Peter Welch

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman. I'm here to talk about the abandonment of essential air service in rural America. My problem with this bill, among others, is that this legislation turns its back on rural America. The FAA budget is about providing a transportation system that is going to serve all of America, all of our taxpayers in urban and in rural areas. And this bill is an assault on the $200 million a year that had been available for essential air services in rural America. How is it that rural America gets left behind? We have needs, we have companies, we have taxpayers, and we have travelers. And we can have that commitment to rural America be continued, not abandoned. Let me give an example. The Rutland Southern Vermont Regional Airport serves southern Vermont. That county is rural, 63,000 people. There's no interstate access, Mr. Speaker. To help ensure the three daily flights to and from Boston Logan International Airport, the air services are subsidized at $800,000 a year. It's a good and efficient use of taxpayer money. That airport has the fifth-lowest EAS subsidy in the country, but it's had the greatest number of passenger enplanements since 1985. This relatively small investment has spurred private investment in the region. We've got a GE plant there. We've got the local hospital. It resulted in $25 million in economic impact for the region, and in the past year bookings have risen by 25 percent. So the question I have is, yes, kick the tires on any program. Make them accountable. But how is it accountable and how is it responsible to rural America when the budget gets smashed, and we're going to leave the Rutland regional airports of this country behind, and we're turning our back on the prospects and hope of rural America?

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentlelady. There are really two questions that this bill raises. The first: Is this a way to deal with the serious problem we have in this country, which is the deficit? And the answer is: It isn't. I salute the Republicans in this Congress for focusing attention on the need to restore fiscal balance. You are right. But the plan you are pursuing to receive it is dead wrong. You cannot, by cutting 12 percent of the budget, the non-defense discretionary budget, achieve the fiscal balance that we need. And why you have a plan where you attack Vermont Public Radio, where you attack Planned Parenthood, where you attack home heating assistance, but you leave exempt tax expenditures for oil companies, a swollen Pentagon budget, that means that this is not going to succeed. Even if we wiped out the entire non-defense discretionary budget, we would still have a deficit of $1 trillion. So, serious budget cutters have a serious plan that puts everything on the table. Secondly, why have a proposal that destroys institutions? Vermont Public Radio is the link between 251 towns, cities, and villages in the State of Vermont. Farmers listen to it in their barns. Parents listen to it on their way to bringing their kids to school. People at work listen to it for the weather reports, and it welds together the political discussion in the State of Vermont which is vibrant, which is varied, which has people with different points of view having a common reference point. Public radio is an institution that allows democracy to thrive. And why do we have to have a budget plan that, A, by it's design, will fail; and, B, by its application and implementation, will destroy institutions that democracy depends on? Vermont Public Radio is an essential institution to all of the people in the State of Vermont: Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. We need to preserve it.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side, America does have a national security interest in protecting American citizens from terrorist attack. But the question before us is this: Is that national security interest being served by 10 years of nation building in the third most corrupt country in the entire world? Is our national security interest being served by sending 100,000 troops and $454 billion in taxpayer money to a country where there are 50 members of al Qaeda? Is it a winning and likely successful strategy when al Qaeda simply moves where we aren't? They move out of Afghanistan into Pakistan, to Sudan, to wherever they can find a safe haven. Does it make sense to ask our soldiers and our taxpayers to sacrifice when our Afghan partner is so profoundly corrupt? And I mean world- class corrupt: $3 billion in pallets of cash moved out of the Kabul airport to safe havens for warlords; an Afghan Vice President who flies to Dubai with $52 million in walking-around money; when the U.S.-backed Afghan major crimes unit tries to get Karzai to act on corruption and Karzai gets his buddy out of jail. Yes, we have a national security interest in protecting America from attack, but this is a losing strategy.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, to my Republican colleagues, when you say that we have a fiscal house to get in order, you're right; but when your plan is to focus 100 percent of your firepower on 12 percent of the budget, I say you are designing a plan that will fail. Why is it that we have added $700 billion to the deficit by extending tax cuts for the top 2 percent? Why is it that we will cut low-income heating assistance by $2.5 billion and continue $55 billion in tax breaks for oil companies when they're selling oil at $100 a barrel and when they've made $1 trillion in the past 10 years? Why is it that we are now having a threat by the Republican majority to say ``no'' on extending the debt limit, having America default on paying its bills for past obligations incurred under Republican and Democratic administrations, and playing with fire as to the reputation of the American people, despite the clear damage that it will do to the economy, rather than acknowledging that we have an obligation to meet our obligations?

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman from Washington. I stand here today to discuss the Yellow Ribbon Program, which is critical in my home State of Vermont, but it's critical in every State that has returning soldiers from Afghanistan and Iraq. In Vermont, we have recently welcomed home 1,500 National Guard men and women from a year-long deployment in Afghanistan. The Yellow Ribbon Program, as you know, Mr. Ranking Member, helps deploying and redeploying National Guard and Reserve members and their families when they get home. Prior to deployment, they educate members and their families in affected communities on what to expect while their loved ones are gone. After deployment, they focus on reconnecting members and their families with service providers such as TRICARE, the Department of Veterans Affairs and Judge Advocate Generals to ensure a clear understanding of the benefits they are entitled to and they need. In addition, combat stress and transition and how members and their families can address these issues are integral to the post-deployment phase. In Vermont, we have the fourth highest per capita participation rate in the Nation in the National Guard. These are very valuable services that get to the heart of supporting our troops and their families. I hope to work with the subcommittee to ensure that any unmet needs of this program are addressed as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. WELCH

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

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, I am pro-choice. But that is a question of deep conscience, religious conviction, and of personal importance to every individual and every family. One of the great conservatives who has served in this institution was Henry Hyde. The Hyde amendment, which has been the law of the land since it was passed by Mr. Hyde, says that there shall not be public funds that are used to pay for abortions. That is true now. It has been true for decades since that law was passed. It reflects a certain mutual respect that we can have differences of opinion, even on matters of profound religious conviction, moral conviction, and moral belief. This is not about abortion. The Hyde amendment is the law of the land. Federal funds cannot be used under this provision to provide abortions. What this is about is whether primary and preventive care is going to be extended, oftentimes to poor people, but also to vulnerable middle class people by Planned Parenthood clinics throughout this country, including 10 in Vermont that are doing a tremendous job for people who really need this care. Is this Congress big enough, generous enough that it can allow those with different points of view on this question of choice to coexist as long as we have the separation with the Hyde amendment? It has not been abolished. It is intact. So the question I ask is if we pass this bill, what happens to the 19,000 Vermonters who get services for HIV testing, who get services for breast cancer screening, who get services for cervical cancer, who find out when it's timely to find out so they can be healthy and have a full life? What do we say to them when we pull the plug on them having the access to the care that they need and they deserve? This is not necessary. This is not about abortion. The real-world implication of this legislation will be to say to 19,000 women in the State of Vermont, from one end of the State to the other, No, you cannot have access to cervical cancer screening, you can't have breast cancer screening, you can't get evidence-based sex education. We are a better Nation than that. We are a better Congress than that. The Hyde amendment acknowledges that we have profound differences of opinion on this question of abortion, but we can share a common goal that young, vulnerable Americans in every one of our districts can have access to the care that they need. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentlelady from Colorado. Three points. Number one, any regulations that aren't doing their job, they're imposing excessive burdens, let's change them. I agree with that. The President agrees with that. You're arguing that. You're right. The American people want regulations that are limited to achieving legitimate goals and not imposing unnecessary burdens. Second, and this is a question, why are we going to debate this? Why are we going to substitute words for actions? The Committee on Energy and Commerce and all the other committees that are being charged to act on this resolution are free to act. And rather than have a discussion and debate about it, ask those committees to come in with what their specific recommendations are. Let the House of Representatives vote yes or no on any proposed action. But third, jobs. Both sides have been saying we've got to focus on jobs. A couple of very good speeches, Mr. Murphy from Pennsylvania, Mr. Stearns from Florida, we agree with that. Why don't we dust off a proven and bipartisan job-creating bill, Home Star, which the Energy and Commerce Committee passed out on a bipartisan basis last year, and bring it forward to this Congress this year? It's something that saves money for our homeowners on their energy bills, it's something that puts local contractors who are reeling from the decline in homebuilding back to work retrofitting our homes, and it saves $10 billion in energy bills, creates 170,000 jobs and it's all about using less, not more. It's about efficiency. And that's common ground. We're not having a debate about whether we should or shouldn't be drilling, or what's the preferred energy source, whether it's coal, nuclear or solar. It's really whatever energy source you're using, if you use less of it, as a business or as a consumer, you're going to save money. So it's something we can do together. The new majority would have the final say on how we would pay for this. It could be designed in a way to take care of the capital formation concerns that the other side has expressed. What we're talking about here is important. Regulations should be limited to the legitimate purpose for which they're intended. They shouldn't be excessively burdensome. If there are specific regulations that ought to be adjusted and it requires statutory action, come back with the specific statute, let this body vote on it and move on. That's action. It's not words. But then the common goal that we have, even if it's a significant debate and disagreement about how best to get from here to there, is we've got to create jobs in this economy. Home Star is a way we can do it with the new majority working with the new minority.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentlelady. The example you gave is of Texas, which is where the authorities who have responsibility for health care are pushing ahead to take advantage of the provisions that will allow them to do their jobs better even as we are having this debate about repealing and unwinding, but not replacing. I mean, the point is that, if you want to improve something, you know, that's our job. Let's do it. There are provisions that all of us who supported this bill know could be improved; but we are hearing now real-world stories about things that are working really well, and we want to keep them. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time available?

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the time for this Special Order of 1 hour to discuss the repeal of health care. And this legislation which passed today is the triumph of the Republican victory in the elections. And the Republicans ran on a campaign platform of repealing ObamaCare, as it was called and vilified, and today accomplished that goal. ObamaCare became a vilification of health care, really a caricature of what was in the bill. It became a million different bad things to a million different people. But the moment the campaign is over and the partisan political points have been put on the board, each of us who has been elected, Republican or Democrat, has the responsibility to use our office to make pragmatic progress for the American people. And the purpose of our Special Order tonight is to explain in concrete detail what the American people lost and will lose if the repeal is ultimately successful. We have a number of my colleagues here to join us. And to start it off for us is one of the senior members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, a leader in health care reform and elements of the health care reform that have broad bipartisan support, Representative Eshoo from California. I yield her such time as she may consume.

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentlewoman from California. The story that Congresswoman Eshoo told is making very real what the consequences are of taking away from families benefits that they have and now depend on. Just a quick story about Vermont, to make it, again, real. A woman by the name of Donna, from Plainfield, Vermont, a hard-working person, she and her husband both work. Their young son graduated from school, got an entry-level job that paid $8 or $9 an hour. And as the case with most entry-level jobs, it came without health care. That child was no longer eligible to stay on his parents' policy, and they were doing all they could to pay their bills. Health care is expensive. They couldn't afford to buy a separate policy for their son. And most of the time that works out, but sometimes it doesn't, and it didn't in this case. Their son had a car accident, $20,000 in medical bills. They are still paying those bills off. When we passed the health care bill that included the provision that sons and daughters who were starting out in life, taking that first job, usually without health care, but learning job skills, fiscal discipline, personal responsibility, the worst, the bill we passed allowed those kids to stay on our policies until age 26. It makes an enormous amount of sense in the peace of mind it provided. That assurance to Donna relieved her, her husband, and their son of all this anxiety about whether they'd have the health care they needed in the event of an accident. The action today by this Congress led by the new majority takes away from Donna, her husband, and their son their access to affordable health care. It didn't need to be done. And the question I think all of us have to ask is why? There are elements of the health care bill that are imperfect. Let's improve them. There are elements that are very controversial. The individual mandate is controversial, and we have to acknowledge it. I supported it, and I'll tell you why. I believe that if everybody is going to have access to health care, and the vast majority of this country believe that's the case, then all of us should share in the responsibility of paying for it, on the ability to pay. That's why I supported the individual mandate, because folks who don't have insurance don't go forever without having the need for health care services. And most States are like Vermont. If somebody gets hit by a truck, the rescue squad shows up, and they take that person to the hospital. The hospital may inquire about insurance, but they don't condition providing full and extensive care on whether that person has insurance or doesn't. And that cost gets shifted on to the taxpayer. That cost gets shifted on to those who do have insurance in the form of higher premiums. So this is real what happened. The consequences to families are real. I would like to yield to the Member from New York, also a leader on health care, Congresswoman Clarke. Thank you for joining us tonight.

Mr. WELCH. I want to thank the member from New York. You talked very eloquently about preexisting conditions. And who of us doesn't have one? There was an article in The Washington Post today that said about 65 percent of Americans have preexisting conditions. So if the insurance companies are able to deny people coverage on that basis, it's a tremendous business model for them. They insure folks who are healthy, that's great for the shareholders, but it doesn't do much for most of us, the majority of Americans who have a preexisting condition. So thank you for focusing on that real provision in the bill. I'm going to yield in a moment to the Member from Maryland. We have a number of Members here, so maybe we can be interactive. But one of the things that I was going to ask you was on this question of preventive care. When we were considering this bill, I called Tom Huebner, who is the administrator of a local hospital, Rutland Regional Medical Center; and he had a lot of reservations about the health care bill, whether on balance it was good or bad. He decided on balance that it was good. But one of the things that he said very specifically was that the free preventive care for seniors is absolutely essential. It was essential for their good health, and it was essential for bending the cost curve because folks do not come in if they don't have the way to pay for it. That was him talking to me telling me about the Rutland population. Whatever your remarks are, Member from Maryland, I am wondering if that is consistent with the experiences you have had in your district.

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentlewoman from Maryland. In order that we can allow all Members to speak, I am going to yield to my colleague from Texas; but if there are any inquiries by Members who are present and want to engage in a dialogue, I encourage you to do that.

Mr. WELCH. I am going to yield to the gentleman from Connecticut, who has played a major role, especially in making fair the financing of this health care and not doubly taxing folks who are getting employer- sponsored health care benefits, and also for his tremendous work for seniors. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut. And as I listen, it's a good news/bad news story. The good news is businesses, large businesses and small, that have fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and to their employees have sharp pencils and figure out what makes the most sense for them, and they're signing up for this. So that's an indication that they've kicked the tires and come to the conclusion that this is good for business. The bad news is, we apparently have done a pretty lousy job explaining this to the American people, and it has gotten obscured with the epithet of ``ObamaCare.'' But when you peel away the specifics of this--and then you provided evidence that businesses that have to make a hard-nose decision, this ain't about doing a ``good thing'' or they want to do the right thing for their company, but they've decided this is the prudent fiscal thing. So I thank you. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, senior member of the Appropriations Committee and one of the Members who is always a voice of conviction and conscience in this institution, Mr. Moran.

Mr. WELCH. Well, I thank the gentleman from Virginia. I yield now to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), who has been listening to his constituents in the Albany region and hearing from them about prescription drug pricing and how it's too high. He has been bringing practical solutions to Congress to try to help make health care more affordable, the gentleman from New York.

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman, and I thank my colleagues for joining us for this hour tonight.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, about a year ago, I got a call from Donna, a mother who lives in Plainfield, Vermont, and this was her story: She has a son who had his first job. It paid like 9 bucks an hour and it came with no health care, but they were excited that her son was getting out in the workforce, learning discipline, learning self- responsibility. But he lost the health care because he was no longer on her policy. He got into an accident. He's fine, but he has $20,000 in medical bills that were uncovered. That is a burden on him and it's a burden on the family. When she learned that we passed health care that included coverage for her 21-year-old son, she was ecstatic. It relieved an enormous burden on this family because they knew that their son would have coverage. This repeal bill is taking away that coverage for Donna's son. Why? The question that we have is different from the campaign where we made our arguments. We now are in Congress and we have a mutual responsibility to decide whether we are going to spend our time here continuing to make partisan political points or making practical progress for the American people. You have some good arguments about the health care bill and about what reforms we need, and we've got to wrestle with the cost of health care. No matter how we pay for it, the cost can't go up higher than wages and salaries. But what we should do is improve what we have, correct what must be corrected, and get rid of what doesn't work. But to throw it all out, all these insurance reforms--health care for Donna's son, preexisting conditions, preventive care for seniors where by getting care in time it's going to save us money--that's the wrong thing to do. When does it make sense to toss out the good rather than correct the bad?

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentlelady from New York. I say, Madam Speaker, to my Republican colleagues, you campaigned effectively, you beat us good, you ran on the agenda of defeating health care and repealing it. Now you're doing it. Own it. Admit what it is you are doing. This is not a campaign. We're playing with fire. We're taking away health care benefits that make a real difference to our families. Number one, this bill will raise the deficit by $230 billion. Fiscal responsibility, out the window. Second, things that matter to families; their kids, starting out getting a $10 an hour job without health care. They have it now on their parent policies. We're taking it away. Preexisting conditions. You have cancer and you want to buy insurance, you can. Repeal, you can't. You lose it. Lifetime caps. If you are with cancer or diabetes and you need that insurance, you lose it before you can go without it. And preventive care we're taking it away from seniors who are trying to take care of themselves, get those free mammograms, keep the cost of health care down. You are taking it away. Admit it. Own it. State it proudly. It's what you campaigned on. It's what you're doing. But don't try to sugar-coat what this is about.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Price. I recognize the gentleman again from Colorado.

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, the gentleman from Oregon. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have?

Mr. WELCH. All right. Let me just ask the gentleman from North Carolina, Would you like to make any closing remarks and then yield to the gentleman from Colorado?

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, the gentleman from North Carolina. I yield for the final word from the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. WELCH. I want to talk about this question of will promises made be promises kept. It was the recurring question that was asked by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle when we were in the majority. Sometimes it may be uncomfortable because it's a legitimate question. And we have had to be judged according to our deeds and whether they matched our promises. But there's this rules process under way on this health care bill. There are three issues that have come up. Number one, the fiscal issue. The Congressional Budget Office has said that this legislation will increase the deficit by $230 billion. And the Congressional Budget Office is the neutral arbiter. And we either--both sides--go by the CBO estimates, or we just say we're going to play this game without a referee and we're going to make up whatever numbers suit our political agenda. That is absolutely wrong. We cannot afford to add $230 billion to the deficit. My colleagues on the Republican side agree with us on the Democratic side that we cannot do that. It's irresponsible to do it. And this legislation that repeals health care will add $230 billion to the deficit. Secondly, there's this question of the open process. As the Member from Maryland said, if we're going to have an open process, there has to be an opportunity for you, for the Member of Colorado, for every Member to offer their amendments, yes-or-no, on whether we can continue protection to folks whether they have a preexisting condition or not. Right now, the law is if you have cancer, you can go out and buy insurance. Right now, the law is if you have a son or daughter getting out of college or getting out of high school, going into the labor force, they can stay on your policy. Right now, the law is if you have a mom or dad who's on Medicare and you're trying to get preventive care, they can get it for free. Right now, the law is that if you have diabetes or you have cancer, you have a serious long-term medical condition, there's no lifetime cap to cover the medical care that you need. The repeal legislation would take away from every single American who now enjoys those insurance protections. It would take it away from them suddenly, abruptly, and with nothing to replace it. That's not right. Now, this is real, by the way. Congresswoman Edwards gave a couple of stories--and we all have them in all of the districts, including those who are advocating for repeal. I spoke to Donna Watts who's from Plainfield, Vermont. She works in Burlington, Vermont, with 20 other employees. Four of those people that she works with, along with her, now have their children on their health care policies. Her son got out of high school, got a $10-an-hour job that came without health care, as most entry-level jobs do. And the worst happened. He had a car crash: $20,000 in medical bills. Those are still largely unpaid--and this family takes seriously their obligation to pay their bills. They didn't have insurance. With the passage of the legislation last year on health care reform, Donna Watts was able to put her son, still uninsured, on her insurance. And she is asking me, Peter, does this really mean if we repeal health care that my son loses insurance? And the answer is: Yes. That's not right. We do not need to do this. And it raises the other question, If this has not got a political agenda attached to it, we have gone from a campaign to governing. And the majority did a great job in the campaign and beat us up pretty good and have the majority now. But with that, of course, comes the responsibility of governing in a responsible way. If you're acting responsibly when you see a problem, you fix it. You don't abolish everything. You don't abolish a banking system in order to correct the problems in the financial world. You don't abolish all of the good things in this health care bill to deal with the things that need to be addressed. So this is a very, very serious decision that's being made. It's going to be a template for the future of this 112th Congress. Are we going to actually deal with fiscal discipline even when that's inconvenient with our political agenda? The answer to that for the American people has to be: Yes. Are we going to protect the progress that we have made that benefits all of our constituents when it comes to these insurance reforms, and are we going to have an open process in this body so that those of us who have a different point of view are going to have an opportunity for an up-or-down vote? By the way, that's not about giving us the opportunity to present our amendments. That's about letting our constituents know where we stand. Because at the end of the day that's the only basis upon which they can decide whether to send us back here or send us packing. At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Representative Price.

Mr. WELCH. I welcome the gentlelady from Maryland, Congresswoman Edwards.