Peter Welch

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. If the gentleman will yield, one of the things that I hear from a lot of Vermonters is that they're frustrated that in Vermont there are only two or three insurance plans that they can choose from. And a lot of times people say what they'd like to do is buy, or have the opportunity to buy insurance from out of State. And the reason that many States don't do that is that the private insurance companies, including some so-called nonprofits, by and large dominate their local market areas. So the frustration that many Vermonters have, very limited choice about what insurance they can buy, that's a frustration folks have in Texas, in Colorado, in New Hampshire, in Connecticut, all over the country. Now, we regulate insurance with a set of rules that levels the playing field that applies to them and to the public option. So when you as a consumer purchase a policy, you can have some confidence that you actually are going to get coverage for your wife, for your daughter, for your husband. Then that will create the circumstances where we will have competition. And you know what? The insurance companies don't like competition, and they have been very good at restricting it. And then when you deny that choice and you deny competition, the prices, in fact, do go up. The market power of the insurance companies to boost prices, the pharmaceutical companies to boost prices beyond what the competition would allow if there were a freer market is costing the American people an awful lot of money. So we add a level playing field, a new choice of a public option that's the choice of you from Colorado, me from Vermont. It's going to create competition that is, as many people know from their own experience, going to drive down costs and we hope improve quality, Mr. Perlmutter.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill that is going to make a real difference in Vermont to about 130,000 seniors. That's the number of people who receive Social Security benefits in the State of Vermont, and 41 percent, Mr. Speaker--about 52,000 people--rely on Social Security for fully 90 percent of their income. They're going to get a zero increase in their cost of living, but on the other hand, they're going to get an increase in premiums which could be $110, $120 a month. That is a hammer to their finances for the month. We have a bipartisan commitment to Social Security. The situation our seniors face is as a result of the recession, something over which they have no control but are very much affected by. This modest legislation is going to be a lifeline of support for seniors in Vermont, and my hope is that we will pass it on a strong bipartisan basis.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Etheridge, I thank you for your work. Mr. Miller, I thank you for your work. I am in strong support of this amendment. The bill is terrific because what it does is take taxpayer assistance and give it to kids and parents rather than to big bailed-out banks. Secondly, what this amendment does is allow those institutions like the Vermont Student Assistance Corporation, a nonprofit dedicated to getting kids to go to college, to help them navigate the process of financing college and then to contend with the challenges of repaying the loan. It has had an incredible success rate. So this benefit gives the benefit to those local institutions that are nonprofit, student- centered, parent-centered, family-centered, to be able to continue to do that work at the local level. Thank you for your leadership on this, Mr. Etheridge. It will make a big difference for folks in Vermont.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, all of us had the opportunity to spend 5 weeks at home, listening to our constituents. And in Vermont, when I arrived home, such as with many of you, people were very fearful about a health care bill, a health care bill that was going to establish death panels, a health care bill where the government was going to select your doctor, a health care bill that would have as its primary beneficiaries illegal immigrants. Of course, that is not a health care bill that anyone in this body is considering. But as we proceeded and pushed back on the misinformation, it became increasingly clear that the health care bill President Obama has outlined, which has been passed by three committees in this House to regulate insurance companies so that they offer real insurance, to extend coverage to 37 million Americans--something good for them but also for those of us with insurance, to reduce our cost shift premium of $1,100, and a public option to provide competition and choice--that is a health care bill that Americans support, and we must pass.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina, and I thank my colleagues on the other side. You know, Mr. Speaker, sometimes the American people don't pay attention to an awful lot of what we say here. And frequently, when they don't, they're right. If this debate is really about accusations and counteraccusations about who's responsible, we're not going to get anywhere. The American people know we have to pay our bills. We have to, as a government, just like they have to do individually. And we have some honest debates about what should be our priorities. I've been an admirer of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) in his persistence in talking about fiscal responsibility. I disagree with the gentleman from Wisconsin that the way to fiscal prosperity is by radical reduction of taxes for very wealthy people. That's a fair and honest debate. On our side, there are some folks who think that the worthiness of the goal of health care for all Americans is its own justification and a way to pay for it. I disagree with that. If it is a worthy goal, we have to turn aspiration into affordable reality by paying for it. And on the health care bill, which is a major priority for President Obama and for Members of Congress, we are going to bring to the floor a health care bill that is paid for and does not add to the budget deficit. One of the major reasons that we should do this legislation is so that there is discipline on those of us who are advocating, either for tax cuts, because they believe that will be good for the economy, or for reform in health care, so that before we spend an extra dollar of our taxpayer money, we kick the tires of the system that we're affecting, like health care. And we have come to the conclusion, on our side, that to achieve one of our greatest goals, and that is health care for every single American, that we've got to kick the tires of the health care system and kick them hard to squeeze out savings that we can. This legislation, where we're accepting the burden of responsibility to pay for those programs we think are absolutely essential to the welfare of the American people, that we have the obligation of paying for it. And before we even look at taxes, we want to look at how we're wasting money. A dollar saved by cutting down waste is a dollar avoided in taxes. So this legislation, whatever it is characterized, as a machine for spending, which, frankly, is absurd, is a machine for responsibility. And whether or not our colleagues want to characterize this politically or not, there is a reason, on our side, that we believe fiscal responsibility is a burden we should accept, and we will, with this legislation. I thank the Budget Committee for its leadership on this.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I'm here, too, to join in advocacy for the PAYGO legislation that is going to come before the House floor this week. PAYGO is what it sounds like. If we have a new program, we have to find a way to pay for it, either through cuts or revenues. If we have a proposed tax cut, we have to find a way to pay for it, either in a reduction in programs elsewhere or a shifting of priorities and spending. It is a very simple, elemental approach. If you're going to buy something, you have to pay for it. Families know it, in their family budgets, they have to do it all of the time. And government really is no different. It is no different because in the end, if we borrow money, at some point we are going to have to pay it back. We have gotten into a habit in this Congress of not paying for things, in some cases, expenditure programs, and in other cases tax cuts. We have had some back and forth this morning with our friends on the other side of the aisle, and without getting into the blame game, which doesn't get us anywhere, there is an irrefutable fact, and that is that in the past 8 years with the tax cuts, with Medicare part D that was not funded, with a war in Iraq and a war in Afghanistan on the credit card, we have gone from the largest surplus in the history of this country to the largest deficit in the history of this country. What it means is that our kids and our grandkids are the ones who are going to have to pick up the tab. Aside from the fact that that is obviously unfair and none of us wants to pass the burden of debt for our spending on to others, it really is going to restrict what it is that generation can do to meet its own challenges to educate its kids, to provide health care to its kids and themselves and to provide for the national defense. We have the capacity to impose on ourselves the same rule that families have to impose on themselves every month when they sit around the kitchen table and go over their checkbook and try to figure out how, at the end of the month, they are going to make the checkbook balance. And that is to accept the burden of the discipline of paying for our tax cut proposal or our spending proposal when we make the proposal. Voters know that. They want fiscal responsibility. In fact, their concern about the deficit rightly is at the top of their agenda. We have had extraordinary circumstances here that have required extraordinary actions with the economy going off the cliff, with the stimulus spending and with the legacy of a war in Iraq and Afghanistan on the credit card. We have restored truth in budgeting so that those two things, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, are now on the budget. So it is painful because we are seeing in black and white what the cost of those enterprises are, and we know that we are going to have to pay for them. We are not trying to hide it. We are being direct. The American people are entitled to that candor, and they are entitled to have us respond by making certain that we, going forward, adopt pay-as-you-go principles. It is not just good in theory, and it is not just good for conservatives or liberals. It is good for everybody. I'm a big supporter, I think most of us are, that in this country we achieve the goal of having all of our citizens covered by health care. Every citizen should be covered and have access to health insurance. Every citizen should help pay for it. And if you lose your job, you shouldn't lose your health care. The President has acknowledged that as worthy as that goal is, we must pay for it. And the health care bill that we are now considering has to be paid for. What a difference from what happened with the prescription drug program that was largely put on the credit card and it is not able to sustain itself or pay for itself. One of the reasons it is so important to have PAYGO is that it imposes the discipline on us to kick the tires of a program. Health care is a great example. We need it. We have good health care in this country. But the cost is going up at two or three times the rate of inflation, two or three times the rate of profit growth, two or three times the rate of wage growth. So people are falling behind. The middle class is getting squeezed. They are facing higher co-pays and deductibles. By adopting PAYGO, it is forcing us to look at our delivery system and ask yourselves how can we reform the delivery of health care to make it more efficient and provide more value for less money? In fact, there are examples after examples of how we have, in many cases, excess utilization. So this bill is going to be helpful to all of us. And it is very important that we pass this legislation.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. It is a pleasure to work with you on this important legislation, on this important resolution. Mr. Speaker, as my friend and colleague from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney) said, our dairy farms face a crisis they've never ever seen. The crisis they face is not of their own making. Farmers have to live with the uncertainty of nature. They have to live with the uncertainty of a collapse of an export market. That's what happened when there was the melamine scare in China. They have to live with the uncertainty of an economy where prices in the purchasing of cheese in secondary, non- fluid milk products have come down with the recession. Yet the importance of our having local agricultural activities in all of our districts has never been more important. People want and need local agriculture. In my State, it's dairy. That's the backbone of our agricultural industry. In your State, it may be wheat; it may be potatoes. In States across the country where there is local agriculture, it serves not just the needs of our farmers who make a very good, a very decent and a very honest living from working the land; it serves the health needs of our citizens. It serves the environmental needs of our countryside. The farmers are the custodians of our landscape. That's certainly true in Vermont, which is to the benefit of all of us. It is certainly to the benefit of our tourism industry. Mr. Speaker, the crisis that the farmers face right now, particularly in dairy, where there's that disparity between what it costs them to produce milk and what they're being paid, is not survivable unless we do two things: One, provide short-term relief. We must find a way to increase the milk support payments on a temporary basis to help them get through the fall. If we fail to do that, they will fail themselves, and that would be a tragedy, because these farms, once gone, are gone forever and, with it, the environmental values, the land values, and the benefit to all of us to have local food production. The average distance of farm to table for food products that we eat is about 1,500 miles. Think about the energy consumption that we're wasting and what we can preserve if we keep production local. The second thing we have to do is what we have known since the era of the Depression, and that is we have to have stable pricing and adjustments so that farmers can weather the ups and downs in the cycle over which they have no control. Now, I want to remind folks of something Mr. Courtney said when we were before Mr. Scott's committee. We bailed out the financial industry with billions and billions of dollars, and the reason was that they were too big to fail. It was not because they had been responsible and had done everything within their power to avoid the catastrophe. In fact, they caused the catastrophe. Yet because they were too big to fail, in order to mitigate the impact on innocent people, the taxpayers came to the rescue. Now, is it the case that with our farmers, they are too small to matter? What kind of Congress is it if that's the verdict that we come to when it comes to our farmers who, through no fault of their own-- unlike Wall Street--who through no fault of their own find themselves in a real jam. Mr. Speaker, we have to take extraordinary action because this is an extraordinary time, and it's deserved because these are extraordinary people. This resolution is allowing us to focus attention where it needs to be on some of the best people among us in this country--and that's our dairy farmers, the folks would work the land, day in and day out, year in and year out, generation to generation.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. We appreciate the gentlewoman's hard work on the Agriculture appropriations spending bill. As you know, dairy farmers are currently being paid $11 per hundredweight on milk that costs them $18 per hundredweight to produce. This upside-down pay scale is absolutely unsustainable. It has already forced dozens of Vermont farmers out of business. We unsuccessfully offered an amendment to the bill to raise the payment rates on the Milk Income Loss Contract program from 45 percent to 79 percent. While the MILC program isn't perfect, it is really a way to put money back in the pocket of farmers. We appreciate your support, and we believe that you agree that Congress must take action to help our struggling dairy farmers and we cannot wait for more farms to go out of business. I thank the chairwoman and look forward to continuing to work with her and my colleague from Connecticut.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. The question we face as Congress is simply this: Will we put to work those young Americans, those scientists, those entrepreneurs, and allow them to make America energy independent? The questions we face can be solved. We have to give permission and authority for people to act.

Mr. WELCH. I thank my colleague. Madam Speaker, a confident nation acknowledges the challenges it faces. It doesn't ignore them. A confident people, when faced with the challenge, rolls up their sleeves and addresses the problems before them. Madam Speaker, today, Congress has two questions. The first is will it acknowledge the challenge of global warming that it is real, that it is urgent, and that demands attention now. And second, will Congress, by this first step of passing this legislation, unleash the power of America to take that step towards American energy independence; to unleash the brilliance of our scientists and engineers to develop alternative and renewable energy; to unleash the competitiveness of our entrepreneurs to bring to market energy-saving devices and to create jobs in America; the frugality and thriftiness of our homeowners and business owners who have buildings to be able to retrofit and make them more energy efficient and save money; the skills of our plumbers, masons, electricians and carpenters to go to work making our buildings more energy independent. Madam Speaker, every generation faces its challenge, and what we have seen across America is that young people have taken this on, and our question is whether we are going to----

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Waxman. Madam Speaker, although some dispute it, there is little doubt that oil is a finite resource and we are at or near peak oil, that global warming is real, that the threat to our economy is immediate and that the need to act is urgent. And while our friends on the other side raise questions about how our actions will affect jobs and utility bills, those very legitimate concerns have been exhaustively addressed in this legislation. But what they fail to acknowledge is that the cost of inaction is great in lost opportunity for jobs, a cleaner environment and a stronger economy. Many of the new jobs in Vermont and around the country are related to the new clean-energy economy. Madam Speaker, today Congress will make a very fundamental decision. Will America confidently and directly declare a policy of American energy independence? Will it unleash the talents of our scientists and engineers, empower our entrepreneurs and manufacturers? Will it put to work our farmers, carpenters, masons, electricians and plumbers through efficiency, through renewable energy and through the new technology for coal? The great decisions a nation makes, Madam Speaker, are always about facing our problems, not retreating from them, and about the conquest of hope over fear. I first wanted to thank Chairman Waxman, Chairman Markey, and the Energy and Commerce Committee staff for their tremendous work and leadership on this legislation. To bring to the floor the first ever bill to address our global warming crisis was no small feat, and while we would all like to see changes in this bill, it represents the best step forward toward charting a new energy future for our country. If civil rights was the issue of my generation, addressing climate change is the issue of today's. The young people and students across this country deserve great credit for providing the energy--renewable, of course--behind this historic legislation. They have the most at stake; they will inherit this planet and the economy we leave them. Their future must be addressed now. Earlier this year when we first began taking testimony on this legislation, I had the opportunity to ask executives of some of the world's largest companies whether Congressional inaction for addressing climate change threatened their bottom line, their viability, and our economy. One by one, they each responded: ``yes . . . yes . . . yes.'' These were our nation's economic leaders unanimously recognizing the urgent need for a new, post-carbon economy. The scientific facts are clear: global warming is real, it is urgent and it threatens our economy, our national security, and our way of life if unaddressed. We must tackle this challenge squarely, like the confident nation that we are. Addressing this challenge presents us with opportunity--an opportunity to create new, green jobs and build a stronger economy; an opportunity to make our country more secure and energy independent; and an opportunity to save on electric bills at home and turn better profits at the workplace. This legislation sets us toward the bright future of a post-carbon economy. If we don't make this commitment now, nations like Japan, Germany, Brazil--countries around the world will outpace us and leave us far behind. In this legislation, we take the bold steps necessary--with a firm cap on carbon pollution, new renewable energy and energy efficiency standards, and investments in renewable energy development. But we also make policy changes throughout our energy economy that will help hard working Americans get and stay ahead. We create a national Certified Clean Stove Program, building on Vermont's success to encourage those who heat their homes with wood stoves to install cleaner-burning stoves. We establish the nation's first energy efficiency improvement target. Among many consumer protection previsions, but critical for states like Vermont, we establish consumer rebates and weatherization efficiency investments to residents in states that rely upon home heating oil. And we establish The Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) Program to provide billions of dollars in financial incentives to homeowners and business owners to encourage them to retrofit the nation's existing buildings, which account for 10 percent of global carbon emissions. This program, supported by the Home Builders, Realtors, NRDC and others, will create thousands of jobs and help homeowners and business owners save on energy bills. At less than the cost of a postage stamp a day, through this bold legislation we will make our nation more secure, create a new, more efficiency, more productive, more prosperous energy future. When President Kennedy said we would put a man on the moon, many thought it wasn't possible. We did it. Today, we take the bold and necessary step to address one of the most pressing and urgent challenges in generations. As the author of the provisions of this bill that creates the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) Program Act, it is my goal to ensure the greatest possible participation in efforts to reduce energy consumption in residential and commercial buildings. It has come to my attention that real estate investment trusts (REITs) may be reluctant to participate in this program as it is currently crafted. They are concerned that they may lose their REIT status unless the REEP grants are considered qualifying assets that generate qualifying income for the purposes of the REIT income and asset tests. Listed REITs own and manage over 6 billion square feet of commercial real estate. This is a significant amount of property that, if retrofitted, could yield significant energy savings. Therefore it is my hope that as this bill moves through the legislative process we will include the necessary clarifications to ensure that REITs will be able to fully participate in the REEP program.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor today to offer a warm welcome home to a soldier who sacrificed for his country and to thank all of those who are working to make his return home a successful one. Private First Class Andrew Parker enlisted in the United States Army after graduating from Lamoille Union High School in 2007. On November 20, 2008, his MRAP vehicle was struck by a roadside bomb near Kandahar, Afghanistan. Andrew suffered injuries that left him paralyzed from the chest down. During the months that Andrew spent recovering in DOD and VA hospitals, his neighbors and friends in Vermont worked together to complete an incredible project to modify his home to make it accessible to him upon his return. His kindergarten teacher, the Hyde Park VFW and countless other businesses, organizations and individuals donated time, money and labor to make it possible for Andrew to return home to a new addition to his home, a living room, a bedroom, a bath and a bay for his new van. Now Andrew will have the resources he needs to focus on rebuilding his strength as he works to fulfill his new dream of becoming a teacher. He should know that all Vermonters and all Americans are with him in spirit as he continues on his courageous journey.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues the ever-worsening plight of dairy farmers in Vermont. Frankly, dairy farmers around the country. The life of a dairy farmer is hard always. Never easy. Long hours, uncertainty in the markets, competition from factory and farms make it tough for family farmers in Vermont and elsewhere to survive and thrive. It's even tougher these days. With the cost of production of milk at about $18 per hundredweight, it's well below the $11 per hundredweight that farmers are being paid. It's no wonder that so many farmers are having to sell their herds and walk off the land they love. But dairy is so important to Vermont--economically, culturally, environmentally, and historically. We need to do all we can to help this sector and to help our farmers. That's why I and 23 of our colleagues are calling on Secretary Vilsack to consider the cost of production when setting milk prices. We need to act now to resolve this crisis. Even more importantly, we need to find a long-term solution that will help create stable and sustainable dairy in this country.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, among others, dairy farmers are facing an enormous crisis. And there is some possibility that the Senate may add in the supplemental some money for the milk program. And my request is that you would take that into consideration as best you can.

Mr. WELCH. I appreciate your efforts.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, today I would like to honor Christopher Caine's 25 years of service to one of Vermont's most important and valued businesses, IBM. The largest private employer in Vermont, IBM has long served as a bedrock in Essex Junction in the greater Burlington community. It has proven itself to be a strong corporate citizen and has shown the world that Vermonters can compete for quality high-tech jobs. For the past 25 years, Christopher Caine has made a major contribution to that success in such positions as public policy director and, most recently, as vice president of governmental affairs. Like thousands of Vermonters who earn their livelihoods at IBM, Christopher has worked diligently to ensure the success of this great American company, and, in so doing, he has contributed to a key part of Vermont's economy. Upon his retirement this year from IBM, I want to salute Christopher for his contribution to IBM and to the State of Vermont.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, the House this week will take the critical first step towards ending reckless and predatory lending practices and mortgage fraud in particular. Since our economy fell off the cliff last fall, Vermonters and all Americans have been reeling from the mess created by those who engage in reckless lending and reckless borrowing. The Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2009 will help ensure that the practices that helped foster this casino economy will end. The bill will restore responsibility to lending, holding creditors responsible for the loans they originate, requiring borrowers to have a reasonable ability to repay the loans, ban the practice of rewarding brokers and loan officers for steering homeowners towards mortgages they can't afford. We won't be able to end years of irresponsible lending and borrowing overnight; not with one bill. But this legislation is the critical first step towards restoring responsibility and common sense to our financial system.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank you, Mr. Manager of the bill. I thank Carolyn Maloney, the Representative who has provided leadership on this from the Financial Services Committee. The legislation that is before us is overdue. It does provide basic transparency and protection to consumers who had no rights to anything. But there are two things that I hope will be part of the future debate about protecting consumers. Not in this bill. This bill on its own deserves to be passed. But those two issues are, one, is it time to consider a cap on interest rates? And, number two, is it time to provide protection to the merchants, the small businesses? I believe it is time to have an interest rate cap. We have historically had it until the Supreme Court took those away, but we have had caps on interest as far back as the Babylonian times. Commerce has succeeded when there have been reasonable interest rate caps. It's one thing if somebody gets notice that their interest rate is going to go from 8 percent to 38 percent. But it probably shouldn't go up to 38 percent and we ought to have a lid. Second, there's an argument that the banks are making that this will compress credit, making it more difficult to get. The reality is that credit is shrinking already because of practices that have been excessive. Over 8 billion solicitations go out, not just to consumers, but sometimes to their pets. There is an alarming parallel between what is being done here in credit cards, or what has been done, and what happened in the subprime crisis. Credit card issuers securitize and pass off their risk to the secondary market, pass on the losses by increasing fees on responsible users of credit, and they fail to exercise reasonable underwriting standards. We have got to change the business model so there is responsibility on both sides.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a Vermonter who has dedicated his life to serving others, one who's made an impact nationally and internationally, but most importantly, in his hometown of Springfield, Vermont. Edgar May has worn many hats in his life, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, a leader in President Johnson's War on Poverty, and a top administrator in the Peace Corps under Sargent Shriver. I came to know Edgar May when we served together in the Vermont State Senate, where we reminded colleagues every day of our obligation to be there for average Vermonters. He earned tremendous respect for his ability to solve difficult problems, to temper emerging feuds and, most importantly, for the profound decency at the core of all his work. Edgar has devoted his recent years to providing the people of Springfield with something they thought they'd never have, a downtown recreation center at the site of an old machine tool plant, a resource for all people of all ages and all incomes. The Southern Vermont Health and Recreation Center is a symbol of Springfield's quiet but confident determination to continue reviving one of Vermont's proudest cities. Its creation is a testament to Edgar May's perseverance and his devotion to his city, his State and country.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank my colleague from Rhode Island. I thank the Armed Services Committee and Chairman Skelton and my colleague, Mr. Coffman. We have heard eloquent statements about the urgent problem of piracy and what the United States has to do. I would like to talk a little bit about Captain Phillips and about his hometown of Underhill, Vermont, and what is the good news behind this extraordinary rescue operation conducted by the United States Navy. Mr. Speaker, Underhill is a small town in Vermont in the shadow of our largest mountain, Mt. Mansfield; about 2,800 people live there. The center of life is the Underhill Country Store where people go for their morning coffee to have conversation about what's going on. Neighbors know neighbors. The folks who live in Underhill know the Phillips family very well. And it turned out that in that week when Captain Phillips was a hostage, all of the activity, all of the conversation in Underhill, of course, was totally about him, about his wife, Andrea, about Mariah and David, their son and daughter, both in college. And life in some ways went on in the ordinary course. David went over to a neighbor's and did his morning chores; it is what he said his dad would have wanted. And the neighbors did what neighbors do in Underhill and do in Vermont and do in communities all around this country when one of their own is in peril; they helped out. They brought over food. They checked in on their neighbors. They gave privacy and respect to Andrea and their family while they were going through this ordeal. It is also the story about an extraordinary seaman, Captain Phillips, who, I think, as much as his bravery impressed all of us. His modesty impressed all of us as well. He insisted that he was not the hero. Let me use his own words that he was able to recite when he returned. ``I'm not a hero, the military is,'' the cargo shipper, Richard Phillips, told reporters. ``I'm a small part. I'm just a bit part in this story. I'm a seaman doing the best I can like all other seamen out there.'' Captain Phillips insisted on giving all credit to everyone else--his crew, the extraordinary Navy SEALs, the United States Navy, not taking any of the credit for his heroics upon himself. Now, why is it that he is that way? You know, oftentimes it is said that a hero is a person who is ordinary but, faced with extraordinary circumstances, does extraordinary things. And certainly Captain Phillips fits that description because, when faced with this danger, he put himself and his life on the line to save his crew. It was an extraordinary act in extraordinary circumstances. But when you reflect on it, Captain Phillips didn't see it that way. He was a seaman doing his job. And maybe what he is reminding us, all of us in America, is that it is doing our jobs day in and day out, what is required of us, that makes us all have it within our reach to be heroic. Captain Phillips has as his primary responsibility, the way he defines it and the way the law of the sea defines it, to protect his crew. And on some days protecting his crew may be that he has to guide his ship through troubled waters, but on another day, when his ship was seized by pirates, protecting his crew meant turning over his life and his safety to the pirates in exchange for the safety of his crew. And for him, that was just an ordinary, matter-of-fact decision. He didn't even have to think about it because that was his job. It is what he signed up to do. And when the circumstances required he make that decision, he did. That is what is so inspiring, I think, to so many of us about Captain Phillips, the matter-of-fact way in which he went about being a captain in the Merchant Marine. And it is the same attitude he displays as a dad when he is home, with the jealous guarding of his time with his family that means so much to him so that he can ski, play basketball, do outdoor activities with his kids and with his friends. He is known in the community as just another guy, and that is the person who he wants to return to be. The inspiring story here is all up and down the line. When a captain was faced with an extraordinary decision, he made it as though it was just an ordinary decision. When one of America's own ships on the high seas was in peril, our Navy responded as they were trained to do. And when one of the hostages, Captain Phillips, was in imminent danger of losing his life, these Navy SEALs, who had trained quietly, relentlessly, and effectively, did what was required of them, and they went on to live the rest of their lives. So this act is an extraordinary act of heroics because of how Captain Phillips made this an ordinary day in his life. All of us, of course, are thrilled about the safe return of Captain Phillips to Underhill, Vermont, and the reunification of the family, but we are also very proud of our Navy. We are proud of the Navy SEALs and all the people who were involved in this, doing the jobs they were trained to do, doing it successfully, and then going on about their lives without request for fame or favor.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, 164 years ago brave Texans and brave Vermonters fought on an historical battlefield about 60 miles south of here, the Battle of the Wilderness. There were 165,000 troops amassed there, including Vermonters from the 1st Brigade; and 1,200 from Vermont's ranks died. Among them was Daniel Lilly, a teacher in Barnard, Vermont. His funeral is still today remembered as the largest funeral in the history of that town. Another, Ed Holden, fought and survived, but saw his brother with his head shot off die on the battlefield. Today a different battle is taking place on that hallowed ground. It is a conflict between a great American corporation, Wal-Mart, and a great American historic battlefield, the Wilderness. My friend from Texas and I have joined together to ask Wal-Mart to do the right thing and not build its facility, a 140,000-foot facility, on that battlefield where troops were massing. The question for us is whether we can honor the fallen. And that, as my friend will tell you, is just the way it is.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, it is important to understand that Citigroup supports this bill. Why? They're a huge lender. It's because they understand that we have to stabilize home values in order to begin the recovery, and they need a tool to accomplish it. So this is about lenders as much as it is about borrowers. Why? Because these mortgages that have been sliced and diced into 40 or 50 different sections make it impossible even for a mortgage company and a borrower, homeowner or a family to come together to resolve the problem that they share together. So this bankruptcy provision, written narrowly so that it is a last resort, is not only fair, but is necessary to lenders as well as to borrowers. I applaud both committees for the work that they have done.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. I have been listening to some of your comments, and I just want to make a few remarks about the budget. We all know that we have an economy that's facing the biggest challenge since the Great Depression, and what this budget is attempting to do, and a lot of work getting from where we are to where we need to be, is, I think, very simple. It's about trying to revive the middle class. You know, when you think about the recent history of America in the 1960s, when LBJ took on the challenge of trying to eliminate poverty and was successful in reducing it substantially, it was the right goal. The middle class paid. And in the past 10 years, and even more, the policy has been, essentially, to lower taxes for very high-income folks, also provide deregulation for corporations, and it has resulted in a significant transfer of wealth. The top 1 percent of our country has enjoyed the greatest explosion of wealth since the 1920s, and, in fact, who paid for that? It was the middle class. So the middle class paid for the programs that are essential, and I support it, that benefit the poor. The middle classes paid for the programs that were very, very generous to the quite wealthy, and it's the middle class who, in the end, is getting squeezed. This country has always done its best when it has had economic and political policies that have given an opportunity for people who are poor to move their way up into the middle class and for the middle class to sustain itself and to grow and prosper. And what the Obama budget attempts to do is redirect our energies and our policies towards rewarding work and rewarding and enhancing the middle class. Now, if we are going to be successful, we actually do have to pay attention to deficits, and it's a contradiction, so it seems, that on the one hand because of our fiscal situation we have to invest. We also have to commit ourselves to a health care policy that's going to make health care affordable, and to an energy policy that embraces the challenges of a new energy economy as something that can create jobs much. And we, as Democrats, who are supporting a middle class budget also have to embrace the absolute commitment to root out any waste and any excessive spending.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, President Obama understands something that every Vermonter knows, and that is that this economy faces the biggest challenge since the Great Depression. We have a very simple choice in Congress. It is to do nothing, as Herbert Hoover did, or it is to act boldly, as Franklin Roosevelt did. This bill embraces the philosophy of Franklin Roosevelt that when the economy is deteriorating, people are losing their jobs, Congress must act to save jobs and rebuild our economy. This bill is well-balanced and can provide 8,000 jobs in Vermont. It helps our taxpayers, property taxpayers and State taxpayers. It provides a safety net to the people who, through absolutely no fault of their own, lost their jobs. We owe it to them. And it provides investments in the future. Green jobs, health care information technology. This is essential as a step to start revitalizing our economy and putting it in a growth path for the future.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, I recently heard the tragic story of Amer Shurrab, a young man from Khan Yunis in Gaza. Amer is a recent graduate of Middlebury College, in Vermont. On Friday, January 16, Amer's brothers, Kassab and Ibrahim, and father, Mohammad, were driving from their farm near the Israeli border to their apartment in Khan Yunis. The three men had waited until the daily three-hour calm designated by the Israeli Defense Forces before beginning their journey. They drove the family's jeep through the city and then, without any warning, the car was fired upon by the IDF. Kassab, a 28-year-old engineer, was killed almost immediately. His father and Ibrahim, an 18-year-old college student, were wounded but survived the initial barrage of gunfire. When the two tried to crawl to safety, the IDF shot the street around them. An ambulance that they managed to call was turned away blocks from the scene. For the next 20 hours, the two were forced to remain in the jeep. Amer's father spread the word to the immediate family, and the family did all it could to get help. Family members called Israeli government officials, international aid organizations, and human rights groups, while Amer's father, still stuck in the jeep, managed to get through to local radio stations and BBC Arabic to broadcast his pleas for help live on the air. But no help could get through. In the middle of the night, Ibrahim Shurrab bled to death in his father's arms. When relating his story, Amer repeated one word over and over again to describe what happened to his family: cruel. ``It was just so cruel,'' he repeated. The Israeli government must conduct a full and open investigation of the circumstances regarding this horrible tragedy. I am not sure what kind of explanation can ever account for such suffering, but those responsible for reportedly denying aid to the injured should be held accountable and punished accordingly. My heart aches for the Shurrab family and all those who have lost loved ones in the most recent round of violence. I will remember their story and pursue peace in the hope that stories like Amer's not be repeated in the future.