Peter Welch

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Chairman, the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers are located in my home State of Vermont. The Missisquoi begins in Western Orleans County just north of the beautiful mountain town of Eden and heads up through the Green Mountains. From Eden, the river leaves the U.S. and winds through southern Quebec before returning to the small Vermont town of Richford. If you paddle south along the Missisquoi from Richford you can find pristine clay deposits along the banks. Outside of the town of East Berkshire the Trout River feeds in from the East and slightly cools the temperature of the water. From here, the two rivers run as one all the way to Lake Champlain. From Eden to Lake Champlain the rivers run through scenic northern mountains, rolling farm hills dotted with dairy cows, and small Vermont towns. Both rivers are highly valued by the surrounding towns and communities for swimming, fishing, and boating. Parents who grew up swimming in these rivers take their children back to the same places to teach them how to swim. In the summer you can find these swimming holes filled with families, enjoying the water and taking in the sunshine along their banks. These rivers are bordered by the largest and perhaps the highest quality silver maple floodplain forest remaining in the State. They are also home to diverse animal life including brook trout, rare freshwater mussels and spiny soft-shell turtles. The surrounding marshes host migratory birds such as the great blue heron and black terns. This bill will provide for a study of these two rivers and represents the first step toward protecting Abenaki Indian archeological sites along the floodplains, scenic waterfalls and gorges, and a way of life in the communities surrounding these two rivers. I urge support for this bill.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Thank you, my friend from Washington. We better get back to the focus at hand, because now Vermont quality beer has been challenged as well as the beauty of Vermont rivers. So we will just call this part of the debate a draw and proceed. Two things in response to comments made by my friend from Washington. Number one, it appears that there are no reservations or no stated objections to the study itself that is, frankly, quite important to Vermont. This is a very special part of our State that has the opportunity with the benefit of this study to be preserved for generations ahead, just as it has been cared for and enjoyed by generations in the past. So it is a very, very serious issue to the folks in Vermont. It is just a very special place. The gentleman has not raised any specific objections. His objections are more in the nature of spending time on this instead of spending time on something else. So I would urge the Members to take that into account when they are voting on the previous question. Second, I will address the energy arguments. This has been the refrain on the part of our friends on the other side as a response to every piece of business that we are doing on behalf of the American people. I think it has become apparent that this has become much more of a political debate than it has been an effort substantively to solve a very, very serious problem. Let me give a little commentary about that. Number one, my friends on the other side have been in control of this institution and had the Presidency and the control of Congress for the past 12 years, until this Congress, and had an opportunity to enact comprehensive energy legislation when it was quite apparent to the American people that the problem of our excessive dependence on oil was a real and urgent problem. They did nothing. In fact, the energy act they passed quite astonishingly provided taxpayer incentives, tax deductions, tax credits, to oil companies that were enjoying record profits. It is a mature industry, it is a profitable industry, yet the energy policy that was pursued and failed by our friends on the other side during the 12 years they were in charge basically was to give oil companies more taxpayer money. It made no sense. There was no effort to use the power they had of the majority to bring to the floor legislation that would promote alternative energy. There was no effort to take the power that they had and provide tax incentives for the alternative energy industries that we know we must support if we are going to reduce and ultimately eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, my understanding is it is my opportunity now to yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I wouldn't yield, my friend, because I will be bringing this to a close. I want to take the opportunity, as I must, when the assertions are made, falsely in my view, that the Democratic leadership is standing in the way of energy policy change, that is just flat-out wrong. The energy for energy reform has come from the leadership on the Democratic side. Frankly, it has come from the American people, who are tired of a Congress that passed off as an energy policy giving more money to the oil companies. We have to make a fundamental decision in this hyper-political atmosphere of a presidential election whether we want to continue politics as usual, which in my view is a dead end, or we want to work together to achieve what we know is important for the American people, that is, short-term relief for prices at the pump, and it is a long- term energy policy that frees us from the dependence on oil from foreign countries. So, Mr. Speaker, having said that, let me just close by coming back to this very important bill. It is a study. It is not necessarily important for many other parts of the country. But one of the things that makes this Congress and this country great is mutual respect. When there is a disaster in the Gulf Coast, all States pull together to help out. When there is flooding in the Midwest, all States pull together. When there is an opportunity for a small State like Vermont to take a step with Wild and Scenic River study that will help us and help our citizens enjoy the beauty of our land, I seek the help of my colleagues to let us accomplish that goal. It is my request and my urging that all Members vote ``yes'' on the previous question and on the rule. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 1419 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 4. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point of order, consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6566) to bring down energy prices by increasing safe, domestic production, encouraging the development of alternative and renewable energy, and promoting conservation. All points of order against the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the majority and minority leader, and (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute if offered by the majority leader or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I won't yield. My intention, my friend from Washington, is to respond and bring this to a close, thank you. So, number one, we are hearing objections from people who when they had the power to do the things they claim they want to do, didn't use the power they had to accomplish those objectives. Number two, when we have brought forward legislation and passed it, it has been with their objection. And what they claim they want to do are many things that we did over their objection. I will give a few examples. To deal with the short-term price pressure at the pump and with home heating oil, this House of Representatives passed legislation that I sponsored to stop filling up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and take off some of the demand on oil. That has contributed to helping bring down the price of gas at the pump by 5 to 25 cents a gallon. Secondly, this House of Representatives has gotten tough on speculators. The evidence is overwhelming that part of the runup in the price of gasoline when it was heading up to $150 a barrel was because of the speculative control and influence of hedge funds in foreign trading operations. We brought to this floor legislation, and just the fact that we did it finally, when it was ignored and accepted and mollified by our friends who were in control for 12 years, has helped bring down that speculative premium. There is no justification for any one of our constituents when they pay for a gallon of gasoline or a gallon of home heating oil or a cubic gallon of natural gas to have included in their price a speculation premium for profiteers, and this Congress passed legislation to challenge that, against the opposition of our friends on the other side. So we have taken very specific actions to try to do what we reasonably can do to bring down the price pressure that is ripping off the American consuming public. Second, we have passed energy legislation that is comprehensive, again over the opposition of our friends on the other side. One of the things we did was provided for tax credits for the alternative energy industry. We have to do that. That is of urgent, vital economic and environmental concern to this country. We passed legislation that took away the tax breaks that are going to oil companies. There is no basis whatsoever to ask the taxpayer to pad the profits of a mature and profitable industry. They don't need it. They are doing quite well without additional taxpayer money to their bottom line. But the new industries, the alternative energies that my friend from Washington mentioned, wind and solar, geothermal and biomass, they do need a boost, and historically when we have been at our best is when we have had the wisdom to use tax policy in a targeted and focused way to give a boost to these emerging industries and technologies that are good for the American economy and good for our environment, and that is what we need to do. We have passed this in the House several times. Our friends on the other side opposed it. Our friends in the Senate won't move on it. We are prepared to do it again. But the suggestion that has been made repetitively, over and over again, that the leadership of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives is standing in the way of energy policy is flat out wrong. It is flat out false. Why is it being offered? It is being offered for political purposes, I would suggest. Now, let me tell you this: That although we have passed comprehensive energy legislation several times in this House, although each time we have done it we have had to overcome the opposition of our friends on the other side, and although every time we bring up a legitimate piece of legislation that is part of the public business that this Congress must conduct, whether it is a study on the Missisquoi River, an energy bill or any other bill, every time we do our friends try to cease the debate and distort what has happened, we are prepared, as the gentleman from Washington knows, we in the Democratic Party, our leadership is prepared to bring up yet another comprehensive energy bill that does include all of the above. The fact is, on our side we have passed all of the above time and time again, against the opposition of our friends on the other side, and then it has run into a brick wall in the other body or the steadfast opposition of the President of the United States. But the gentleman from Washington is aware that the leadership is prepared to bring up yet another bill to give us another opportunity to do the right thing. Let me say this: I actually think it would be great to work together with the other side. I come from a State where we shift majorities back and forth. Sometimes the Democrats were in control, sometimes the Republican were in control. I was the senate president and I was the minority leader. I learned that in order for us ever to get anything done, we had to ultimately work together. I also came to understand that neither side had an absolute claim that they were the only people who had a good point of view, who had an iron grip on truth. I believe that it would be best for all of us if there was some willingness to try to work on the substance, rather than just use this as a political football, and my observation is that for whatever reason, it is tough to get to that point here in the House of Representatives in Washington.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. For bragging about Washington, yes, I will.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I am the last speaker on our side, so I will reserve my time.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H. Res. 1419 provides for the consideration of H.R. 3667, the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic Study Act of 2008, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources, makes in order three amendments printed in the Rules Committee report, and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Rahall and Representative Grijalva, Ranking Members Young and Bishop for helping to bring this bill to the floor today. And I would like to thank the staff of the Natural Resources Committee for their very hard work on a bill that is of great importance to my State of Vermont. The Missisquoi and Trout Rivers are two of the most beautiful rivers in the most beautiful State in the Nation, and that, with all due respect to the man from Washington, I claim to be the State of Vermont. These rivers are bordered by the largest and perhaps the highest quality silver maple floodplain forest remaining in our State of Vermont. They are also home to diverse animal life, including brook trout, rare freshwater mussels, and spiny soft shell turtles. It's a favorite walking, hiking, fishing area for many people in northern Vermont and, indeed, from Upstate New York and all around Vermont. Additionally, the Missisquoi River is part of this extraordinary 740- mile northern forest canoe trail, which is home to some of the best flat-water canoeing in Vermont and in the Northeast. Both of these rivers are highly valued by the surrounding towns and the communities. It has great recreational areas, swimming pools, and boating. Vermont parents that grew up swimming in these rivers take their kids back there, and it's a place in Vermont of just extraordinary scenic and natural beauty. The bill, as these study bills all do, provides for a study of the two rivers, and it represents a first step toward protecting Abenaki Indian archeological sites along the flood plains, protecting scenic waterfalls and gorges, and a way of life that has been in these communities surrounding the two rivers for generations. Passage of the rule will allow the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Act to be considered on the floor by the full body, and I urge support of this rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am shocked that my friend from Washington would question my assertions about the beauty of Vermont, and I will invite the Member from Washington to come to Vermont so I can let you firsthand experience the evidence that I have had so much opportunity to observe myself. By the way, I have been to Washington. I climbed Mt. Rainier three times and was out on the San Juan Islands.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend remarks on House Resolution 1419.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, my friend, Mr. Hastings. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1419 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Well, I do have something to add. I just want to go back to the question of Foreign Affairs and the war in Iraq, and I want to do what I did the last time when I was talking about the debt, which is to lay out some of the explicit statements and promises that the administration made about this war and then lay out what the specific results have been. It's important. It's vitally important that the people of this country compare promises to results. This war, in my view, has been a catastrophe, but here is what top officials in the Bush administration said: ``It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last 6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months,'' Donald Rumsfeld, February 2003, a month before the war. ``There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon,'' Paul Wolfowitz, former Deputy Defense Secretary, March of 2003. Of course, our friend from Florida has outlined the truth that the Iraqi money is in U.S. banks. Treasury money is going over to Iraq to finance things. ``My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators,'' Vice President Dick Cheney. How bright he was, yes. March 16, 2003. ``It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would to take to conduct the war, itself, and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army. Hard to imagine,'' Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. ``I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority,'' President George Bush, Commander in Chief, March 2002. ``If we're an arrogant Nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble Nation but strong, they'll welcome us [in Iraq],'' George Bush. We know the facts. The war in Iraq has now lasted longer than the U.S. involvement in World War II. Four thousand one hundred fifty-five Americans have been killed in Iraq, and more than 30,000 troops have been wounded as of September 7 of this year. No weapons of mass destruction were ever found. That was the whole pretext that George Bush used to justify this war. More than $600 billion has been spent, none of it on the books incidentally, all on the credit card. Some projections estimate that the war, when all of the expenses are paid, including what we have to pay to provide health care to our seriously injured soldiers, will exceed $3 trillion. The Iraqi Government has now forced the Bush administration to accept something that many of us have been arguing for four years, a timetable. It took the President of Iraq to force the President of the United States to get real and to understand that what we can expect of the American taxpayer and what we can expect of the American soldier has its limits and that it's time to start asking the Iraqis to step up and to take on the burden of their own future. America's military is stretched thin. There is just no dispute about this. It weakens our ability to respond to other threats. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Michael Mullen, has stressed that the need for more troops in Afghanistan is great, but due to the war in Iraq, they're not available. The Bush administration has grossly neglected Afghanistan and has failed to acknowledge that that is a major threat. These are promises, the cavalier disregard for the hidden consequences, the consequences beyond your control when you embark on a war, on a thoughtless war, and disregard the need to build up alliances like George Bush's father did in the first Gulf war, and you cavalierly go off with promises, reckless promises, irresponsible promises by people in positions of great trust. The greatest trust that they have is that they have a duty to use due deliberation in the protection of the lives of the American people and of the American soldiers. They have to use due deliberation, careful thought, responsible analysis in committing American power abroad and in committing the lives of our soldiers abroad. They cavalierly made predictions. Vice President Cheney will go down in history as just having been totally out of touch.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I will yield, yes.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank my friend, Representative Sutton. This evening gives us an opportunity to take account, to look at the record, and reveal it to the American people. We are in a season close to an election, where the American people are going to have to make a decision, and it's going to be an extraordinarily consequential decision. In the fog of a campaign, there's an awful lot of rhetoric back and forth, where those who have not done much try to conceal it with claims that they did, and try to shoot down the progress that has been made. Now we all know that when we get going, and we are going to solve our problems, it's going to have to be working together. We have been doing our best to do that. But what we have to do tonight is lay out what the record has been. What I want to talk about briefly are two areas; one is deficit, to continue what my friend, Representative Sutton was talking about, and the other is on Iraq. The reason I want to talk about them specifically is because it is important for the American people to know what they can expect from our friends on the other side who have a clear record, and it is one that they are accountable for, but it has to be one that Americans are aware of. On deficits, taking up on what you said, let me just read some quotes from members of the administration to remind the American people of what was promised, and then lay out some facts about what actually was done. ``Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short term.'' George Bush, in January of 2003. ``We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits even if the economy softens. Projections for the surplus in my budget are cautious and conservative.'' George Bush, March 27, 2001. ``We are holding down government spending and reforming government, and the good news is the deficit is coming down.'' OMB Director Jim Nussle, June 22, 2006. ``I don't like deficits, I don't want deficits, and I won't pretend deficits don't matter.'' OMB Director Jim Nussle, March 12, 2003. ``Today's announcement by President Bush confirms that the pro-growth economic policies put in place by Republicans are working as planned to spur economic growth and reduce the deficit. Republicans are meeting our commitments to the American taxpayers by exercising fiscal restraint in promoting economic policies this create jobs, all efforts which have produced a strong economy that is working to drive down and eventually eliminate our deficit.'' John Boehner, October 11, 2006. What are the facts? That is the rhetoric. What are the facts? President Bush and congressional Republicans, his allies, have turned a projected 10-year, 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion into a projected 10-year deficit of $3.4 trillion. That is a swing of $9 trillion in one Presidency. When President Bush took office, there was a projected surplus of $710 billion for fiscal year 2009. President Bush's budget will create a $407 billion deficit for fiscal year 2009. That is a swing of over $1 trillion. Under the Bush administration, Republicans created the five largest-- one, two, three, four, five--five largest budget deficits in American history, $378 billion, $413 billion, $318 billion, $407 billion, and $438 billion now projected. The first 42 Presidents, the first 42 American President's, borrowed a total of $1 trillion. That was during wars, by the way; World War I, World War II, the Korean conflict, Vietnam, combined. That is the total amount borrowed from foreign governments and financial institutions. In the 7\1/2\ years of the Bush Presidency, President Bush has borrowed more than $1.6 trillion. He borrowed more in 7\1/2\ years than 42 Presidents did in over 100 years of our history. When President Bush took office, we had a national debt that was $5.7 trillion. During his administration, that has nearly doubled, and will reach $10.3 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2009. This administration has presided over a fiscal train wreck, and it is creating obviously a deep hole that we have to climb out of, the American people have to climb out of, and it's a record of rhetoric of rosy fiscal scenarios with reckless policies that have caused, in a short time, 7\1/2\ years, the greatest explosion in the debt of the United States government, which belongs to you and me and the generations that will come after us, that we are going to have to repay, and it will take generations to do. I will yield back my time to the gentlelady from Ohio.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 3667, including corrections in spelling, punctuation, section and title numbering, cross-referencing, conforming amendments to the table of contents and short titles, and the insertion of appropriate headings.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate the excellent work you did and your eloquent description of a beautiful river. If I have any say about it, we're going to make you an honorary Vermonter and bring you down that river and make you paddle your way from one end to the other and have you see for yourself how beautiful what you described really is. Thank you. I want to respond to some of the comments. Mr. Chairman, my opinion is that one of the greatest Presidents of the United States was Theodore Roosevelt. He came to the Presidency when his predecessor was assassinated. It was a time of great turmoil, social and labor unrest, a need for corporate reform, trust busting. President Roosevelt had his hands full taking on those economic challenges. He was a war President. The skirmish in Cuba and the Philippines were still very much alive, and he had to deal with that as President. Very serious issues with the Supreme Court. And in the midst of all of that he still found time to be a peacemaker and was the winner of the Nobel Prize for the work that he did in bringing together the Soviet and Japanese conflict and helping those folks resolve the end of that war. But Theodore Roosevelt was also a person who respected and did more, perhaps, than anyone else to protect our environment. And amidst his responsibilities, where he had to simultaneously deal with enormous economic anxiety in this country, when he had to deal with foreign affairs that involved making America a strong country and bringing together peace in other countries, he would never, ever, busy as he was, urgent as his demands were, belittle the work of the House of Representatives when they were taking up what is now being characterized as a ``waste-of-time bill'' because it involves two rivers in the State of Vermont. He wouldn't do it. He's a bigger man than that. He reflects the leadership that we can provide to the American people where we simultaneously take on the challenges, as President Roosevelt did, but also pay attention to the posterity that is our responsibility to leave behind. I just want to say as a Vermonter, I want to say as a Member of the House of Representatives that if we can't find time to do those things that are going to allow us in Utah, in Arkansas, in Arizona and in Vermont to save our rivers and to do what is going to preserve our country and leave behind legacies like President Teddy Roosevelt did with the National Park Service that we revere and enjoy, then we don't deserve the vote of confidence that we get from the folks who send us here. We can do both. Now my friend from Utah has essentially made an argument that there is more important business to be done, as if that suggests we don't have time to do other important business about protecting and preserving our environment and having mutual respect for the particular concerns, in this case, of Vermont. But it's that same comity that has allowed us to come forward and step up as Vermonters and Arizonans to help the folks in the Midwest from their flood and to respond to the gulf coast with the damage that they sustained. It's political. That's what we know. The reality is our friends on the other side had 12 years in control here and their energy policy was one thing: give tax breaks to oil companies. You can't make that up. Oil companies are doing well. I don't begrudge them their profits. But why do you reach into the taxpayers' pocket and ask taxpayers to give the most profitable corporations in the world, running a mature industry, doing well, why do we ask the taxpayers to give them $13 billion? When you reveal that fact, they don't even know how to respond because you can't make that kind of stuff up. So this House of Representatives, under the leadership that now is being castigated for a failure of leadership, has repeatedly passed legislation against the objections, almost unanimous, of our friends on the other side, to stop filling up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to squeeze out the speculative premium in the price of a gallon of gas at the pump. That can provide some short-term relief. We did that. We passed comprehensive energy reform, again, against the objections of our friends on the other side. We took away the tax breaks from the oil companies, not because oil companies are a target. They're doing important work. They know how to do their work and they know how to do it well. But why in the world would our friends on the other side want to give $13 billion in tax breaks to a mature and profitable industry when that money comes directly out of the pockets of American consumers who need that money in their pocket to pay the price at the pump? They've resisted that. They opposed it. Our friends on the other side are also aware that even though we have passed legislation against their objection, it has gotten stalled in the other body, threatened with veto by the President, we're ready to do it again. Our motto is try again, try again, and keep going because, bottom line, we want to address that problem. And we have actually been doing things in our 2 years on the watch despite their resistance when they had 12 years to get the job done and essentially caved into the interests of the oil companies. So, Mr. Chairman, as a Vermonter and the sponsor of this bill, I want to object to what is really a rhetorical and political device, and that is ridiculing the importance of these two rivers to the people of my State for a partisan political argument. Energy is incredibly important and we have delivered. We've put substantive proposals on the floor. They have been debated and they have been passed. They've been stalled in the Senate or threatened with veto by the President. We're prepared to do it again. We're also prepared to reach out to the other side because we all know that in the end if we are going to be successful, we do have to work together, particularly where we have divided government. But it takes two sides, two bodies, and a President to be willing to do that, and it has not been forthcoming. So I want to go back to a very simple fact. This legislation is about allowing Vermonters to have a study for scenic status on two rivers that are very precious to us, places where moms and dads have taken they are kids, taught them how to hunt, taught them how to fish, taught them how to be families, taught them responsibility. And there is a place for us and a time for us to do that as well as face these large issues like energy, like the war in Iraq, like redefining our foreign policy. So this is a very important piece of legislation to us, and I, as one Member of Congress, object to having it be held hostage to what is essentially a political game that's been going on far too long. And I want to thank the chairman for the tremendous work that he's done. And, Vermonters, thank you as well.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Speaker be authorized to entertain motions to suspend the rules relating to House Resolution 1420 on the legislative day of Thursday, September 11, 2008.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the dedicated efforts of Carbon Shredders, a grassroots environmental group based in the Mad River Valley of Vermont. Formed in the fall of 2007 by three local environmentalists, Carbon Shredders dedicates its time to curbing local energy consumption, helping Vermonters lower their energy costs, and working towards a clean energy future. The group challenges participants to alter their lifestyles in ways consistent with the goal of reducing energy consumption. In March, three Vermont towns passed resolutions introduced by Carbon Shredders that call on residents and businesses to reduce their carbon footprint by 10 percent by 2010. In addition to the obvious environmental advantages, participating households will save $700 each year. Carbon Shredders' membership has grown considerably in Vermont since its founding, and this group is doing tremendous work in Vermont to lead us to a carbon-free economy.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, it is my great pleasure to pay special tribute to Mr. Nick Donofrio who is retiring after more than 40 years in various leadership capacities at the IBM Corporation. Nick Donofrio is an adopted son of the Green Mountain State. For many years, Nick led IBM's semiconductor development and manufacturing facility in Burlington and he and his wife, Anita, raised their two children, Nicole and Michael, in Vermont. Nick joined IBM in 1967 and spent the early part of his career in integrated circuit and chip development, as a designer of logic and memory chips. He held numerous technical management positions and, later, executive positions in several of IBM's product divisions. He has led many of IBM's major development and manufacturing teams--from semiconductor and storage technologies, to microprocessors and personal computers, to IBM's entire family of servers. Nick has always been a champion for innovation across IBM and its global ecosystem. He has been the leader of IBM's global technology strategy. In addition to his strategic business mission, Nick has led the development and retention of IBM's technical population and strives to enrich that community with a diversity of culture and thought. Nick has been focused sharply on advancing education, employment and career opportunities for under represented minorities and women--all issues of great importance to me as well. He served for many years on the Board of Directors for the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering (NACME). He has served on the Board of Directors for INROADS, a non-profit organization focused on the training and development of talented minority youth for professional careers in business and industry, and he is co-chair of the New York Hall of Science. A fellow Italian-American, Nick was awarded the prestigious 2007 National Education and Leadership Award from the Sons of Italy Foundation. He is the holder of seven technology patents and is a member of numerous technical and science honor societies. In 2002, Nick was recognized by Europe's Institution of Electrical Engineers with the Mensforth International Gold Medal for outstanding contributions to the advancement of manufacturing engineering. In 2003, he was named Industry Week magazine's Technology Leader of the Year, the University of Arizona's Technical Executive of the Year, and was presented with the Rodney D. Chipp Memorial Award by the Society of Women Engineers for his outstanding contributions to the advancement of women in the engineering field. In 2005, Nick was elected a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, he was presented with Syracuse University's highest alumni honor--the George Arents Pioneer Medal, and he was honored by CNBC with its Overall Technology Leadership Award. Madam Speaker, please join me in congratulating Nick Donofrio, as he begins a new exciting chapter in his life.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Chairman, I salute you for the work you have been doing on this issue and the issue of equality for women and the issue of equality for all people, and I salute Chairman Miller for his work in Congress, for being on the verge of passing this legislation. You know, it is truly shocking that we have a situation where there is a difference in pay depending on whether you are a man or a woman. You have heard the statistics. But what is even more shocking is we had a Supreme Court that probably when history is written, its most shameful decision will be denying relief to a woman on the basis of a claim that she did not know existed. The Supreme Court said that when this person had been discriminated against for years and didn't know about it, it was the burden on her to know about something that was actively being hidden from her by her employer. It is a shocking decision by our United States Supreme Court, and this Congress has an opportunity to overturn that. H.R. 1338 is going to address that loophole. The wage gap that strikes women immediately upon entering the workforce is bad, and it gets worse. Ten years after college, women earn only 69 percent of what men do. The wage gap adds up quickly over the course of a career, $400,000 to $2 million over a lifetime. This discrimination can cost women security and retirement. Older women are less likely than older men to receive pension income, and when they do, they only receive about one-half the benefits that men do. It can cost a woman half their pension that would be comparable for a man. Because of the wage gap, more women than men experience poverty or teeter on the edge of poverty. Seventy percent of older Americans living in poverty are women, and that is directly as a result of wage discrimination. The hope of the American Dream is that people who work hard will get ahead regardless of their gender, regardless of their race, regardless of their national origin, and it is the challenge of this Congress being met by the promise of this legislation to make that American dream of equality of opportunity available to all people and to absolutely prohibit discrimination in wages solely on the basis of the gender of the person doing the work. H.R. 1338 has 230 cosponsors. It is also supported by major women's and workers' rights advocates, including the National Committee on Pay Equity and the National Women's Law Center. I ask for a ``yes'' vote and unanimous passage by the House of Representatives.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today in celebration of the 90th birthday of a well-known Vermont establishment, the Wayside Restaurant and Bakery. Located on the town line of Berlin and the city of Montpelier, the Wayside was built and opened in the summer of 1918 by the Ballou family. Located on Route 302, the Wayside has offered a convenient stopping place for travelers and locals alike for generations. When the Wayside was first opened, it did not offer a dine-in service, but rather functioned as a take-out restaurant. The size of the Wayside has grown considerably since 1918, and the restaurant now boasts a 160-seat dining room and a kitchen of equal size. Nearly all of the Wayside's food--including its renowned breads and desserts--are homemade, and produce from local farms is frequently used. The menu features traditional Vermont dishes like salt pork and chicken pie, and a wide-range of other country favorites. Serving an average of 1,000 customers each day, the Wayside caters to a diverse clientele. Primarily a place for local Vermonters to enjoy good company and food at affordable prices, the Wayside also attracts legislators, state employees, and tourists. The parking lot is always full, and for weekend brunch, the line runs out the door. Yet despite its incredible popularity, the restaurant maintains a relaxed and authentic atmosphere. Though recognized nationally by publications such as the New York Times and Gourmet Magazine, the Wayside remains a locally-oriented restaurant, embracing the surrounding community. When the Red Sox won the 2004 World Series, the Wayside's current owners, Karen and Brian Zecchinelli, joined in the local celebration by hosting a rally and rolling back prices to 1918. More than 3,000 customers visited the Wayside for the festivities. It is a true fixture in Central Vermont. I would like to thank Karen and Brian Zecchinelli for continuing to provide the Vermont community with exceptional food, service, and atmosphere. The Wayside is a wonderful Vermont institution. Congratulations to the Wayside on its 90th birthday. May it continue to serve our community for another 90 years.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the chairman, Mr. Peterson, and the ranking member, Mr. Goodlatte, for doing the usual bipartisan work to address a problem in a practical way. The question that they faced is this: Will the futures market be one that is dedicated to price efficiency or will it be hijacked for speculative market manipulation? Will the futures markets serve the needs of those who need it--airliners, fuel dealers, truckers--or will it be in service of financial speculators who, moment to moment, are trying to take advantage of the volatility at the expense of the American consumer? This legislation strikes a balance. It sends a clear message that the markets should be about price efficiency, not short-term momentary advantage when the consequence is inflicting damage on the American family, the American small business, the American economy. There are practical steps in here--overseeing offshore trading, position limits, over-the-counter trading regulations. These are things that should be done and are being done.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, it is my great pleasure to pay tribute to Mr. Nick Donofrio who is retiring after 40 years of serving the IBM Corporation. Nick has led many of IBM's major development and manufacturing teams, semiconductor and storage technologies, microprocessors, and personal computer servers. He's led the semiconductor development and manufacturing facility in Burlington, where he and his wife, Anita, raised two children, Nicole and Michael. Throughout his career, Nick has focused sharply on advancing education, employment, and career opportunities for underrepresented minorities and women. He served on boards in Vermont. He's received national awards, well- deserved, for his leadership. The National Education and Leadership Award from the Sons of Italy Foundation; the Mensforth International Gold Medal; Industry Week magazine's Technology Leader of the Year; the University of Arizona's Technical Executive of the Year; and the Rodney D. Chipp Memorial Award by the Society of Women Engineers for his outstanding contributions to the advancement of women in the engineering field. In 2005, Nick was elected a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Please join me in congratulating him on the beginning of his new career.