Peter Welch

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to Mr. Ross, my friend, I agree with just about every single thing you say about the great State of Israel, but I disagree with you about this resolution. Let me explain why. Israel is a Jewish democratic state. It has been our strong ally. We have supported it through thick and thin, most recently with a $38 billion appropriation for their security over the next 10 years. I supported that. But this question that we face fundamentally comes down to whether we are going to support a two-state solution or move toward a one-state solution. The bottom line here is that settlement activity, every settlement that is made--600,000 settlers living in the West Bank and Jerusalem-- makes it ever-more difficult to achieve that two-state solution. President Obama, in his abstention on that veto, was acknowledging what has been the policy of this country. Ronald Reagan was opposed to settlements. You know, you get a family that settles anywhere, but in the West Bank, they put down roots. They are good people. They have a belief that the West Bank belongs Biblically to Israel. That is their view. Many politicians, including Netanyahu, appear to be embracing that. That is not the international position. It is not the unified position in Israel. Many folks in Israel think the settlements are a threat to the possibility of achieving the secure borders and the security of Israel and the maintenance of it as a democratic Jewish state. Mr. Speaker, there is another issue. With 600,000 settlers, with 4.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank and also living in the State of Israel and 6.5 million Jewish members of the State of Israel, the demographics, long term, are going to reach a tipping point where there could be more Arab voters than there are Jewish voters, and then the State of Israel will have to make the decision Jewish or democratic. I want the State of Israel to continue to be that Jewish and democratic state that it is, and that is why I oppose this resolution.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I thank our chair of the committee and our ranking member. I am here to stand with Israel. The question of the best way to do that is one of legitimate debate. It is a debate that we are having here in the House. It is a debate that the folks in Israel are having there. There is no question that the resolution before us is not the one that everyone would have written, or the one that was before the U.N. was the one everyone would have written. There is no question that there is fault on the side of the Palestinians with respect to coming to the table for peace. But here is the question that is starting to really make an impact on the possibility of achieving the two-state solution that both sides by and large believe is essential, and that is something that is within the control of the Israeli Government: Will it continue to intensify the support for settlements in the West Bank? If it does, as it has been, there are 600,000 settlers now between the West Bank and east Jerusalem. If it continues to do that, it makes as a practical matter it virtually impossible the land-for-peace swap that we know is essential to get to a two-state solution. That is the practical challenge that we have. We are all friends of Israel. All of us here believe in a Jewish state and a democratic state. The second issue of major concern that is discussed in Israel as well as here is the fact that demographics are going to catch up and cause a real crisis in Israel to maintain that Jewish identity and that democratic tradition. There are 4.5 million Arabs who live between the West Bank and in Israel proper. There are 6.5 million Jewish citizens. If there is not some resolution, at some point a decision has to be made to maintain the Jewish character at the expense of democratic ideals or compromise democratic ideals in order to maintain that Jewish identity. The Israeli State has a proud, strong tradition of being democratic, of being reliable, of standing up for civil and human rights. Many there, and some of us here, believe settlements are an impediment to that tradition.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on Roll Call 608. I would have voted ``Aye'' on Roll Call 608 had I been there.

Mr. WELCH

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

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Consumer fraud continues, and oftentimes it is individuals figuring out how to use the Internet to get access to your bills and cram charges. Sometimes it is even companies with respected reputations that somehow go awry and then end up ripping off their customers. It is bad in two respects. One is that it costs money that consumers don't have. I mean, most folks are trying to make ends meet and it is pretty tough. The second is that it really undercuts the confidence that I think a consumer wants to have and is entitled to have, that when they are putting their money out, they are being treated right, they are being treated fairly. This resolution has been sponsored by Congresswoman Schakowsky, and I have got to say that we are lucky in this Congress to have her for all these years leading the charge on consumer issues. She is vigilant, she is tough, and she is fair. Congresswoman Schakowsky brought this to the attention of this body, and I urge that all of us support this resolution. I want to acknowledge my gratitude for her work over the years as an untiring consumer advocate. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my colleague from Texas. This bill is important. I am here with my colleague Mr. Cartwright, who will be speaking on this in a few minutes and who played a major role in the passage of this legislation. Even though he is not a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, he is very much concerned about the opportunities that occur when we make our energy use more efficient. Across the country, K-12 school districts spend literally billions of dollars on their energy bills each year while an estimated 14 million American children attend deteriorating public schools. According to a Department of Education survey, 43 percent of schools indicated that the poor condition of their facilities interferes with the delivery of instruction, and those are probably schools in my district and in all of our colleagues'. By upgrading these systems, we can increase efficiency and get better educational outcomes. It is not good for kids to be cold or too hot when they are trying to study and learn. There are numbers of Federal initiatives already available to schools to help them become more energy efficient, but the problem is these programs are spread across the entire Federal Government, making it difficult for a small school, particularly in a rural district, to know where to look and how to take full advantage of these programs. That is where this legislation comes in. As I mentioned, introduced by Congressman Cartwright and with my strong support, this Streamlining Energy Efficiency for Schools Act will provide a coordinating structure for schools to help them better navigate available Federal programs and financing options. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, everything that needs to be said has been said. I appreciate the work of my colleague from Texas (Mr. Olson), and I really do appreciate as well the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright), who has been very, very active on anything related to making better use of our energy. I urge passage of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, here is the situation: our kids are going to school, they are getting homework, and 70 percent of the teachers assign homework that presumes access to the Internet, but many of our kids don't have access to the Internet. About 5 million, or one-third of households with school age children in the U.S., lack a high-speed connection at home. That is the ``homework gap.'' It creates a lot of anxiety, as well as some inability to get the homework done. And the anxiety for these kids is that they go home, they have got an assignment, they want to do it, and they don't have the tools. It puts enormous pressure on the parents. We have seen some reports where, in order to address this outside of the school, they will park buses that have high-speed Internet access, and the parents will bring the kids back to school and sit outside while the kids sit on the bus where they have the homework connection. That is asking a lot of our parents, it is asking a lot of our kids, and this resolution is just acknowledging what I think we all know is the obvious. That is, if kids are going to have a shot at getting ahead, if they are going to be able to do their homework, we have got to get that Internet access out in the area so we don't have 5 million kids without it. It is such a real problem when you get into the rural areas, and that is where Mr. Latta and I know that, and the reason is because extending the broadband out into the rural areas is economically more of a challenge for some of our companies. We believe that, ultimately, we have got to have Internet access, much like we did with electricity, where we make a policy that says we are getting that broadband to the last mile. This resolution demonstrates an ongoing bipartisan commitment to achieve that goal. I know, Mr. Speaker, you have a lot of rural areas in your district as well. I urge my colleagues to support this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6375, the Power and Security Systems Act, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has stated, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires electronic devices to meet certain efficiency standards while in no-load mode or standby mode, and that obviously makes a lot of sense. You don't want to be consuming unnecessary energy when, in fact, you don't need to use energy; but the whole law was written in a way that it included some devices that are always on active mode. Security and life safety systems, such as video surveillance, intrusion detection, and access control systems, have to be active all of the time. So this law is now to extend something that was an exemption, and that is going to expire unless we pass this legislation and then allow manufacturers to avoid having to go through very costly steps in order to bring it into compliance with the law that would actually make their products ineffective when it came to surveillance. This law was originally introduced by Ranking Member Frank Pallone and his colleague, Roy Blunt, who is now in the Senate, to provide that temporary exemption. This is really going to extend it. I joined with the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo), and it is fitting that we are working with Mr. Pompeo because he is about to start a new job that has just a little bit to do with security and intelligence. We congratulate him, by the way, on that appointment by President-elect Trump. This bill, which has the support of industry and efficiency advocates, addresses the unique needs of critical life safety and security systems to remain on at all times while meeting DOE energy efficiency standards. It is a practical bill and a straightforward bill. By the way, it is something that we should be trying together to do more often: when we pass a bill, it is a good bill, but we find out it has got a bit of a problem; instead of arguing about it, let's fix it. We managed to accomplish that in this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Having no further speakers on this side, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6394, the Improving Broadband Access for Veterans Act of 2016. I thank my colleagues, Mr. McNerney, who will be speaking very shortly, and Mr. Kinzinger, both colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee with myself and Mr. Latta. Both of them have had a focus on how the Internet with be helpful to veterans. Obviously, Internet is really helpful to all of us, but veterans have some special challenges, and we have a special obligation to veterans. This legislation is absolutely focused on the obligation that we have to try to help our veterans have access to the Internet. That is especially important in rural areas, something very close to the heart of Mr. Latta and me. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney), the cosponsor of this bill with Mr. Kinzinger, and a wonderful colleague on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on rollcall 505, 506, and 507. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 505 and 506, and ``aye'' on rollcall 507 had I been there.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I appreciate the gentlewoman's leadership and, by the way, for her fierce leadership on consumer rights for the bill that just passed. I thank my colleagues, Mr. Burgess and Mr. Lance, whom I really appreciate, and, of course, the committee chair, Fred Upton, and Ranking Member Frank Pallone. Mr. Speaker, you would be glad to know that we work pretty hard to be bipartisan and productive in the Energy and Commerce Committee. It takes a good deal of effort on both sides. This legislation is really an acknowledgement about this new technology--the application of the Internet to activities that are cutting across the entire economy, everything from agriculture to medicine--and it is an acknowledgment by Congress that this is a private sector-led, entrepreneurial-led range of opportunities that has the potential to increase efficiency and productivity. For instance, on farms you have GPS planting done by GPS-guided tractors. It results in much better planting with fewer seeds. It saves money and increases crop yields. In medicine, as you know, telemedicine is being tremendously helpful to folks, like in Vermont, where we are a very rural State and it is tough for folks to make a 60-, 70-mile journey to the VA. With telemedicine, we are able to have the doctor in that person's local office. So it is a tremendous benefit to consumers there as well. The other thing that is really important is that, for this to be deployed, it is not a matter of us trying to come up with a regulation. The innovations that are occurring are so rapid that it really would be impossible for anybody to write a regulation that would be anything but obstructive. On the other hand, with Congress getting involved, there are going to be, as we go along, some issues of privacy and some issues of cybersecurity. When it comes to health records, all of us are going to be certain that those records are safe and private. When it comes to other things, like if somebody hacks into your Fitbit and finds out how many steps you took in a day, it is not such a big deal. But this is where Congress is going to have to play a role, because industry is going to want to be certain that the rights of their consumers and the users of their products are being protected and their information is private and safe. So we are acknowledging, as a Congress, Republicans and Democrats, that there is this new frontier with use of the Internet where entrepreneurs in the private sector are coming up with applications that can improve efficiency and productivity in almost every walk of life. One of the ongoing challenges in our committee will be to make certain that the broadband infrastructure that is required in order to make this benefit available to folks in rural America is built out properly. I have been working very closely with Bob Latta of Ohio, who has a big rural district, to try to make certain that we have a commitment in the technology space for broadband deployment all across America. It makes a huge difference in rural communities in our State of Vermont and Bob Latta's district in Ohio, where, if you have somebody who has got a good idea in a business, if they are in a small town with a population of a couple hundred people, as long as they have high-speed Internet, they are going to be able to take advantage of this. So it is a pleasure, I think, for all of us to find something that we agree on that is substantive and is important. I thank all the folks who have had a hand in bringing us here to this moment where we are going to have an opportunity to vote on this resolution.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, we have common ground on the Republican and Democratic side of the aisle. There is a problem of gun violence. Innocent people--children in Newtown, workers in San Bernardino, worshippers in Charleston, and five very brave police officers in Dallas protecting the right of citizens to protest--all have been killed. We have got to do something. We know that. We have a disagreement about what. But should we have a disagreement that we not even debate what is the right response as a policy to protect innocent lives from future gun violence? That is the question. We can debate the Second Amendment. We can protect gun owner rights. But we can't hide from the responsibility that we chose to accept when we ran for office and asked people to entrust us with their vote in this Congress, that we won't even discuss, we won't debate, we won't have a committee hearing, we won't have a bill on the floor. That is what is really unacceptable. Do you know what? We have a disagreement. Put some bills on the floor. We vote. Our voters then get to hold us accountable one way or the other.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, a little background on this bill. This started in Vermont, where there was a strong citizen movement to have the right to know what was in their food. It was not a battle about the science of GMOs or about whether it was healthy or not. It was really based on the proposition that for a consumer who wishes to know what is in their food, whether it is the number of calories or whether it is GMO-produced, they had a right to know. It is as simple as that. The irony here is that the pushback has been from folks who are advocating the benefits of GMOs. If they are so great--and I am not disputing what some of their benefits may be--why not brag about it by putting it on the label? Why hide it? It really doesn't make a lot of sense. In Vermont, we had a bipartisan vote in the Senate 28-2 and a strong, bipartisan vote in the House that was based upon the right of Vermonters who wanted to know whether there were GMOs to have that knowledge. There was a lot of pushback initially by industry, but some of the industry has kind of got it right: if the consumer wants to know, let them know. Kellogg's and Campbell Soup both now have labeling on their products and let the consumers know. What is really the big deal? Now we have a bill from the Senate that, frankly, when you look at it, it is kind of dumb, because what it does is give options on how you ``label.'' You can use English, where right on the label you can read ``GMOs'' or not. That makes sense. But then there is another mechanism where there is, like, a barcode. You have to go to the store with your iPhone, scan the barcode--by the way, when you are grocery shopping, you are trying to get home, get dinner on, you have kids that are trying to go to a school practice. And you are supposed to stop and scan the barcode and go to a Web site to see whether that can of black bean soup has GMOs or not? The other option you can have is you can, in the middle of the store, dial a 1-800 number, get a call center, probably overseas, and talk to somebody and ask them whether this can of soup that you are holding 5,000 miles away from the person you are talking to contains GMOs or not.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. WELCH. So we have this situation where, in the Senate bill that we are now considering, there is an acknowledgment that there should be a label, but it contains a label that is impossible to read. So if there is an acknowledgment about the right of a consumer to have access to the information, why not give them the information in plain and simple English? We don't have to do dumb end-arounds in order to give consumers the information they are seeking. That is the essence of the opposition to this bill. Make it simple, keep it simple, and let people know what it is they are buying so they can make the decision.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Jim Harrison for his tireless work over nearly three decades on behalf of Vermont's retailers and grocers. After 29 years, Jim will retire at the end of this year from his position as President of the Vermont Retail and Grocers Association and its predecessor organization, the Vermont Grocers Association. In Vermont, the local grocery or general store is the heart of our small communities. It's a place where locals gather for much more than milk, meat, and produce. Indeed, these small businesses are woven into the fabric of our communities. Each and every one of them has benefitted from Jim's passion and perseverance. As President Pro Tem of the Vermont Senate and now as a Member of Congress, I have worked closely with Jim over the years. He has been a respected leader in shaping public policy throughout his tenure. He is a tireless and tenacious advocate who, without fail, accomplished his goals in a bipartisan and cooperative manner. He commanded the respect of governors and legislators, and allies and opponents, because he has always been a man of high integrity who cares deeply about the issues that impact the retail industry. Jim's first job as a teenager was bagging groceries at Iandoli's Market in Westborough, Mass. The retail touch he learned in that job served him well over the years in Montpelier and is appreciated by the many businesses he has represented. He studied business at Nichols College before transferring to Cornell University to study food marketing. After graduating he landed a position in Hannaford Brothers' training program and went on to manage its stores in Rutland and South Burlington. After a stint in Boston, he returned to Vermont in 1987 to head the Vermont Grocers Association, which merged with the Vermont Retail Association in 2013. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Jim's leadership, advice, and friendship over the past three decades. He will be missed, but I have no doubt that his wise counsel will always be available as needed. I ask the United States House of Representatives to join me and all Vermonters in wishing Jim and his wife, Pat, the best in retirement.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that I inadvertently voted ``Yea'' on Roll Call 403. I intended to vote ``Nay''.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, Vermont's GMO labeling law, Act 120, was signed into law in 2014 after years of hearings, testimony, and debate. It was the first-in-the-Nation GMO labeling law, but Americans should understand that 64 nations around the world have GMO labeling. That law was passed by a vote of 28-2 in the Vermont Senate and by 114-30 in the House. It garnered support from Republicans and Democrats. The reason it did is that labeling is simply giving consumers information that they can use in deciding whether they want to buy a particular product or not. GMO labeling tells consumers whether the product contains GMOs. Some of its opponents oppose this largely because they think consumers aren't entitled to that information even though they believe that GMOs are tremendous. But if they want to brag about GMOs, why don't they want to label GMO products so consumers can make their own decisions? Now what we have is a situation in which the legislation we are going to be considering says that we will put a label on but not one that you can read. The label that would be ascribed would allow manufacturers to decide to put on ``GMO contained herein''--and that is in English--just like a calorie label or how much salt is in there. It would also give them the option of using, in effect, a barcode whereby, when you are shopping and you have got to get home to make dinner and you have got to take a son or a daughter out to a play practice or to a sports game, you have to take your iPhone, scan the barcode, go to a Web site, and then investigate the Web site as to whether or not that can of black beans contains GMOs. Who has time to do that? How is that a practical option? The other option for the company is to put on a 1-800 number, where you are probably getting a call center overseas, and you are talking to somebody about the beans that you are buying at the co-op in Burlington. Folks who are busy mountain women don't have time to do that, so let's get real. This bill that the Senate has sent over is dumb. If you want to label something, use English. That is all you have to do, and we should accept the fact for our consumers, the people we represent. If they want to know something, why not tell them? I applaud Campbell Soup for deciding it is just going to put GMO labels on the products and will let the consumers decide. Let's kill this bill. Let's get a national standard that uses English.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on rollcall 351. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 351 had I been there.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, as we near the 100th anniversary of the Farm Credit System, I rise today to commend the cooperative owners and the employees of the Farm Credit System for their continuing service in meeting the credit and financial-services needs of rural communities and agriculture. I was pleased to cosponsor House Resolution 591, commemorating the Farm Credit System's centennial. The Farm Credit System was established by Congress through the Federal Farm Loan Act of 1916, signed into law on July 17, 1916, by President Woodrow Wilson. Congress designed the Farm Credit System as a permanent means to support the well-being and prosperity of the Nation's rural communities and agricultural producers of all types and sizes. The State of Vermont is served by Yankee Farm Credit, which provides more than $400 million in loans to more than 1,000 Vermont members, as well as financial-services such as recordkeeping, payroll, income tax preparation, consulting, appraisal, and crop insurance. Nationwide the Farm Credit System provides more than $237 billion in loans to more than 500,000 members. Yankee Farm Credit is involved in the agricultural community throughout Vermont, working with Vermont's Agency of Agriculture and other organizations and agencies such as the Vermont Agricultural Credit Corporation, the University of Vermont Extension Service, and the USDA's Farm Service Agency. Yankee Farm Credit supports youth in agriculture. Yankee Farm Credit together with CoBank has provided more than $10,000 in grants each to 4-H and FFA in the past three years. Congress designed the Farm Credit System as a network of cooperatives, independently owned and controlled by its borrowers. The cooperative governance model, whereby directors are accountable to the rest of the membership is an important tenet of the Farm Credit System. Farm Credit has demonstrated its commitment to its customer owners in Vermont for a century, and we look forward to its continued commitment for the next one hundred years.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, about 10 days ago, something extraordinary happened on this House floor. Members violated the rules, and they sat in. Some folks asked me the question: ``Peter, why did you do that? Why did you join in that?'' I had to think hard about it because it is not something that should be done in anything close to normal circumstances. The reason was that, since Newtown, when there have been one mass shooting after another--San Bernardino; Orlando the most recent-- Congress has responded with a moment of silence followed by complete and utter inaction. Congress is not doing its job. The issue of what gun legislation we should pass is debatable. Why won't we debate it? Why won't Congress face the fact that the job of Congress is to come up with policies that are going to provide protection to American citizens from this gun violence? There is legislation out there. Two things that are very sensible: if you are on a terrorist watch list, you can't buy a gun; if you are subject to a background check, you can't evade it by all the loopholes. We should debate those. And then those of our citizens who disagree with us, they can vote against us or they can vote for us. What we have no right to do is to fail to do our job, so I joined with other Members of Congress sitting here basically saying: Let's debate, let's discuss, but let's act. Let's not run the other way in cowardly disrespect of our responsibilities in the expectation that our citizens who sent us here rightly have that we address the issue of gun violence and be held accountable by them for at least making an effort, honestly, to do the job they have given us to do.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my colleague, Mr. Pitts. It is a pleasure to be working with him and with Mr. Pallone and Mr. Upton. This legislation, as Mr. Pitts indicated, is going to give some relief to communities, particularly rural communities, from the imposition of changes in how charges are made in competitive bidding processes that have a significant potential to make inaccessible durable medical equipment. I was a cosponsor, but the lead sponsor is here, Dr. Price, a good colleague and a really good doctor. Dr. Price, Legislator Price, came up with a pretty good bill that is going to help Georgia but also help rural Vermont, so I appreciate that. The bottom line, the DME Competitive Bidding Program was created in 2003. It was aimed at a goal all of us have. It was trying to lower spending on durable medical equipment. It was well-intended, but it has had some serious consequences, especially for rural providers, like in Vermont, and I am sure parts of Georgia and other rural parts of the country. By the way, when we do something, it can have a good intention, it can even accomplish some of its goals, but I think it always makes sense for us on both sides to step back after there is some history-- this went in in 2003--and take a look, kick the tires. What are some of the improvements that we can make so that we get back to the original intention and don't do harm that is unnecessary? And that is what the Price legislation is doing. In January 2016, the Competitive Bidding Program began its nationwide rollout. That was under the new CMS guidelines. As a result, the rural areas saw significant cuts. It really does jeopardize access to this important equipment for beneficiaries. The CMS continued its rollout in July with a second round of cuts. It further slashed reimbursement rates for DME across rural America, including Vermont. In Vermont, we have an excellent equipment provider, Yankee Medical, that is reasonable in its price and incredibly good in its service. It will bring equipment to people all across rural Vermont. That is such a benefit for folks who can't get out of their homes. The rural areas do have different challenges than urban areas. It is much more challenging for stakeholders to absorb these cuts. For instance, a small business in rural Vermont in a noncompetitively bid area may not have a large amount of Medicare-related businesses and, therefore, might not be able to afford the prices that a business in a much larger populated area could offer. So this legislation is going to put on hold for 3 months what these prices will be. It is going to allow time for some adjustment and, hopefully, for us to consider other positive reforms that will be helpful to maintaining access to important healthcare equipment for folks in rural Vermont and rural America. The bill contains a couple of other provisions, one of which I will speak about. My colleague on the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Bucshon, was the lead sponsor and I was his cosponsor. As a way to pay for this--and that was cracking down on this Medicare fraud, where there has been a failure administratively--when a provider is found to be fraudulent in one district, that fraud is not then communicated to all other districts or States, so that fraudulent provider tries to just take their operation elsewhere. This is going to require that notification and it is going to shut down that fraud much more quickly, saving money, and then helping us to pay for this. So this is practical legislation, the result of a compromise by the chairman and ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Pitts, and some of my colleagues. Mr. Loebsack of Iowa played a very, very active role in this legislation. Of course, Dr. Price did as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining?