earned a PhD in intellectual history at McGill University in Montreal. He has devoted a substantial part of his career to the cultivation of Vermont civic institutions, and the state is a better place because of it. I wish him a productive and fulfilling retirement.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and honor my friend Stephen Klein, who is retiring from his job as Chief Fiscal Officer to the Vermont State Legislature. Stephen joined the staff of the Vermont Legislature in 1992 as a Fiscal Analyst and, in 1993, was appointed Chief Fiscal Officer. The nonpartisan Joint Fiscal Office provides fiscal analysis, budget evaluation, performance oversight and fiscal policy support for the Appropriations, Finance, Ways & Means and Tax Committees and for the Vermont Legislature as a whole. In his capacity as Chief Fiscal Officer, Stephen has directed the budget and tax staff for the Vermont House and Senate for the past 28 years. With rapid fire speech, Stephen has educated generations of Vermont legislators on the complexities of the Vermont budget process. As President Pro Tempore of the Vermont Senate, I had the pleasure of working with Stephen to craft budgets for the State of Vermont and, like many before and after me, marveled at his intricate knowledge of Vermont state government, tax policy, the budget, and the economy. Stephen has gained the trust of legislators through his facility with his subject matter and his generous willingness to explain it. Stephen's contributions have extended beyond Vermont. He served as president of the National Association of Legislative Fiscal Offices in 1998 to 1999 and was a member of National Conference of State Legislatures' Executive Committee from 2002 to 2005. From 2009 to 2017, Stephen served on the Advisory Board of the New England Public Policy Center at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, providing advice on research content and direction to policy makers in the New England region. From 2014 to 2017 Stephen served on the Government Accounting Standards Advisory Committee. In 2013, Stephen was the recipient of the Steven D. Gold Award, given annually by the National Tax Association, the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM), and the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). The 2013 award was presented by the NCSL. The award honors professionals who have made significant contributions to state and local fiscal policy. In addition to his professional commitments, Stephen has volunteered tirelessly in his community, serving on the board of the local food cooperative in Montpelier, as Treasurer of the Green Mountain Club, and as Treasurer for the local synagogue. Stephen also serves as a guest lecturer at the Vermont Law School. Mr. Klein attended the University of California, Berkeley; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Northeastern University School of Law. He served in the Peace Corps in the Dominican Republic and Honduras in the early 1970s. Stephen's friendly demeanor, sage observations and ubiquitous presence have made him a well-known and welcome fixture under the Golden Dome. He will be greatly missed. I wish him all the best in his retirement and look forward to seeing him out on Vermont's hiking trails.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, the most solemn decision a country can make is to send its sons and daughters to war. The most solemn responsibility Congress has is to make that decision. Yet, Congress has delegated that authority too often and too long to the executive. It resulted from an AUMF vote, Authorization for Use of Military Force, for a lie-based war in Iraq, resulting in the loss of life of over 4,500 of our fellow citizens, 200,000 Iraqis killed, and destruction and instability in the Middle East. That authorization will be repealed by a vote of Congress, and I will vote to repeal that authorization and restore to the Congress its responsibility to make that solemn decision about whether and when we send our sons and daughters to defend us abroad.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, I was unable to vote on Roll Call 114, 115, and 116. I would like to indicate how I would have voted on each had I been present. Roll Call 114: ``Aye''; Roll Call 115: ``Aye''; and Roll Call 116: ``Aye''.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, it was an extraordinary day that started out quite beautiful for me. I live across the street, right next to the Supreme Court; and every day, almost without fail, there are demonstrators out on the Supreme Court who are peaceful. Some of them I agree with and some of them I disagree with, but it is a beautiful sight to see people exercising their First Amendment right. That was a beautiful day, January 6, and I had time. We weren't scheduled to be here in the House until about 1 p.m. So I did something that is a privilege and just a joy for those of us who serve here in the Capitol. I took a walk from the Supreme Court to the Capitol, down to the Washington Monument, to the Lincoln Memorial, and back. Of course, the Trump protesters at that point were there, as it was their right to be. But on the way back, I became somewhat alarmed because when I got to the White House, it was really much more like a mob with many folks with bullhorns talking about hanging Mike Pence and using horrible epithets I can't mention here directed towards Nancy Pelosi. As they came back toward 4th Street, I came in sight of--and was standing by--two groups of people who were about 70 strong and were practicing marching in military formation, and as they marched, they were chanting, again, a word I can't use here, F those people, talking about the people in this building. As Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said, people in this building were workers. They were Capitol Police who were in this building because they had to do an hour-and-a-half commute to do this job to protect this building that belongs to the people of this country so they could then pay the bills for their family and make that hour-and-a-half commute back. It was the cafeteria workers. It was everyday, hardworking, wonderful Americans. Now, at that point I still didn't think anything about it because it never occurred to me, with all the anger and hostility I saw with those groups of people who were marching in a formation, that when I was later sitting up in that gallery with many of my colleagues as the proceedings were taking place, that this building would be invaded. I took it for granted that that just couldn't happen. Of course, it did. The first sign we had of something amiss is when we saw the security people for our leadership--the Speaker, the minority leader, and our majority leader--rush them off the floor. We on the floor and in the gallery still had no idea what was going on. Now, in retrospect, we find out the west side of the building was being breached, and one of the police officers said it was like a castle storming. Mr. McGovern took the chair and began to continue the process of certification of the election until one of the Capitol Police officers told us that teargas had been fired, that people had breached the building, get out the gas mask, and lie on the floor. Then I saw Capitol Police officers with guns from their holsters. I looked at these men and women and I tried at that moment to imagine what was it like for them that they actually had to have a weapon out. They had families, they had responsibility, and whatever fear they may have felt, their duty was to protect us, and they were going to do it no matter what. How small I felt at that moment that because of someone who was doing their duty to protect me--I am no more worthy than any other person who works in this building--but that is their job. They were threatened. Then, of course, we heard the shot when the mob was getting in to the door of the Speaker's Lobby. Then to get us out, they had to bring us all the way across this Chamber to the far door. We got stopped right over here where these two doors were being breached, and we heard the sound and saw the poles that were being pushed through. You know the rest. We are going to hear more stories. But I want to say that, in listening to my colleagues and experiencing it myself, where I had some fear, but then we were okay, there are two things that just stay with me. The first thing is that the tradition we have had in this country that is so commonplace, we do it every 4 years, the peaceful transfer of power, and how extraordinary it is that we do that every 4 years, was shattered. The second thing is that we saw something that allowed Jim Crow to thrive for over 100 years after the Civil War, and that was the use of violence as a political tactic. We now have a Capitol ringed by these 7-foot fences with concertina wire. So the trauma that we are feeling, working in the sense of isolation, is the trauma to our democracy. Our goal, our responsibility is to restore that and not be defeated.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, our government is founded on the principle of all power flows from the people. Donald Trump challenged this principle in two ways: Deceit and violence. The deceit is repeated in baseless assertions of an electoral fraud. The violence, the attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, the mob was assembled by Donald Trump, incited by Donald Trump, and in service of Donald Trump's effort to overturn, through violence, what he lost at the voting booth. The violent mob reached the Capitol; killed and injured Capitol Police; destroyed property; threatened the Vice President, Members of Congress, and staff, all to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power. If we want unity, we must have accountability. So the question before this Congress: Will Congress condone through acquiescence or condemn through impeachment Donald Trump's violent acts to overturn the election? Congress must impeach.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Joe Kraus and Matt Prouty for their service to Project VISION of Rutland, Vermont. Both Joe and Matt will soon be ending their impressive service to Project VISION after years of success helping Rutland build a better, stronger community. Formed in 2013 at the height of Rutland's opioid crisis, Project VISION has celebrated two core values since its founding: collaboration for the greater good and focus on the positives that make Rutland a special community. The former Chief of Police for the City of Rutland, James Baker, spearheaded the creation of Project VISION with the enthusiastic support of Mayor Christopher Louras and the Board of Alderman. These leaders recognized that the community's challenges were not going to be fixed by making more arrests, so they sought community partners to build real and substantive change. With passion and hard work, Joe Kraus and Matt Prouty have helped Project VISION lead a diverse coalition of over 300 social and health service agencies and organizations, who are united in their goal of making Rutland one of the healthiest, safest and happiest places in America. Project VISION's allies include the Rutland Regional Medical Center, the Rutland City Police Department, Rutland City Public Schools, Rutland Regional Planning Commission, NeighborWorks, and the Southwestern Vermont Council on Aging. In its early years, the coalition concentrated on treating addiction and substance abuse, reducing crime, and building great neighborhoods. Their success was impressive. A survey conducted in Rutland's Northwest neighborhood just three years after Project VISION was founded showed that people felt safer, had a more trusting relationship with law enforcement, and were proud of their neighborhood. Thanks to the work of Joe and Matt, Project VISION continues to grow. It has expanded its work beyond opioid addiction to address larger health and welfare issues affecting Rutland. Most recently, the organization announced that it would focus on reforming systems that relate to social and racial justice. I am proud to say that Rutland's future is bright. This is a community that has worked together to accomplish their common vision of a stronger Rutland. My thanks to Joe Kraus and Matt Prouty for stepping forward with energy and commitment to ensure the success of Project VISION. Their work has made a positive difference that will be felt by generations to come.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to Dr. Thomas F. Terry on his retirement after practicing for 45 years as an optometrist. All but one of those years were spent in White River Junction, Vt., not far from his place of birth in Windsor. Dr. Tom Terry is a prime example of what another Vermonter, President Calvin Coolidge, said in Bennington in a speech on Sept. 21, 1928. During his speech, Coolidge talked about the state he loved--Vermont: ``I love Vermont because of her hills and valleys, her scenery and invigorating climate, but most of all because of her indomitable people.'' Coolidge's description of Vermont and her people are as apt today as it was more than 90 years earlier. While there have been many Vermonters who fit this description, but no one more than Dr. Tom Terry of Wilder, Vt. He was born in the Connecticut Valley. After graduation from Windsor High School, Dr. Terry graduated from Springfield College with majors in chemistry and physics. He then attended New England College of Optometry and graduated with a doctorate degree in 1975. A year later he returned to Vermont and set up a practice in White River Junction where he continued to serve his many patients, until his retirement on Dec. 30, 2020. During his years of practice, Dr. Terry developed a major interest in primary and medical eye care, including macular degeneration and glaucoma care. Dr. Terry was also trained a as low vision specialist and worked, as such, with the Vermont Division of the Blind. Dr. Terry became well-known for his skills, not only in Vermont, but throughout New England and in national optometric councils. He served for six years as President of the Vermont Optometric Association, as well as 17 years on the Board of Optometry for the state. For 27 years, Dr. Terry did service on various American Optometric Association committees as well as nine years as Acting Eye Clinic Chief at the Veterans Administration Hospital in White River Junction. Dr. Terry' s deep interest in health care matters also led him to serve for 10 years on the Board of the Alice Peck Day Memorial Hospital in nearby Lebanon, N.H. As much as Dr. Terry enjoyed serving his many patients in Vermont and New Hampshire, he was also instrumental in helping his town and state to promote regional health, economic renewal, and prosperity. In that regard, Dr. Terry was on the Board of Directors of the Mas coma Savings Bank for 18 years, many of which as Chair of the bank's foundation directing charitable contributions to local, regional and state organizations. My brave state of Vermont may be small, but it is large in its spirit of community and service. Madam Speaker, that is why I take great pleasure in recounting the many commendable attributes and service of my constituent, Dr. Terry for the House and the nation. It clearly demonstrates the work that one individual can do for his town, state and the nation to make it a better place to live and work. I am pleased to congratulate Dr. Thomas Terry and to thank him for his long service on behalf of our Vermont community. He is one of our ``indomitable people.''

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that ``the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.'' The right to vote is the foundation of our democracy and the fight for women's suffrage was a generations long struggle. The 19th Amendment did not guarantee the right to vote for all women. Although African American and other suffragists of color nationwide worked tirelessly for suffrage, they faced systematic racism in the movement and were frequently denied their right to vote through harassment, intimidation, and laws that imposed severe restrictions. Native Americans and Asian Americans were denied citizenship and, therefore, were not eligible to vote until after 1924 and 1952, respectively. It was only in 1965 with the passage of the Voting Rights Act that barriers to voting based on race were removed. Vermont women engaged in the suffrage movement for decades; notable among them: Clarina Howard Nichols of Townshend, who petitioned the legislature for voting rights in school district elections; Laura Moore, the longtime Secretary of the Vermont Woman's Suffrage Association; Lucy Daniels of Grafton, who protested disfranchisement by refusing to pay her taxes; Annette Parmelee of Enosburg Falls, who was a persistent legislative lobbyist; and Lillian Olzendam of Woodstock, who organized a massive campaign to convince legislators to ratify the 19th Amendment. In 1919, the Vermont Legislature passed the Presidential suffrage bill but it was vetoed by Governor Percival Clement, an opponent of women's suffrage. He refused to call for a special legislative session which would have allowed Vermont to become the 36th and final state to ratify the amendment. In response, 400 suffragists marched through mud and snow to the Vermont State House in protest, demanding the governor allow a vote, which he did not. Consequently, Tennessee became the final ratifying state on August 18, 1920--100 years ago, today. Following the ratification of the 19th Amendment, 28,159 Vermont women registered to vote. Edna Beard of Orange became the first woman to win a seat in the Vermont House of Representatives and was one of the Vermont legislators who finally ratified the 19th Amendment on February 8, 1921. While today is a celebration of how far we have come and the accomplishments of the suffragist movement, we must also acknowledge the history of the movement that marginalized and ostracized women of color, especially Black American women who fought tirelessly for the right to vote. Today, many obstacles to voting still exist and they disproportionately affect people of color. The fight for voting rights, racial justice, and our democracy continue. As the late Congressman John Lewis said, ``Democracy is not a state. It is an act.''

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 225th anniversary of the birth of a trailblazing Vermonter, Alexander Lucius Twilight, and to honor his legacy. Alexander was not only the first African American to graduate from a U.S. college or university, but the first African American to serve in a state legislature. In recognition of his contributions and his legacy as a trailblazer, the Vermont legislature passed a resolution in June 2020 marking his birthday, September 23, 2020, as Alexander Twilight Day. Alexander was born on September 23, 1795 to mixed-race parents. His father, Ichabod Twilight, fought with the Second New Hampshire Regiment in the Revolutionary War. After the war, Ichabod and his wife, Mary, moved to Bradford, Vermont. Vermont's 1777 constitution prohibited adult slavery, but the letter of the law was not reflected in practice. In the decades following Vermont's acceptance as the 14th state, Black children were still held as slaves and all Black Vermonters continued to face the threat of being kidnapped and sold out of state. Against this backdrop of widespread discrimination, Twilight graduated with a bachelor's degree from Middlebury College in 1823. He is the first known African American to receive a bachelor's degree from any U.S. college or university. After he graduated, Twilight became a teacher and a minister. He moved to New York to teach and married Mercy Ladd Merrill. Soon after, he returned to Vermont to run the Orleans County Grammar School in Brownington. To accommodate increasing enrollment, he organized the funding and construction of a new school building to house and educate students. He also served as the local pastor, delivering sermons decrying slavery and supporting temperance. His sermons reveal a man of strong convictions, who viewed human history as a progression towards greater individual freedom guided by conscience. In 1836, Twilight became ``the first'' again, this time as the first African American elected to serve in a state legislature. He continued to teach at the Orleans County School and in Quebec until 1855, when a stroke left him paralyzed. He died two years later, on June 19, 1857. The next year, Vermont passed a complete ban on slavery, declaring that anyone who entered the state was free. Today, Twilight's house, the school where he taught, and the dormitory he built still stand as part of the Old Stone House Museum in the Brownington Historic District. His legacy as an educator lives on through the Museum, where his ideals are reflected in the museum's educational programs, community services and his personal collection. Twilight's memory is etched in Vermont's higher learning institutions, such as Middlebury College's Alexander Twilight Hall and Alexander Twilight Auditorium at Northern Vermont University--Lyndon. I hope that Alexander Twilight will continue to be remembered and celebrated as a pioneer who persevered against long odds. He should also serve as a reminder of how far we have come as a nation, and how far we still have to go to achieve equality for all Americans, regardless of skin color, race or ethnicity.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, I rise today during Craft Spirits Week to show my support for the more than 2,000 craft distilleries across the United States that support our vibrant tourism and hospitality industries, countless jobs, local farmers and manufacturers, and the larger economy. Vermont is home to a few of these companies and they are a wonderful addition to our vibrant tourism economy. Recent events surrounding COVID-19 have put an unprecedented burden on our craft distillers. According to a survey conducted by the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States and American Distilling Institute, approximately 43 percent of distillery employees have been let go or furloughed since the start of the COVID-19 crisis, bringing the average number of a respondent's employees from 14 down to 8. On average, distilleries reported a 64 percent sales decline. Two-thirds of respondents did not believe they will be able to sustain their businesses for more than 6 months, while almost half did not anticipate being able to sustain their businesses for more than 3 months. Many were forced to close their doors to the public, but instead of closing shop entirely, craft distillers in every single state altered their business plans to help address the nationwide shortage of hand sanitizer. In the greatest time of need, craft distillers showed up for their fellow Americans without hesitation with many even donating their products to first responders. In Vermont, our distilleries pivoted quickly when the COVID-19 pandemic hit and even provided sanitizer to businesses and domestic violence shelters. The economic hardships caused by this pandemic have been immediate and will last well beyond the end of COVID. The losses they have suffered over the last couple of months can never be fully recouped. That is why we need to come together to support these local businesses. These businesses don't operate in a vacuum, but in an ecosystem that support dozens of other businesses. The livelihoods of farmers, glass bottle makers, truck drivers, warehouse workers, and countless others connected to the hospitality and tourism industries are also compromised by the challenges confronting the distilled spirits industry. With distilleries located in every state in the nation, this should cause great concern for each member of Congress. I urge all my colleagues to take time to visit with and talk to the distillers in their districts to show their support for these small businesses during Craft Spirits Week. Distillers, like other businesses, need our support during this time. I look forward to working with my colleagues as well to support distillers and those in the hospitality sector who have been significantly impacted by the COVID-19 crisis.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, on March 1, Vermont had the lowest unemployment rate in its history. Today, it has the highest unemployment rate in its history. About one-third of Vermonters who would like a job can't find a job. The Federal Government is the only entity that has the fiscal flexibility and the fiscal capacity to meet that need. We have to act. This legislation would provide Vermont with over $2 billion for State and local budgets. Absent that, the pain is going to be pressed, pressed, pressed down into our firefighters, our teachers, and our kids. It has reforms to the Paycheck Protection Program so our restaurants and our small businesses have a chance to make use of that, something both sides want to happen. It has $75 billion for testing, which is the path to getting on top of this virus. It provides funds to try to stabilize our institutions of higher education that we must have on the other side of this virus. There are differences, and we don't have the luxury of time for the full debate all of us would prefer, but we must act, and we must act now. If we make a mistake in how we proceed--and mistakes will be made--it should be on the side of erring to do too much, not too little.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, because of my attendance at a Vermont memorial service to give the eulogy for a friend and prominent Vermonter, I was unable to vote on Roll Call 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, and 70. Had I been present, I would have voted: Roll Call 60: ``Aye''; Roll Call 61: ``Nay''; Roll Call 62: ``Nay''; Roll Call 63: ``Aye''; Roll Call 64: ``Nay''; Roll Call 65: ``Nay''; Roll Call 66: ``Aye''; Roll Call 67: ``Nay''; Roll Call 68: ``Nay''; Roll Call 69: ``Aye''; and Roll Call 70: ``Aye''.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, the gun is cocked and loaded. We cannot go to war without Congress being involved in the debate and the President telling us what his policy is going to be.

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The President's policy towards Iran is to tear up diplomacy and embrace so-called maximum pressure. The most recent strike, far from making us safer, is making us more insecure. Think about the deliberate consequences from that act: One, the Iraqi street is demonstrating against the U.S., not against Iran, as they were before; Two, the Iranian street is demonstrating with the mullahs against the U.S. instead of against their own government; Three, the Iraqi parliament voted to expel the United States from Iraq, jeopardizing our anti-ISIS mission; Number four, our military has suspended training for anti-ISIS activities in Iraq because of this strike; Number five, the Iran nuclear deal that the President tore up that Iranians complied with, they are now renouncing, so we are closer to a nuclear Iran than we were before. All of this has happened when the likelihood of Iran's further responding is grave.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, we, the people, have a common tie that binds us together now as it has since the founding of our country, and it is our shared respect for the Constitution of the United States. Let us all step back from the maelstrom of the moment to recall that, at our country's inception 243 years ago, the concept of a democratic, self-governing rule was a breathtaking and idealistic aspiration. When the 13 American Colonies boldly rejected the rule of the British monarch, our Founders were determined to form a government that would rule instead with the consent of the governed. Ensuring that this noble experiment endured through the ages was an enormous existential challenge. It was met with the adoption of the Constitution in 1788. At its heart are two bedrock principles that have served as touchstones for our country ever since. First, it established America as a nation of laws, where no person is above the law. Second, it established the concept of a separation of powers where three coequal branches of government would check each other, lest power be concentrated in one at the expense of liberty to all. Madam Speaker, when President Trump abused the power of his office by soliciting foreign interference in the upcoming election for his personal benefit, he willfully infringed upon the right of citizens to decide who will lead our Nation. In doing so, he placed himself above the law and in violation of his oath. When he denounced, denied, and defied the clear authority of Congress to investigate his conduct, he repudiated our constitutional system of checks and balances and further violated his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. It is for these reasons that I will cast my vote in favor of impeaching President Donald John Trump.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, today, the House is going to have an opportunity to do something that has long-needed to be done and will benefit every single American in every single business that is providing health insurance for their valued employees. We have a chance to pass the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act. Here is what is significant about it, but first a word about Elijah: In April of 2017, Elijah and I went to the White House and met with President Trump, who said all the right things: ``Why are we getting ripped off by Pharma?'' ``Why can't we import safe medications?'' ``Why can't we lower costs?'' Today, President Trump, we are going to do it. Two things are finally being done: First, the House of Representatives, on behalf of all consumers, is going to allow the Health and Human Services secretary to negotiate prices, not just pay the rip-off prices demanded. Second, we are adopting an idea that President Trump had: ``Put a cap, 120 percent.'' We will not pay more than that, what other countries pay for the same medication. President Trump put it in his blunt way: ``We are being suckers.'' We are putting a cap on that price. This will lower the cost of prescription drugs over 10 years by a half a trillion dollars. Finally, our government is standing up on behalf of consumers in not protecting Pharma against unlimited price gouging. And second, what is inspiring to me about this is the benefits go to everyone. Employers in Vermont, they want their employees to have healthcare, but those premiums keep going up and up and they have to trade healthcare benefits for wages and salary increases. So that means our employers are going to get the benefit of lower premiums; our individuals are going to get the benefit of lower premiums; and seniors, who have been hammered with co-pays and deductibles, are going to get lower costs as well. Individual drugs, too, you won't be getting killed on those, folks with insulin and others. So let's pass this for Elijah.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, on November 20, 2019, only 3 weeks ago, Vermont lost a great Vermonter and an inspiring American, Jake Burton Carpenter, the person who started Burton Snowboards, the person who actually created the whole sport of boarding. Jake was a great Vermonter and pioneer of snowboarding. He was a great husband to his wife, best friend, and business partner for decades, Donna Carpenter, and the proud father of George, Taylor, and Timi, snowboarders or riders all. Jake's life was one of great effort, inspiring originality, perpetual decency, and deep love of the snowboarding sport Jake created, deep love of the people who came to the sport, and deep love of his community and all the people who worked in his company. Snowboarding in 2019 is a wildly popular sport that Jake started. It has a prominent place in our Winter Olympic Games, and it has extraordinary champions. It was once shunned and prohibited in all our ski areas. Mr. Speaker, you couldn't bring a board to a mountain, and it was because the kids who wanted to do this were rambunctious, energetic, and Jake would sometimes say disrespectful of their elders. But they loved to ride, loved to be outdoors, and loved to be with each other. It was this culture of community that Jake created as much as this extraordinary sport that allowed people to demonstrate amazing physical skills. He started this company in Stratton, Vermont. He worked as a bartender at night. During the day, he worked not in his garage but in a barn at a house where he was housesitting. By himself, he was making these snowboards. This is one of his early Burton Snowboards. With Donna, whom he met in 1982 and married in 1983, he then started promoting to ski areas to let these rambunctious kids ride. Ski area after ski area relented and ultimately came to see riding as the economic future of their mountains because as ski trips have gone down, boarding has gone up. The company that Jake left behind that he started out of nothing now has about 32 percent of the sales in this huge market, about $400 million. It is over a $1 billion industry. It has over 1,000 employees in six different countries. Riding today is something you do if you dare. It wasn't always so. When Jake started in 1977, he started from nothing, but he loved it. After he graduated from NYU in 1977 and a short stint on Wall Street, the last time I think Jake ever wore a suit, he went to pursue his dream in Vermont. He marketed this board initially to 22-year-olds. Then he realized that when he was a kid, the first time that he got on something that was the predecessor to these beautiful Burton Snowboards, it was two skis bound together with a rope at the top called a Snurfer, and he was 15 or 16. He started marketing to even younger kids. They went outside, got on the mountain, and then a sport was born. Mr. Speaker, so many champions have been folks who rode these boards in their glory. One of them, of course, was Shaun ``The Flying Tomato'' White. The Flying Tomato got so many awards that he has become one of our greatest Olympic champions. Now, Jake's life was not without real suffering. He lost his beloved brother, George, in the Vietnam war. His mom, Kitty, died when he was 17. I want to end with Jake's words: ``The riders, the product, the process, this is my heart and soul. I just love the freedom snowboarding gives you to do whatever you want.''

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. We have done in our committee some bipartisan work that attacks patent abuse and will help bring down the costs of drugs, but there is a question. It is not a partisan question. It is really a judgment. Can we stop pharma from what has been relentless price increases--I would call it price gouging--without the government intervening on behalf of the consumer? We are the only country where the government sits on its hands while pharma boosts the prices. President Trump told Elijah that is a rip-off. That is what the President told Elijah, and the President said he would be okay with bringing in safe drugs from abroad for price negotiation, or as the President called it, getting a better deal. The President's idea, which is a good one and incorporated in the bill, was to have an international reference price so we don't pay four, five, six times what they pay in Europe. That is a good idea. But bottom line, the question is, will pharma stop killing us if we don't step up with governmental authority for consumers? That is not partisan. That is a judgment. It won't happen without us asserting that authority, as is done in this bill. Then, the benefits are extended to employers who are struggling to pay health insurance for their folks and can't give them a raise, to seniors, and to every individual.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the TRACED Act. This is a long-overdue effort by Congress to crack down on out-of- control abuse of robocall marketers. These are annoying and inconvenient calls, but they also have real-life impacts. Kathryn Ottinger is an 84-year-old Vermonter from Shelburne. She and her husband receive at least three or four robocalls a day, at all hours of the day. Kathryn's husband is hard of hearing, so he doesn't hear the phone ring, which requires her to race to answer the calls constantly, even though it is really difficult for her to get up. She always answers the calls because they could be important. It might be a son or a daughter. Unfortunately, it is usually a marketer or a scam call. Kathryn sums it up perfectly when she says: ``I am very upset about these calls. I want the calls to stop.'' She speaks for all of our constituents. She is not alone. In 2018, there were 47 billion robocalls made in the United States. Vermonters receive nearly 4 million robocalls a month. In 2016, scams involving robocalls cost 22 million Americans a total of $9.5 billion. I am hopeful this bill today will stop these harassing phone calls. The bill will give the FCC the authority and tools it needs. It will allow consumers to revoke consent they had previously given. It will require calls to have verified caller ID information associated with the call before the call can be put through. These are important steps that will reduce and, hopefully, stop these robocallers, and I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, very soon in this House, we will have a chance to do something that America needs done, America wants done, and we can do it together, and that is to lower the cost of prescription drugs in honor of our wonderful Elijah Cummings. The United States is the only major country where the government of the people does not protect the people against price gouging by the pharmaceutical industry. We have got to change that. Our drug bill will bring down prices over a half a trillion dollars. That will start to alleviate the pressure on premiums that is coming at the expense of raises for workers. The benefit of this approach will not just be for our Medicare and Medicaid programs--really important programs--but the lower prices will benefit employer-sponsored healthcare as well. So, if you are taking medication that is insulin, or if you are taking medication in an EpiPen, you are going to get a lower price. But, even if you are fortunate that you don't need the medication, your premiums are going to go down. Madam Speaker, let's come together and pass this reduction in horrible medical expenses.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my classmate for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it has been so wonderful to be sitting here listening to members of the Congressional Black Caucus talk about their work, their friendship, their respect for a giant who walked among us, and of course, that is Elijah Cummings. The Congressional Black Caucus is regarded by many, myself included, as the conscience of this Congress. And there was no better representative of that conscience than Elijah Cummings, who served for a couple of years as the chair of the Black Caucus. All of us who served with Elijah are better for it and have fond memories and great appreciation for our friendship and admiration for him. I was quite lucky because I have served with Elijah on the Oversight and Reform Committee for 13 years. So in those committees, along with you my friend, Representative Clarke, we really got to see Elijah face a lot of very tough situations. I am going to make it a little bit personal here about some of my vivid experiences I have had with Elijah. Elijah and I worked very hard on the drug bill that is now going to be named in his honor to provide the government with the ability to negotiate lower prices so that the people he represents, and we all represent, can get the drugs they need. Shortly after President Trump was elected, I think it was April of 2017, the President invited Elijah to the White House to talk about prescription drugs. Since I had been working with Elijah on this for years, Elijah invited me. I kind of crashed the party. Number one, how many of our colleagues would invite a junior Member to a White House meeting just because the two of us had been working on the issue together? I would like to say all of us would. Elijah did. We went to the White House, and we talked a lot with the President about the prescription drug negotiation bill. But in the course of the conversation, the President expressed dismay about where Elijah lived. This was before the President was saying the horrible things about that community with rats and rodents and all the other things. He was genuinely dismayed that a person in Congress could live in a community that the President just didn't think that he could ever live. And I remember Elijah was dismayed that anybody, including the President of the United States, didn't understand how wonderful the people were in that community, how dignified they were, how they faced adversity every single day, how they helped one another get up when somebody fell down. Elijah was astonished. He lived in the best place in the world. That was what Elijah conveyed to the President. And Elijah conveyed that he represented the best people in the world. That was Elijah Cummings. I remember the topic was prescription drugs, and Elijah was quite disciplined. You know, the topic is the topic, we will get to the business at hand. But the question of voter fraud came up, and in the way that only Elijah can do, where he is not intimidated but he is not showing off--and it is a fine balance--he just said in his direct way, we don't have a problem with voter fraud. We have a problem with voter suppression. And to be in the presence of this man in the Oval Office where there was no artifice to Elijah's presence, there was no sense from Elijah of disrespect for the office, certainly, even though he disagreed with the President on so many things, but it was no different for Elijah than if he was in a local diner in Baltimore talking to the people he represented; he was direct, to the point, and empathetic to the concerns of the people that he represented. So it was just a wonderful opportunity for me to see a great man in action. It is how he lived. It wasn't like he had to think about it. It wasn't like he had to calculate anything. He was present in that moment. He was present in that moment as he was present every moment of the day. It was there for the people he represented. He conveyed the immense appreciation and respect for the dignity of the people he represented and the humility that he felt that he had been given this opportunity to be their Member of Congress, a special man. The memory of Elijah for all of us will sustain us through difficult times, and may his example be the one we aspire to follow. I thank my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus for this wonderful tribute to a wonderful leader from the ranks of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, this resolution really raises a question to each one of us who is a Member of Congress; and that question is: Do we believe in the separate, independent authority of the legislative branch to conduct oversight? The contents of this resolution and the whistleblower report, to be sure, are extremely explosive and important. But the question that we have to ask, as a Congress, Republicans and Democrats, is: Are we willing to stand up for the constitutional authority of the House as a representative branch of government? That is the constitutional question. This resolution goes to the heart of our responsibility. We must pass it in order for us to be a coequal branch of government.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a strong supporter of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), and the intent of H.R. 2486, the Fostering Undergraduate Talent by Unlocking Resources for Education (FUTURE) Act. These institutions, which serve high populations of traditionally underrepresented students, need stable and reliable funding. We have seen the positive impacts that mandatory funding has had on improving degree completion, achieving future gainful employment, and propelling upward mobility for these populations. However, the funding source, currently in the bill, comes at the expense of critical small nonprofit education institutions like the one in my district, the Vermont Student Assistance Corporation (VSAC). Unlike some large Guarantee Agencies (GAs), VSAC does so much more for Vermont students than just acting as a loan guarantor. They are a public nonprofit agency that advocates for students and families to ensure that they have the information, the counseling, and the financial aid to achieve their education goals. Their 161 employees provide need-based education grants, scholarships, loan services, and community outreach. In this past year alone, VSAC: Issued $20.1 million in need-based grants to 11,766 Vermont students; Provided 3,195 scholarship awards worth over $5.4 million; Counseled 6,642 low-income and first-generation college-bound Vermont students; Answered 62,000 phone calls from borrowers who needed assistance with their financial aid and repayment questions; and Trained 355 education professionals to better serve their students. The funding source in the bill--eliminating Account Maintenance Fees paid to GAs for guaranteeing Federal Family Education Loans--operates under the misunderstanding that the program has been eliminated and therefore no services and resources need to be provided for these loans. In fact, VSAC continues to service over $410 million of these FFELP loans for 26,500 borrowers, and the funding that accompanies the servicing of these loans helps VSAC achieve its broader mission of borrow advocacy and counseling. This work is particularly important for borrowers in the wake of problems with the new federal direct loan program and private lenders. VSAC and other organizations are facing the reality of having no way to replace this lost revenue stream to continue to help thousands of borrowers navigate the complicated and difficult process of finding a way to pay for higher education. This doesn't have to be an either-or decision. As we move forward, I urge the Chairman to work with me and Senate leaders to try to identify an alternative funding source. We must ensure that smaller GAs like VSAC are protected and able to continue the vital work they provide to their communities.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Garcia for yielding. I am from Vermont, and it is hard to be farther from the southern border in the United States than being in Vermont, but the question that people ask me in Vermont, really, more than anything else, is how is it that in the name of our government, under the authority of our flag, we have instituted a policy, since rescinded, to take children away from parents? How is that possible? The President talks about a crisis at the border. No argument about that; there is a crisis at the border. But is the right response to it that you separate families? Is the right response that you call the people who are coming gang members and rapists and killers? I went to the border, as well, and met many of the women and the men and the children who were there, and as you know better than anybody-- and, by the way, I really appreciate your leadership on this and the leadership of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus--the people who are there are there out of desperation. One woman I spoke to, who was from Guatemala, told us that she had a 13-year-old daughter, and her husband had already been murdered, and the mother was told that her daughter was going to become the girlfriend of one of the gang members. It was that fear that made her leave her home. People do not want to leave their home, and they only do it when they absolutely have to to save their lives. She and her daughter set out in the night for the more than 1,000- mile journey to the southern border. About two-thirds of the way there, the mother started getting nervous, hearing stories, wondering what it would be like, and said to her daughter: Honey, we have got to go back. The daughter looked at the mother and said: Mom, we can't. We are not safe. You are not safe, and I am not safe. They arrived at the southern border, and they make an effort to cross the bridge and are not allowed because of the go-slow policy and no capacity to ``process.'' They wade across the river and turn themselves in, and their request is for asylum. That has been criminalized by the Trump administration. The daughter and the mother are separated. When we were with the mom, she didn't know where her daughter was. Is she a rapist? Is she a criminal? Is she an MS-13 member? She is a mom trying to protect her daughter. She is a mother who lost her husband already. Now, there is not an easy answer to that, and none of us suggest there is. But it is not the answer to say that anybody who is seeking to save their life, fleeing economic desperation, fleeing physical violence, seeking to protect a son or a daughter, is a criminal. They are asking for help. And it is a tough question: How much help can we give? We have to have secure borders, but are we solving the problem by making it a crime to ask for help? Are we solving the problem by taking kids and separating them from their parents? Are we solving the problem where we cut aid off to the countries Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, where most of the people are coming from? The answer to that is no. And this is a hard problem, but it can't be resolved unless there is some mutual recognition on both sides that it is something we have to work together to try to address. There are refugees around the world. There are some refugees who are coming to our southern border. But this is becoming a worldwide problem, and it is a combination of factors of failed states, of environmental damage, of economic desperation; and we have to address this in a way that we acknowledge the obligation we have to one another. So my hope is that the President, whose leadership on this is absolutely essential, tones it down and acknowledges that this is an issue that we have to work together to solve, and it is not just the heel of the boot that is going to solve it, not just the punitive measures of taking kids from parents that is going to solve it, not just cutting off aid to Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador that is going to solve it. We are ready to work, and we need to work because it is, more than anything else, essential that we acknowledge the responsibility all of us have, whatever our policies are, to treat people humanely. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Garcia so much for his work on this, and I pledge to continue working with the gentleman every way I can.