Peter Welch

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. First of all, it's very refreshing that we have legislation that's focused on improving the business climate that we're doing together, and we've had some internal squabbles about whose name should go first. I'm not sure it amuses the American people. But the bottom line here that should encourage the American people is that we have bipartisan legislation that is going to do positive things for the business climate, certainly in Vermont and around the country. I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Fincher, Mr. Himes, Mr. Carney, and Mr. Schweikert, for working together so well to bring this legislation to the floor. And there are a number of good things here. We don't have to exaggerate this as the answer to the real challenge we have in creating jobs. But you know what? Just selling this for what it is is a good thing, and it's a good thing because it does practical things to help us improve our business climate, particularly for small businesses, and for the rare time that we have this opportunity, we're doing it together. But the legislation, overall, does a number of good things. The IPO on-ramp that is going to allow companies that need access to capital fewer barriers to get access to capital, particularly our small companies, where the cost of putting together an initial public offering is very significant, oftentimes prohibitive, that's a very good thing. The Access to Capital for Job Creators Act that removes the regulatory ban that prevents small, privately held companies from using advertisements to solicit investors for private offerings, so they are allowed to let the word go out that they are open for business and they want investors, that's a good thing. The Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act permits crowdfunding to finance new businesses by allowing companies to accept and pool donations up to $1 million. Again, a very practical step to take. Good step to take. The Small Companies Capital Formation Act that Mr. Schweikert, my colleague from Arizona, pioneered raises the offering threshold for companies exempted from registration with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission from $5 million, the threshold, to $50 million. Mr. Schweikert, again, you've been busy. The Private Company Flexibility and Growth Act raises the threshold for mandatory SEC registration for companies from 500 to 1,000 shareholders. We've got a company in Newport, Vermont, that has been under a lot of regulatory pressure. They can't go over that 500 threshold. This is going to be very helpful, Madam Chairman, to that company to get access to capital, and it's going to make certain that the SEC regulations are still complied with. Then the provision that raises the threshold for mandatory SEC registration for community banks from 500 to 1,000 shareholders, that's going to have a direct impact on a bank in Newport, Vermont. So these are all practical steps. I don't think we need to oversell it. It's not the step that is going to get us down to an unemployment rate of 1 or 2 or 3 percent that all of us aspire to, and there's a tendency in this body sometimes to oversell what we're doing. But you know what? We shouldn't minimize what we're doing as well. And these, again, practical, sensible small business-oriented steps that are taken on a bipartisan basis. This is a good thing that we're doing. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH. Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, even though I'm not opposed, and I'd like to speak generally on H.R. 3606.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the proposed fiscal year 2013 cuts to the Air National Guard. Let me preface my remarks by acknowledging that this country does have a serious debt problem that requires that everybody tighten their belt. It requires, in my view, that we have more revenues so that we can have a sustainable budget where everybody does their share, from taxpayers to every Department in the government. The Air Force has to be included. But under the Budget Control Act, the proposal that the Air Force has made to address the cuts that would be required there is to single out and focus its knife on the Air National Guard. Now, that would affect 5,100 guardsmen who would lose their position. It would also demobilize scores of aircraft. Now, as I mentioned, the Air Guard is not by any means entitled to be exempt from the challenge of coming in compliance with the Budget Control Act. Here's the issue: when any Agency--whether it's the Air Force, the Army, whether it is the Department of Education--makes its recommendations to comply with the Budget Control Act, it should be doing so on the basis of what makes most sense to strengthen that Agency, not to weaken it. The studies that have been done with respect to the Air Force demonstrate that the Air Guard is extraordinarily cost effective. The Air Guard is getting the job done for less money than any other part of that Guard. Obviously, the full Air Force is extremely important. But why in the world would you focus on the Guard when the Guard is doing the job in a highly professional and successful way--widely acknowledged by all studies that have been done--and is doing it for less money? So, number one, when studies have shown that guardsmen and reservists cost far less than Active Duty members and you're trying to meet budget constraints, don't demobilize the efficient and effective. Number two, as our force shrinks as a whole, the Air Guard is key to the military term called ``reversibility,'' that is, they can serve as a critical operational and strategic reserve should a larger force be needed in the future to meet unforeseen circumstances. That is an essential requirement of military readiness. Third, the Air Guard can deliver--the Air Guard has delivered. Their record in Afghanistan and Iraq has proven that the force can mobilize quickly and accomplish the mission with great professionalism. Mr. Speaker, I don't doubt that these are very difficult and challenging choices for the Air Force command to make, and cutting the defense budget always involves very difficult choices. But these cuts that focus as significantly as they do on the Air Guard, which has proven to be efficient and effective, in my view are unwise. I look forward to working with the House Armed Services Committee and the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee to address my concerns.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Gas prices are killing the American consumer. They're doing real damage to small businesses. In my State, Cabot Creamery, which has fixed price contracts to deliver cheese, very important to farmers, very important to that business, price of gas going up a dollar, it's like another $135,000 off their bottom line. There are long-term issues we've got to address, but you know what? There's stuff we can do in the short term. The futures market has been flipped upside down. It should be serving end users like airlines, fuel dealers. Instead, it's been taken over by speculators. Goldman Sachs study says about $23 on the price of a barrel of oil is attributable to speculation. That's about 56 cents when you go to fill up your pickup truck, about an extra 15 bucks just for the speculation premium. Past Presidents have used the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to spook the speculators, to send a shot across their bow that they're going to be on the wrong side, the losing side of these trades. Let's use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to give some relief to our consumers and to our small businesses.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about two wonderful Vermonters from Dummerston: Frances Herbert and Takako Ueda. They met in college in Michigan more than 30 years ago. Takako, from Japan, was studying English on a student visa; and after completing school, Takako returned to Japan but stayed in touch with Frances. Eventually, Takako returned to the U.S., and she and Frances married. Quite a love story. Now Frances and Takako face their biggest challenge yet. Takako is being threatened with deportation. Frances and Takako are a same-sex couple. Their marriage is recognized in Vermont, but it's not recognized under Federal law; and without that recognition, Frances and Takako are not eligible for the same immigration benefits as other married couples. Madam Speaker, these are good people. They have a good relationship. They're good Vermonters. They deserve better.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, on February 1 of this year, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said that American forces would step back from a combat role in Afghanistan as early as mid-2013. This is a year faster than had been announced only months previously. He also added that U.S. troops would move into an advise-and-assist role to Afghanistan security forces. I know that most everyone who has joined me on this floor this morning would want a faster transition. To be frank, we wish we could have avoided much of this 10-year nation building altogether. I rise today to express my strong support for the administration's decision to reduce our military footprint on an accelerated timeline. Mr. Speaker, our soldiers, our men and women in uniform, will do and do do whatever it is we ask of them. Indeed, the sacrifices that our soldiers and their families have made have been extraordinary. Just this morning, with Congressman Donnelly, I met a family who lost their dad, and his son is here who was serving with him in Afghanistan. There is nothing that we can do to adequately express to them our enormous appreciation for their sacrifice. If we did not have men and women who, at the call of the Commander in Chief, would put on the uniform and report for duty and do what the Commander in Chief and this Congress authorized, we would not have the United States of America. But the obligation we have to the citizens from our districts that are willing to make that sacrifice is to give them a policy worthy of their willingness to make that sacrifice. It is time that we do all we can to accelerate our withdrawal from Afghanistan. The reason is this: That's what our national security requires. There was a very valid reason to go into Afghanistan. It was the home of Osama bin Laden. The Taliban gave him sanctuary. Al Qaeda had free hand. Our policy was right when it was started, but it transformed itself into a nation-building policy where our partner has become a corrupt Afghanistan Government that is unreliable, that is squandering taxpayer money, that is not cooperating with the American military. The question is: Should the American taxpayer and the American soldier be required to do nation building in Afghanistan, particularly when the threat of terrorism is real, but it is not a nation-centered threat? It is dispersed around the globe. The new American policy of counterterrorism, as opposed to counterinsurgency--that is, going after terrorists where they are as opposed to nation building where some may be--is the right direction for this country to go. Mr. Speaker, the policy announced by Mr. Panetta to accelerate that withdrawal is overdue and it is timely at this point. I strongly support it and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman. Keystone is not the energy future that advocates claim it is. But if in fact the Keystone pipeline is built, then this amendment says that that oil in fact should be used in the United States to reduce our dependence on oil. It appears right now that if this pipeline is built, it will be for the purpose of transporting tar sands oil from Canada down to Houston for refining and then export to Latin America and China. That's very much what is on the mind of many people. You can't have both--have that pipeline be essentially a conduit for export and claim that it's going to reduce American dependence on overseas oil. This amendment speaks directly to that it and it allows those who claim that Keystone will allow us energy independence to guarantee in law that that will happen.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman from Maryland. There are two constitutional principles; there is one practical problem; and there is one democratic ideal. The most important constitutional principle is the power of the purse that must be retained by Congress. No one could give a better affirmation of why that's important than the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, except for the author of the Federalist Papers who the gentleman quoted. Does this violate Congress' power of the purse? It reserves to the Congress the right to overturn by majority vote a recommendation by the executive that focuses on a single item of spending. Now, that may make life somewhat more difficult for those of us in Congress. It may make it particularly more difficult for the appropriators who have to deal with the incredible complexities of the large and multifaceted Federal budget; but in my view, it does not in any way violate the constitutional right that this House has over the power of the purse. The second constitutional provision is the right of the executive to exercise a veto. And that is part of the checks and balances where the executive, a Republican or Democratic President, is given the power to say ``no.'' And then it imposes on us a burden of coming up with two- thirds votes in order to overcome it. A veto is not a practical tool. If the effect of that veto is a budget that keeps government going, that pays for our troops, that pays doctors who are providing Medicare services, that everything goes down with the ship, we're forcing the President to make what, in fact, is a radical decision to tear the whole thing down or to let some things go. The practical problem we have is the budget. And again, Mr. Rogers is right: process reform is not going to get us from where we are to where we need to be. The problem is the problem. But this is one budget reform that can't help because what it does ultimately lead to is the application of that great democratic principle of transparency. What this means is that if you or I voted for a budget and the President highlighted a few items where the President said, Hey, what's going on, we would have to stand up here--you and I--and vote ``yes'' or ``no,'' and then be able to defend that vote to the people who elected us. One of the challenges that I think we all know we have is that the confidence that people have in this institution is very low. So anything we can do--and transparency is the way to do something quite effective--we should do. So this simply means that at the end of the day, these budget bills that are complicated, that are big, that few Members really have an opportunity to review, when the President reviews them and identifies a few things that he wants to send back, we have to say ``yes'' or ``no'' in the full light of day.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. The major reason why this motion to instruct is timely is the answer to this question. What will we know after February 17 that we don't know now? There is going to be no new information. So what would justify the delay? What we know now, number one, is that Republican economists and Democratic economists say that this is a very fragile recovery, that we're all happy that the unemployment rate is going down, but we're all concerned that it's unacceptably too high. And when you have Republican and Democratic-aligned economists saying unanimously to take this money out of the economy at this time would stall the recovery, we all agree that we can't do that. So that's not going to change between now and February 17. Secondly, we know that on the pay-for, we have clear lines of division on this. If you have a pay-for that basically takes with one hand what was given in the other, in other words you cut spending on things that help middle class families in order to pay for a 2 percent reduction in their payroll tax, that zeroes out the stimulative effect. So from a macroeconomic point of view, it does no good for the economy, when all of us assert that our goal is to help the economy. The second question is political tactics, and the political tactic of this Congress has been brinksmanship. On December 10, when we just about turned the lights out on government, it was a last-minute agreement that finally kept them on. It included a tax provision that extended the high-income tax cuts, added $800 billion to the deficit, and created some significant anxiety in the markets as to whether this institution could do its job. Fast-forward to August of 2011 and to the fiasco--that's the only word that can be used--of this House of Representatives actually having a debate about whether it was legitimate for the people of this country to not pay their bills. That caused enormous anxiety in the markets. By the way, that hurts the economy. In December of last year, we were in the payroll tax fight, and this is where I think we get to the heart of the matter. There is a difference of opinion on the payroll tax. The Democratic side is essentially for it, and it was very clear the Republicans were against it, and there was kicking and dragging when the Speaker came back with the unanimous consent and overrode the action that had previously been taken. So the reality of the situation we're in now is that the other side is saying, yes, yes, yes, they're for a payroll tax reduction; but their actions say, no way, no way, no way. It's time to act.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman for yielding. There is a reason that this institution of Congress is so discredited among the American people. The reason is quite simple. Instead of facing the problem, we come up with ways to avoid it. These two bills-- dynamic scoring, which basically has as a premise that any tax cut is going to increase revenues, and baseline reform, which essentially says that inflation is not a factor in depleting resources to meet a need, whether it's the Pentagon or it's health care--we think that somehow that is going to solve the problem with the debt, which is a serious problem in this country. Do you know what? It's time for Congress to acknowledge the obvious, which is that the problem is the problem. These runaround reforms about the process avoids the direct, head-on confrontation that is the debt, and the debt is a function of too much spending and too little revenue. Bottom line, if you are a household, if you're a local government, if you're someone who is responsible, when you have a debt problem, you're going to look at everything; you're going to put it all on the table. There are 100 Members of the House of Representatives who signed a letter and said, Hey, let's put everything on the table--revenues and spending. It's the only way we're going to get a solution. This approach is avoiding that. It's locking down on the notion that any tax cut is going to increase revenues. It's locking down on the notion that revenues cannot be part of the solution, and it's locking down on this notion that if you wipe away inflation as a factor in what we need to do to maintain level funding that somehow we'll still meet the needs. We had a war in Iraq and Afghanistan--two wars that weren't paid for, both on the credit card. We had the Medicare prescription drug program on the credit card. Whether you supported those as a Democrat or as a Republican--and we had people on both sides of the aisle who did-- you've got to pay for it. We didn't pay for it. We're paying now the consequences of it. As to the so-called ``reforms'' about the process, it's always legitimate to figure out the process--how can we do it better? How can we get better information?--but not when it means we avoid the problem.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. We have a serious challenge here. We have people who need long-term care. We have very serious fiscal constraints. And the question before us really is, do we repeal the program altogether when there is a serious long-term program, as if by legislative magic a repeal suddenly makes the serious and acute problem vanish altogether. We know that doesn't happen. It may address a fiscal issue, but it doesn't solve the fiscal issue and enormous emotional pain that individuals who are trying to take care of their senior parents will face. So the problem doesn't go away if this legislation is passed. It simply means the pain will continue and probably intensify. So the real challenge for Congress is that when there is a problem that we acknowledge is real and rising for the American people, and the folks who need long-term care are in red States and blue States, they're in your district and they're in mine, the real question is whether we address that as actively and as aggressively as we can, taking responsible steps to make certain that we can pay for what we promise. The worst thing that we can do in my view is pass legislation that has almost as its predicate the notion that by repealing the commitment that this Congress made 2 years ago, the problem doesn't exist. It does, and we all know that. You've heard the statistics--10 million Americans currently need long-term care. That is a tough challenge for those families. Over the next decade, that is going to rise to 15 million. It is a rising challenge, and the longer we defer, the more difficult it will be for us to address it. Sixty-two million Americans, good Americans, generous Americans, serve as unpaid caregivers to elderly family members. How long can that be sustained? While nearly 70 percent of Americans will need some level of long- term care in their lifetime, only 8 percent are able to buy long-term care insurance. That's where we do need a public policy program that's going to match the resources required with the need that's rising. The CLASS Act was designed to make progress, giving older Americans and their families some sense of security. It's not perfect. The most vigorous proponents of that legislation acknowledge it's not perfect. But what that we pass on the Republican side or the Democratic side can any of us claim is perfect? What we have to do together is try to make an imperfect bill better. But what we can't do is abandon the very serious challenge that those 10 million Americans in need of long-term care have. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 12 on H. Res. 522, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``yes'' when I should have voted ``no.''

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, the course of action that is being proposed by the Republican majority is two things: One, it's reckless and irresponsible; and, two, it's cynical and very political. First of all, why is it reckless and irresponsible? It is because this country has never seriously considered defaulting on its obligations, saying ``no'' to paying its bills. What great country would ever seriously suggest to its citizens that it will stiff its creditors, with all of the economic chaos that would ensue? Also, the reason that we have to raise the debt ceiling is not so we have permission to spend more money. It's to meet obligations that have been incurred. Many of those obligations, incidentally, are for expenditures that I opposed but you supported: the war in Iraq; the extension of the Bush tax cuts; the Medicare prescription drug part D that was never paid for; the extension of the Bush tax cuts a year ago December when it was going to add $800 billion to the 10-year deficit, but even then, in order to accommodate that, you wouldn't raise the debt ceiling. So that's the irresponsible part of this proposal. Obligations incurred are obligations that must be paid. I was against the Iraq war. I didn't want to spend that money. Had I been here, I would have voted against the Bush tax cuts because I thought it was bad policy. But, as a Member of Congress, those were congressional obligations, I believe, that we and I have an obligation to stand behind. But secondly, the reason I believe this is cynical and political is two things: First, these budget requirements are ones that were incurred, in many cases, at the advocacy of our Republican majority. Secondly, this process that we're now doing is one that was designed to allow people who wanted to stand up and vote ``no'' against extending the debt ceiling the opportunity to do so so that they could claim they were against it, even though it was designed as well to guarantee that the debt ceiling would be raised, just putting the full burden of making that happen on the President of the United States. I'm glad that he's willing to bear that responsibility. But I question whether the American people are fooled by a congressional maneuver whereby the majority is saying that we want to say no, that we're against raising the debt ceiling, even though we've guaranteed a process by which it will happen.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, for the fourth time this year, Congress has failed to reach a consensus on a significant issue that will affect the lives of every American and imperil our fragile economic recovery. Today, we are on the brink of imposing the consequences of this dysfunctional Congress on those who can least afford it. If we do not act today, taxes will go up on 160 million middle- and low-income Americans. If we do not act today, hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose the safety net of unemployment coverage in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression. And if we don't act today, the doctors who are caring for senior citizens will have their pay slashed, placing in jeopardy their ability to provide that care. This is an unacceptable situation to the American people. We should be here as long as it takes to get this done, and we should be voting yes or no. Is the majority more committed to gridlock than progress? Once again, for the fourth time in a year, the answer appears to be yes. The people we represent deserve better.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I rise today in support of the Iran Threat Reduction Act. Mr. Speaker, I believe in dialogue and I very much believe in diplomacy; but despite an unprecedented effort by President Obama in his speech to the Iranian people for outreach, the Iranian Government was unreciprocal in any kind of response. Instead, what we've seen is that they are pursuing the development of nuclear weapons full speed ahead. Last month, the International Atomic Energy Agency further confirmed in a report detailing efforts by the Iranian Government Iran's nuclear aspirations to acquire the skills needed to weaponize highly enriched uranium. This is extremely dangerous. Iran has had a longstanding relationship with Hezbollah, which continues to condone violence as a political tactic; and Iran is continuing to be the major bulwark of support for the brutal crackdown by the Syrian Government on the democratic aspirations of its people. I urge my colleagues to support the Iran Threat Reduction Act.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, on August 28 of this August, Hurricane Irene left a path of destruction from the Carolinas to Vermont. The districts of 55 of our colleagues were hit and hit hard. And that storm did damage without regard to partisan affiliation or income distribution. If you were in the path of that storm, you suffered. The 55 Members of Congress who were affected by it created the Hurricane Irene Coalition, Republicans and Democrats, and we are united in the single goal of getting the aid to our people back home that they need to get back on their feet. Hurricane Irene, Mr. Speaker, saved its greatest fury to the end, when it descended upon Vermont. It was the biggest damaging storm that we've had in 100 years. We lost 700 homes of hardworking Vermonters, many of whom had no flood insurance, 260 roads and 30 bridges were impassable, 13 communities were entirely cut off. The good news was that the Vermont response is extraordinary. People came together. They started a school on the town green in Pittsfield when they were unable to go north or south because the road was cut off. Then when the main artery was reopened so school buses could pass but they couldn't get out on their road, they got their chainsaws out and cut a half-mile path through the woods so the kids could get to school. That's the kind of spirit that we find in our districts, and I'm very proud of Vermont, and all of our colleagues are as well. Mr. Speaker, I also want to express a statement of gratitude. I've had the opportunity to visit with Mr. Rogers. I've had the opportunity to visit with Mr. Latham, with Mr. Olver, with Mr. Kingston, with Mr. Dicks, with Mr. Cantor, where they've given me the opportunity to tell them the specific story of Vermont and hear my request that Vermont be treated as Vermonters have treated others. I rise in support of this motion to instruct so that this Congress can do what it's always done. It's come forward to help people in this country who have been on the bad end of a tough storm.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WELCH

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

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, we have an ongoing debate in this Congress about regulation. My friends on the Republican side believe we have too much. Those of us on the Democratic side think we need careful regulation. We shouldn't have too much, but we shouldn't abolish it all together. An appropriate regulation levels the playing field for our businesses and industries, but it also gives a fair shot to the health, safety, and concerns of our people who have no control over the production processes and how those may affect their health. The issue presented in my amendment is not about a regulation, but it's related to the effort to roll back regulations at any cost and at any price and whatever the consequences. My amendment would include in the bill a finding that the American people who are exposed to mercury from industrial sources, addressed by the rules listed in section 2(d), through the consumption of fish containing mercury face a health hazard. There really is no dispute about that, scientifically or medically. So the question may be, why do we need the finding? The reason we need the finding is because we have to acknowledge when industrial processes actually create health risk in order that we can accept our responsibility to address the risk that's created in the production process. And the cement in boilers does produce mercury. Now, it's so self- evident that it produces mercury that this map here shows every single State in our Union has issued a mercury advisory. The reason those States, locally, not from Washington, have issued those mercury advisories is to give a heads-up to their citizens to be careful about eating fish that may be contaminated; and that is the responsibility of government, to let people know when there is a health risk and to help them avert it and to stop it. My amendment, Mr. Chairman, simply incorporates what the scientific and medical community know, and that is that mercury is a toxin. And if we ingest it, particularly if it's a child, an infant, that it does enormous health damage long term. So why don't we acknowledge what we know, namely, that mercury is a toxin, that we include this in the findings so that, in so doing, we accept the responsibility that this country has, that all of us have, to do everything we can to avoid unnecessary health care risk. This amendment simply does that. It's not additional regulation, but it's a finding of what we know and 50 States have found, that mercury is a threat to the public health of its own citizens. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Chair, in this legislation there are findings. It is common in our legislation for there to be a finding section. This amendment would propose a finding for inclusion in this important legislation, and that finding would read that ``Congress finds that the American people are exposed to mercury from industrial sources addressed by the rules listed in section 2(b) of this act through the consumption of fish containing mercury, and every State in the Nation has issued at least one mercury advisory for fish consumption.'' So the question is, to the proponents of this legislation, as to whether there would be an objection to include this finding about mercury and the scientific community's absolute conclusion that mercury is hazardous to the health of those who consume it. That's the question. If you believe that science has a place in our consideration of important legislation that affects health and safety, then it would suggest that you would want to have a finding affirming Congress's acceptance of the scientific conclusion that mercury causes harmful health effects. So this amendment offers this Congress the opportunity to say the obvious, and that is: Mercury poisoning is bad for our health. The reason why I ask that this Congress consider this finding is that this Congress has been debating the applicability of science to our deliberations. This is not a question of whether a regulation is onerous or not or the cost is too great for the benefits derived; it's a question of whether we will accept the responsibility to acknowledge that mercury does have significant detrimental health consequences. This should be acknowledged. It should be part of this legislation. What this Congress cannot do, whatever its dispute is about the degree of regulation, the effectiveness of regulation, whether it's too onerous or not, is have the point of view that we can, by legislation, defy science. It does not allow us to do that. So, Madam Chair, I urge that this Congress accept this finding, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, I, first of all, wish to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Duncan, Mr. Jones, and Mr. McGovern, who spoke earlier; and I intend to address the issue of the war in Afghanistan. This war has got to end. It's got to end because it's making us weaker, not stronger. It's a dead-end strategy that is the result of decisions that were made that do not treat with the respect they are entitled to the willingness of our men and women in uniform to serve. They will do whatever it is we ask them to do. Our job is to give them a policy that's worthy of the sacrifice that they are always willing to make. This war in Afghanistan has been going on for 10 years. It has morphed into the United States military and the United States taxpayer having the burden of building a nation in Afghanistan. That can't be done. We know it can't be done, but there is an unwillingness to have a reckoning in this Congress and in this country to turn the direction of our national defense into fighting terrorism in a sensible way, not nation-building in Afghanistan. So the central issue here is not just the money, which I'll address; it's not just the time that this war has been going on, which I'll address; it's the basic strategy. This nation-building approach, over 100,000 American troops in Afghanistan, over 110,000 contractors, does that make sense when the enemy that we're fighting is decentralized and dispersed? It's not a nation state threat. And the answer to that, we all know--it's common sense, you don't have to be a military strategist--is no. And the main reason we continue on in Afghanistan is because arguments are made that it will look bad or it will look weak if we leave. Mr. Duncan said something, I think, that makes a lot of sense. When you are persistent in the face of facts that show that what you are doing is wrong, it's time to adjust the strategy. We in this Congress owe it to the men and women in uniform to give them that strategy that's worthy of their willingness to sacrifice. We went into Afghanistan for a legitimate reason. That reason does not exist today. We went in because that was the launching sight where Osama bin Laden planned the 9/11 attacks. And we had a right, in our national self-defense, to take out the sanctuaries and to pursue Osama bin Laden. Those sanctuaries have been taken out, and now what we are engaged in is a continuation and a stumbling ahead towards a policy of this nation-building where we have 100,000 troops, 40,000 international troops, 110,000 contractors, where we're throwing money at problems as though these contractors can get something done, and the corruption associated with a lot that contracting is rampant. There are 286,000 Afghan National Security Forces troops who are poorly trained and leave at a moment's notice. This has come at an enormous expense to this country: $10 billion a month; $2.3 billion a week; $328 million per day; $13.7 million an hour. What is happening? Is that where the threat to the country is coming from? The terrorist plots that we can identify that have happened in recent years, the Fort Hood shooting that killed 13 people in November 2009, that was planned in Yemen by Anwar Al Awlaki. The plot to bring down Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas Day 2009 was planned in Yemen by the same man. The attempt to bomb Times Square in May 2010 was planned and ordered by the Pakistani Taliban. And the October 2010 plot to bomb cargo planes was again planned in Yemen. So the threat is real. Terrorism is a threat to this country. We have to address it, but we have to have a strategy that works. And having 100,000 of our troops in one nation when the terrorist threat is dispersed and decentralized throughout other parts of the world doesn't make any sense. It's time for this Congress and this President to call the question, change the strategy which requires us to right-size what our effort is, because that will, A, protect the American people in a better, more effective way; and, B, it will be a sustainable strategy, which has to be a responsibility of the policymakers. There's been enormous sacrifice by the men and women in uniform. The troops from the State of Vermont have sacrificed and lost more lives in the Iraq and Afghanistan war on a per capita basis than any other State in the Nation. They are entitled to a policy worthy of their sacrifice.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I seek to offer the amendment of Mr. Rush of Illinois as his designee.