Peter Welch

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. All right. I will just say it's news to most of us in Vermont. And, in fact, there is a big dispute about the relicensing of the current nuclear reactor we have. But I appreciate the gentleman. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH. And it is incorrect.

Mr. WELCH. Just in clarification, Member from New Jersey, Vermont has about one-third nuclear power. That was misreported I am not sure by whom, but it's one-third nuclear, one-third hydro, and one-third other. Thank you.

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

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

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the major decisions that this Congress has to make and for which we need a recommendation from the Appropriations Committee for the Defense Subcommittee is whether nation-building is a wise strategy, a sustainable strategy, an affordable strategy, and an effective strategy in Afghanistan. We had a debate on that policy. There was a bipartisan vote, with 204 Members suggesting it was time to call into question the wisdom, sustainability and effectiveness of nation- building. One of the things that we have provided to our commanders in order for them to be able to do hearts-and-minds civic projects, roads, bridges, schools is a $400 million fund that they can use completely at their discretion. Now, this sounds like a good idea. If you're going to ask the military to win the hearts and minds, not just use military power to fight battles, then a discretionary fund can seemingly make some sense. The question, though, is, upon review, it turns out that these roads, these bridges, these canals, almost the moment they're turned over to the Afghan authorities, fall into disrepair, disuse and neglect. It's not surprising. Number one, there is very little local government infrastructure in Afghanistan, and the fact that we build a road or a school doesn't necessarily mean there's a government or an authority there to be able to maintain it. So we build something, and the moment we turn the keys over, it falls into disuse and disrepair. Second, the expenses of doing this are enormous. It may make sense to do these civic projects, to create some goodwill, but do you do them, Mr. Chairman, in the middle of a shooting war? Or is it better to do that before or after the war, when you have a chance for this implementation to occur? Then, third, there's an immense amount of ripping off of this money from the American taxpayer. It gets lost. It gets picked up in graft that we all know about is too rampant in Afghanistan. According to a report in The Washington Post, half of this money, a minimum of $400 million, is gone missing, it's wasted, and it is coming out of our taxpayer pockets. My amendment would cut in half the $400 million, reduce it to $200 million, basically taking away that $200 million that is being utterly wasted. This is a commonsense, practical way to save money by stopping a policy that may be good in theory but in practice is a failure. [From the Washington Post, Jan. 4, 2011] U.S.-Funded Infrastructure Deteriorates Once Under Afghan Control, Report Says (By Josh Boak) Roads, canals and schools built in Afghanistan as part of a special U.S. military program are crumbling under Afghan stewardship, despite steps imposed over the past year to ensure that reconstruction money is not being wasted, according to government reports and interviews with military and civilian personnel. U.S. troops in Afghanistan have spent $2 billion over six years on 16,000 humanitarian projects through the Commander's Emergency Response Program, which gives a battalion-level commander the power to treat aid dollars as ammunition. A report slated for release this month reveals that CERP projects can quickly slide into neglect after being transferred to Afghan control. The Afghans had problems maintaining about half of the 69 projects reviewed in eastern Laghman province, according to an audit by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. The spending in Afghanistan is part of the $5 billion provided to U.S. military commanders for projects in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2004. The new report is the latest to identify shortcomings and missteps in the program, whose ventures have included the Jadriyah Lake park in Iraq, planned as a water park but now barren two years after a U.S. military inauguration ceremony. The dilapidated projects in Afghanistan could present a challenge to the U.S. strategy of shifting more responsibility to Afghans. Investing in infrastructure, notes President Obama's December review of the war, ``will give the Afghan government and people the tools to build and sustain a future of stability.'' ``Sustainment is one of the biggest issues with our whole strategy,'' said a civilian official who shared details from a draft of the report. ``The Afghans don't have the money or capacity to sustain much.'' The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the Defense Department is preparing a response to the audit. Photos in the report show washed-out roads, with cracks and potholes where improvised explosive devices can be hidden. Among the projects profiled is a re-dredged canal that filled with silt a month after opening. Multiple reports by the Government Accountability Office have noted a lack of monitoring by the Pentagon. And because formal U.S. oversight stops after a project is turned over to Afghans, it is difficult to gauge how projects are maintained countrywide. When asked whether the Afghans have trouble sustaining projects, the U.S. military issued a statement saying it does not have the information to provide an immediate answer. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, said in Senate testimony last year that CERP is ``the most responsive and effective means to address a local community's needs.'' He previously relied on the discretionary fund as the commanding general in Iraq, where $3.5 billion has been spent through the program. Over the past two years, Petraeus has pushed for stricter controls to stop any fraud and waste. In response to ``insufficient management,'' CERP guidance for Afghanistan was revised in December 2009, according to a statement by the military. The new guidance emphasizes the need to meet with Afghan leaders when choosing what to fund. It does not, however, require U.S. troops to continue inspecting projects after they are placed under Afghan control. Under the guidance, an Afghan governor, mayor or bureaucrat must sign a letter promising to fund maintenance and operations. But an October SIGAR audit of projects in Nangahar province found that only two of the 15 files examined contained a signed letter. Nor is there formal reporting to the national or provincial Afghan governments of what was spent and built, the audit said. That makes it difficult for Afghans to know what they are supposed to maintain. The provincial and district governments that take over the projects do not have the money to sustain them because they cannot collect taxes and they depend on the national government for funding, said Army Maj. David Kaczmarek, the civil affairs officer for Task Force Bastogne in eastern Afghanistan. To teach the local governments how to request additional funds from Kabul, Kaczmarek helped launch a program in the summer that uses CERP dollars for the operation and maintenance of some projects. The U.S. military tracks CERP projects with poorly maintained computer databases. Before October 2009, the database did not consistently record the villages or districts where projects were undertaken, according to military and civilian personnel who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the master database is classified. A civilian official who examined the contents of the database for a government assessment said the military cannot account for the spending without knowing the villages and districts that were project recipients. ``Let's say the project is not working,'' the official said. ``Why would we want to fund that project again the next year? Very little evaluation was done to decide what we fund next.'' The organizational problems have also frustrated attempts to study the effectiveness of the $2 billion spent on CERP. A paper co-written by Princeton University professor Jacob Shapiro found that CERP funding helped reduce violence in Iraq. Shapiro and his colleagues have struggled over the past nine months to conduct a similar study for Afghanistan because of the database. ``There's not a sense of how the program may or may not be working in Afghanistan,'' Shapiro said. Army Lt. Col. Brian Stoll tried to clean up the database while serving in Kandahar last year. He champions CERP as a way to build confidence in the Afghan government, despite the mess he found. Projects dating to 2006 had never been closed out, said Stoll, who updated the files while working 12-hour days to audit ongoing projects in southern Afghanistan. We never got it all cleaned up,'' Stoll said. ``It was like a Hydra. You get part of it cleaned up and you find some more along the way.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the American taxpayer is spending $2 billion a week in Afghanistan. Among the expenditures are payment for projects that are rebuilding infrastructure in Afghanistan--roads, bridges, schools, in some cases hospitals. The Washington Post recently reported that the Afghan Government is taxing American aid. We send the money there to build a road. We have to hire contractors in order to do that, and the Afghan Government is trying to tax that money for their own coffers. So it's not enough that our taxpayers are spending billions of dollars on projects to rebuild their infrastructure. The Afghan Government is literally trying to reach into the pocket and double dip and tax our taxpayers for our taxpayers' generosity in giving them money. Now, how does that make any sense at all? Among the things that the Afghan officials are doing, after this was reported, is stepping up their efforts to grab that cash. They are doing things like threatening to detain contractors. If they don't pay up, take money that's assigned to build that road and put that money in the Afghan coffers, they, the Afghan officials, are threatening, Mr. Chairman, to detain our contractors. They are denying licenses to our contractors, again, in an effort to do what I could only call a shakedown. Third, they are revoking visas for unpaid tax bills. We are spending a substantial amount of our money rebuilding their infrastructure. We should not be taxed, nor should we allow our taxpayers, essentially, to be stuck up by the Afghan officials. This amendment, offered by my colleague from Washington, Ms. Herrera Beutler, would end that practice. So we believe this is overdue. There should be no tolerance for this double-dipping by the Afghan Government, and our amendment is an effort to crack down on that process. I thank my colleague from Washington for joining me in the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

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

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, Congress has a responsibility to level with the American people. We face a looming decision about extending the debt limit, not because we want to but because we have to reaffirm the obligation we have to pay our bills. The majority of us on the Democratic side voted to do that. That was not to incur new spending or new obligations; it was to meet obligations already incurred: $2.3 trillion for the Bush tax cuts; an Iraq war, $1 trillion on the credit card; Afghanistan on the credit card. If we're going to level with the American people, we have to acknowledge that we have to pay for things, whatever their intentions. The time is long overdue for us to accomplish this. If we're going to be successful on the two things we must do--pay our bills, maintain our full faith and credit, and have a long-term fiscal plan--then everything must be on the table, and that has to include taxes as well as spending, and it must include the Pentagon. Mr. Speaker, this is not an ideological battle to win. It's a practical problem to be solved.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chair, one of the central questions that Congress must address is whether to continue the policy and nation-building in Afghanistan. As previous speakers have indicated, it's expensive. It's also very questionable as to whether it's anything but a failure. The cornerstone of the nation building program is the Commander's Emergency Response Program. That gives the commanders flexibility, at their own discretion, to authorize significant infrastructure projects in Afghanistan, the goal being to win hearts and minds of the Afghan citizens. When you lay it out by its intentions, it's a very reasonable tool to provide to our commanders. The problem is the evidence is in, and it has been a failure. The $400 million Commander's Emergency Response Program, CERP, is a central component of what I believe is a failed nation building strategy. And the fundamental question here is this: Does the Defense appropriations bill double down on the nation building approach which has been drawn into such question? Now, of the CERP development dollars, according to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, SIGAR, about half of the CERP projects reviewed were unsustainable and fell into disrepair immediately following their transfer into Afghan hands. That failure of sustainment is real, and it is not subject to something that we can control here. So the question that we have to ask on behalf of our military strategy is, is the money being used in a way that's effective? From the perspective of the Afghans, is it being used on projects that are sustainable? And the evidence, on the basis of our SIGAR report, is the answer is ``no.'' And it's not surprising. You know, we've got to get a bit real about this, whatever your position is on Afghanistan. If you have a government that has no infrastructure of civil service, that doesn't even have the capacity to do the sustainment, they don't have a civil service that can go out and maintain and repair the roads and other projects, is it realistic to expect that they will? When you have a government that is corrupt, for whatever reason, but where the money that gets injected by the U.S. taxpayer into these projects, with the best of intentions, gets siphoned off into paying off people who have positions of authority, is that a wise use of our taxpayer dollar? Is it going to help our military ultimately be successful? So the question that we have a responsibility to answer is whether this tool of nation building makes sense. One of the other questions that I think is fair to ask: Many of us have been to Afghanistan, and we've met with some of our USAID people, our State Department people who are out there, our military people of course, trying to implement these projects, Mr. Speaker. The amount of security that is required in order to allow people to do the simplest of projects in the middle of a shooting war is an enormous expense. And the question that comes to mind for me, and I think many Americans, is this: Does it make sense to do these infrastructure projects, these hearts and minds projects in the middle of a shooting war, or are those things that have to be done before or after? That's really the question. So the intention of this program makes sense. The flexibility for our commanders they see as desirable. It is a tool that they can use. But we have had 10 years now of history. We have had a fully blown report by SIGAR that has said it just doesn't work. It just doesn't work. So is it time for this Congress to call the question about the wisdom and the efficacy of this nation building tool, the CERP programs that fall into disrepair immediately upon their completion? Our amendment calls the question, Mr. Speaker. And it would cut in half, which is about the amount that's documented to be wasted, the amount that is spent by U.S. taxpayers on these nation building activities in Afghanistan. I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

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

Mr. WELCH

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

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, as you know, to govern is to choose. To write a budget is where governing makes choices. My amendment raises the question as to whether or not spending $297 million for research in the next generation of fighter is the right choice to make at this time.

Mr. WELCH. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. WELCH. Bomber, yes.

Mr. WELCH. I misspoke. The gentleman is correct--$297 million for the next generation of bomber. Is that the right choice? Here's the question: Number one, it may be desirable, but is it affordable? The Office of Management and Budget did not include this as a recommendation in the budget, nor did the President, who is charged more than anyone else in this country with our national defense. We have the right, as a Congress, and the constitutional responsibility to make our own judgments. Mr. Dicks does a great job at that, as does Mr. Young. But we have to ask the question as to whether or not, when our Office of Management and Budget, our House Armed Services Committee both say that the current fleet of bombers--bombers, Mr. Dicks--is functioning very well, can we afford at this time $297 million for additional research? Now, the question is, it may be desirable but is it affordable when we have this horrendous budget squeeze that we know is dividing this Congress because we have to make some very tough choices in the future. The second question that comes up is whether something that may be desirable comes at a cost that is unacceptable. Now, the Defense budget is large, unnecessarily so; but it is the one item of spending that has been exempt from cuts. The Environmental Protection Agency is going to be down 15 percent, NASA down 10 percent. Yet the spending increase in the Pentagon is going to be substantial despite the enormous budget pressures in this ongoing, very serious debate we are having about revenues and taxes that embraces both sides of the aisle. The third question is if it's necessary, is there some burden on those who have the responsibility of overseeing taxpayer dollars in the Defense budget to poke around and find that $300 million somewhere else in a nearly $700 billion budget? So those are the questions. It's not a direct assertion that we must suspend forever research on the next generation of bombers, but it is asking those questions in this time: Just because something is desirable, does that make it affordable? If it's desirable, at what cost does it come and, if it's necessary, are there other places in a $700 billion budget that we can find this $300 million to do research that will allow us to proceed, and that's what this amendment asks. It says tough choices for America have to begin here, and they have to include tough choices within the Pentagon budget. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman. There are two issues before Congress: one is the reassertion of its responsibility under article I and the War Powers Act; number two is the decision on the limited use of force for humanitarian missions in Libya. The Hastings resolution accomplishes both. It reasserts our authority under article I and the War Powers Act. It says, yes, we do support limited intervention with a role for the U.S. in saving lives in Libya. That mission is necessary to avert a humanitarian disaster. Two, the mission has broad international support, including from the Arab League. Three, the U.S. role is limited in scope: no boots on the ground. And, finally, we are, by acting, asserting our responsibility under the War Powers Act and our responsibility under article I.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I would just say this to my colleague: You and I disagree, obviously, on the subsidies. We don't disagree that the oil industry does provide good jobs to a lot of American families and a product that we need to keep our economy going. But there's a reasonable basis for disagreement about whether a particular subsidy has outlived its useful life. It is real money out of the pocket of the taxpayer. While the suggestion is made that it would be tough to figure out what the subsidies are, these companies that enjoy these subsidies have accountants who scour the Tax Code to make certain that every legally available subsidy is one that they, in fact, do take. They actually owe that due diligence and that effort to their shareholders to make certain that they get maximum value for the shareholders, and that includes paying not a nickel more in taxes than they're legally required to pay by the rules that this House of Representatives sets. So this is not about whether you're for or against the tax subsidies as they exist--we disagree on that--but it is about saying to the American taxpayer, when the company is filling out this application, after they've done their tax filings, which they do every year, they can specify what the benefit is they are getting courtesy of the United States taxpayer. That's really what this is about. What is the problem with letting people know how their money is being spent? I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, oil companies, of course, benefit from significant subsidies. This amendment would require that applicant oil companies for permits to drill would disclose as part of their application the taxpayer-provided subsidies that they enjoy. They would make that specific as to the leases for which they're seeking permission to drill. Now, we've had a long debate, Mr. Chairman, in this body about the wisdom of subsidies to oil companies and we have a strong contingent in this body that favors those subsidies, making arguments that it's good for the economy, good for producing energy, and beneficial to the taxpayer. We have many in this body, myself among them, who believe that these subsidies are too rich and they're unnecessary. When oil company profits are a trillion dollars in the past year, when the price of oil has been hovering between $95 and $113 a barrel, when the companies have enjoyed record profits this year, the question arises by me and by many as to whether or not it makes sense to ask the taxpayers to reach into their pockets and to provide subsidies to a mature industry--an important industry, but a mature industry and a very profitable industry with a very high-priced product where they can generate and are succeeding in generating significant profits for that industry. This is not about whether they're doing good or they're doing bad--we have oil companies that are doing their job--but it is about whether taxpayers should be, at the very minimum, made explicitly aware as to how much it is they're being asked to subsidize oil companies when they seek these leases. One of the challenges we have that has been a major point by the new majority is that we have a budget deficit and we've got to control spending. Spending is both on the direct appropriations side and what's called here the tax expenditure side. I think our constituents would know that as tax breaks. Why not take every action we can when it comes to spending and it comes to tax breaks to mobilize the awareness of the American people so they know what it is we're spending their money on, whether it's for a spending program or a tax break subsidy. So this is about disclosure. It's about unleashing the power of knowledge, making it available to the American people so they can tell their representatives, You know what? We think that subsidy is a pretty good idea, or, You know what? We don't have to continue to be shelling out money for that subsidy. We want to go in a new direction. So, Mr. Chairman, my amendment is about empowering the democratic objectives of this country. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and I do it with great deference and respect to my leader, the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee. But here's the issue. One, at what point do we have taxpayers given relief from these $6 billion subsidies to an industry? The ethanol industry gets 45 cents a gallon. They get the benefit of 54 cents as a protective tariff against the import of, among others, Brazilian ethanol, and then they get a mandate requiring that they put ethanol in their vehicles. Now, as Mr. Flake mentioned, that's a trifecta: subsidy, protective tariff, and a mandate. No other industry has that level of Federal taxpayer and legislative benefit. We just don't have it. Second, this is helping parts of rural America. I listened carefully to what Mr. Peterson said, but it is causing significant difficulties in my State for our dairy farmers who purchase grain. One of the rising costs for them is the cost of grain, and one of the factors in that are these tariff barriers and mandates that are pushing up their costs. So it's making life on the dairy farm pretty tough. Now, the final thing is that folks who use small engines like chainsaws or weed whackers or lawn mowers or boats where they don't run that engine continuously as we do our cars are complaining--and mechanics are backing them up--that the ethanol is doing real damage to those engines. So it's time, I think, for this Congress to step back and give the taxpayer some relief. Ethanol, if it's going to sink or swim, it should be doing it on its own merits at this point. I yield to my friend from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

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