Peter Welch

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. No, I won't. In reality, if there was full production on all the areas under lease, it could produce 4.8 million barrels of oil a day.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I am going to take my time. Thank you.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That could produce 4.8 million barrels of oil a day. Yet the oil companies are not drilling where they have leases to do so. Instead, we are turning this argument into the prospect that we may be able to drill in the future on other places where there aren't leases, waiving away what will be the long-term problems of trying to make that come online, and the fact that it would probably save about a penny and a half a gallon in 10 to 20 years. That is not fair, direct honesty in the debate for the American people.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank the gentleman, but I intend to finish. I control the time.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank my colleague from Florida, and I admire her leadership on energy issues, among many other issues. Madam Speaker, I would like to speak about two things. One is an amendment that I offered to this bill that's been incorporated into the manager's amendment. This bill recognizes that one of the steps that we have to take, long overdue, is to build up our public transportation system. It's going to provide relief to commuters; it's going to help our environment; it's going to create jobs. The amendment that I offered and that Mr. Oberstar incorporated into the manager's amendment would allow funds to be used by local transportation authorities, like the Chittenden County Transportation Authority, to retrofit their equipment and facilities in order to improve energy efficiency and to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Those would be specific purposes for which authorized funds may be used. Specifically, it means that an organization like the Chittenden County Transit Authority in the Burlington area could retrofit their buses and be more fuel efficient. They've been trying to do that. A shortage of funds has kept them from achieving all of their goals. It would also allow the transportation authority in that State and in other States to build a natural gas pump station locally. This, we believe, is a very important part of the legislation presented to you. Second, we're having, in the process of this debate, an ongoing discussion about energy. The fact is--and I think we all know this--in the past when we've had crises around energy, it has never produced a lasting and durable response. There has been an immediate response but nothing lasting, whether it was after the OPEC organization in the early '70s, after the Gulf war or after Katrina. Usually, a crisis does produce a response. It hasn't. We know the time has passed as to when we can look the other way. What accounts for the high cost of energy? The reality is there are a number of factors. The weak dollar is one, because of our current account deficit. Speculation is another. There has been a massive increase in speculation in the commodities markets in general, in oil in particular, where it's gone from folks who are delivering the product or who are receiving the product, to financial speculators who see that there is money in playing that game. There has also been an increased demand with globalization. China and India are building their economies. They're using more energy. But there has also been a significant failure of leadership to move us away from an oil-dependent economy. The reality is, what we need to be doing here in Congress is addressing both the short-term steps that we can take as well as the long-term need for a new energy policy. So what are the specific things that we can do in the short term? One, we can stop filling up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and diminish demand. We've done that. That will have a positive impact in reducing demand. Second, we can limit speculation. We should be putting limits on how much the speculative players can influence price, not only because there is significant expert testimony that that is adding a premium to the cost of a gallon of gas or to a gallon of home heating fuel, but that it also is creating a potential bubble where innocent participants and pension funds may see the value of their assets suddenly diminish when the market goes south. So we will be considering later anti-speculation legislation that will be helpful as well. Third, the ``Use It or Lose It'' legislation. Our friends on the other side have been making a big argument about the need to increase production. You know, there is not any disagreement here that part of our transition from an oil-based economy to a carbon-free economy has to include the continued production and use of carbon-based fuels, including oil. No question about it. The issue here is whether or not we need to increase lands that are available when we have 68 million acres already under lease, permitted, where all the oil companies need to do in order to produce more oil is to put metal to the Earth. This is 68 million acres, Madam Speaker, as you know, that is both onshore and offshore. So the argument is that we need to be opening up a national park and starting to drill there or into other coastal areas when we have 68 million acres already available, but for reasons that only the oil companies--the leaseholders--are aware, those are not producing needed oil and natural gas for our citizens. It's estimated that the amount of oil that's available under those 68 million acres is 4.8 million barrels.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. So what we need to do that also is a long-term energy policy is to increase mileage standards and take away the tax breaks that are going to the oil companies and steer them to alternative agency. Incidentally, ExxonMobil, which made $40 billion this year, spent $32 billion buying its stock back rather than producing oil on these leaseholds. We also have to have a new energy policy so we can keep our money at home. We're sending $1 trillion to the oil-producing states like Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, not particularly our friends. If we keep that money at home, we're going to strengthen our economy.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, as has been said, there's a number of causes for the high price in gasoline: a weak dollar, increasing demand from around the world, the failure of leadership to move into alternative energy policies. We have to focus on all of them. But one of the reasons is rampant speculation, and the question is, will we try to squeeze the speculator or will we allow speculation to continue to squeeze the consumer? This is a first step, where we're telling the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to do its job, determine the facts, make specific recommendations and actions on how to protect us, and incidentally, many innocent Americans have pension fund investments that are pouring into the speculative market.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Texas characterizes a bill that will provide tax relief to 25 million Americans as a tax increase, and it is just flat out wrong. There are 25 million Americans. These are folks who earn between $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 a year, who, if we do not pass this legislation, will find themselves essentially being the target of legislation that was intended in 1969 to have millionaires pay their fair share. We are talking about soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who get a job as a police officer or as a carpenter. We are talking about some our school teachers all across the country. We are talking about sanitation workers who are struggling hard on $40,000 or $50,000 a year, oftentimes with two people in that family who are working, raising three or four kids. We are saying in this legislation that we are going to protect you, because we know you need to have that money to pay your bills. We also have to level with the American people. This is going to be $61 billion in tax relief for those incredibly hard-working Americans who are getting clobbered by these $4-plus gas prices. They can't fill up their tank. They have got cars or SUVs or trucks that they have to drive, and they don't have the money to get something that is a little bit more fuel efficient. A lot of them have long commutes. This legislation is going to give them the opportunity to keep a little bit more money in their pocket so they can make it from one end of the week to the other and can pay their bills. Now, the question is for this Congress, do we pay for it, or do we put it on the credit card? As to what my friend from Texas is characterizing as a tax increase, let me go through it, because I think Americans have a commitment to fairness, and I think Americans know a very commonsense proposition, and that is we have all got to bear the burden. We all have to pay our share of the load. There are two very glaring situations in the Tax Code, and attention should be paid to them, and it is overdue. One is this hedge fund exemption, where folks who make an awful lot of money pay at a capital gains rate. What is unfair about it? If you are a financial advisor, if you or I ask someone to help us figure how to invest our money, we pay them a fee, and of whatever earnings they get, they pay a regular tax rate just like any other American. Whatever that rate is--15, 20, 35 percent--that is what they pay. If you are a hedge fund executive and you make billions, because of this provision in the Tax Code, which I am calling a loophole, they get to pay at a 15 percent rate. That is costing the treasury billions of dollars, and it is also a glaring unfairness, because you literally have a situation where the hedge fund manager who is doing the same work as another financial advisor down the street pays one rate, 15 percent, while the other person doing the same work, working just as hard but who is perhaps making less money, pays 35 percent. You also have this bizarre situation where the person making this immense amount of money pays a much lower tax rate than the secretary, than the back office help in that very same firm. I think most Americans see a basic fairness, and let's have the income tax rate apply to earned income. That is what this provision does. The second question is on the oil company exemption, and I am using the word ``loophole.'' What is a ``loophole''? I think, commonly, you know it when you see it. What a ``loophole'' is in this case is giving taxpayer benefit to very successful companies that do very well in what they do--explore for oil, sell it. We are taking money from the taxpayers of America to give it to major American and foreign oil companies. These are mature industries that are making hundreds of billions of dollars, and they don't need taxpayer help. So this legislation provides 25 million Americans with tax relief, and it is the folks who need it. It asks other Americans, the hedge fund executives, to pay at the income tax rate, and it has oil companies foregoing what has been an incredibly good deal--tax credits that they get at the expense of the American taxpayer. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). 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 1297 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1297 provides for consideration of H.R. 6275, the Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008, under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, controlled by the Committee on Ways and Means. As Americans know, the alternative minimum tax was enacted in 1969 with a very legitimate intent: to ensure fairness in our tax system by avoiding the situation where very wealthy individuals don't pay taxes and to close loopholes. It is in the same spirit of fairness that we consider legislation today that will keep the middle class out of being hit by the alternative minimum tax when it was never intended that they would be caught up in its web and who have been because of inflation and because of no adjustments in the Tax Code. The Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008 will provide, one, 25 million Americans with over $61 billion in tax relief. Two, it offers property tax relief to homeowners and expands the child and adoption credits to parents. Nearly 50,000 families in my own State of Vermont, Mr. Speaker, will see tax relief from this legislation. However, in order for the tax relief to be fair, we have to ensure that the cost of the tax relief is not simply passed on, the credit card debt, to our children, and we have already saddled the next generation with $9 trillion in debt, costing us $1 billion a day in interest payments, money that could be spent on other, much more productive things. Enacting an AMT patch today when we don't pay for it would simply shift that $62 billion burden from the middle class on to their children and their grandchildren. What we fail to pay today they will be forced to pay tomorrow with interest. Furthermore, we do pay for this tax relief by improving the Tax Code. With the bill's offsets, we are closing two very large tax loopholes, one that has benefited very wealthy hedge fund managers at the expense of middle class taxpayers, and let me talk about that first. The ``carried-interest'' loophole. It is a preferential rate of capital gains tax, a 15 percent rate that gets applied to income earned by many people who do financial work. Right now, under current law, the income earned by many investment fund managers at a private equity firm, and hedge funds, are taxed at the lower capital gains tax rate. So you have this very unjustified situation where some of these folks who are making, in some cases, billions of dollars, pay a tax rate lower than the secretaries who work in their firms, and they do this when they don't actually put their capital at risk but manage the capital of others. A second loophole that is closed in this bill stops major oil companies from receiving what is called a special domestic production subsidy through the Tax Code. As we all know, record gas prices, the record cost of a barrel of oil is resulting in oil company profits that are unparalleled in the history of this country, in some cases, as high as $11 billion in a single 3-month period. So it's clear that those companies are doing very well and that they do not need continued taxpayer assistance. I commend Chairman Rangel and Chairman Neal and the Committee on Ways and Means for their excellent work on this legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker on our side. I will reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman from Texas has an opportunity to close.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1692, a bill to grant a Federal charter to the Korean War Veterans Association. Just a few short years after World War II, our government again called on hundreds of thousands of Americans to serve their country in a distant conflict. Over 1,700,000 American soldiers were sent halfway around the world to fight a Communist threat in Korea. Over 40,000 would never return--giving their lives on the battlefield or going missing to this day. Another 100,000 were wounded. Today, my state of Vermont alone is home to almost 10,000 Korean War veterans. The Korean War Veterans Association exists to remember those lost, to honor the service of the thousands of living veterans, and to support Korean freedom. For over six years, the organization has fought for Federal recognition. The Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion, and the Vietnam Veterans of America have received a Federal charter, but up until this point veterans of the Korean War could not claim this honor. H.R. 1692 finally remedies this. Under the charter provided in this bill, the Korean War Veterans Association will provide assistance to veterans of the Korean War and to all those who have subsequently served there, including helping those men and women receive the veterans benefits they have earned. The organization will also preserve the camaraderie forged between those who served, and honor the memory of those fallen. It is my great pleasure to support this well-deserved charter.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Guam. It's probably appropriate that we're here saluting the American eagle because if there is anything that the American eagle represents, it's the spirit of American independence, American self-reliance, American strength. In the debate we're having today about the resolution honoring the American eagle, I don't want to say the energy debate has hijacked it because in many ways, it's quite relevant. The fundamental question that this country must decide is whether we will pursue a path of energy independence or continue to go hat-in-hand to the oil-exporting countries to try to solve our problems. Some of you may remember, which for me was the most vivid representation of the American energy policy, and that was a picture on the front page of the New York Times a couple of years ago, when the President of the United States went to Saudi Arabia, and hand-in-hand, as is the custom in many of the Middle East countries, President Bush and the Saudi prince walked in to have a private conversation about America's oil future. And what was going on there was not the spirit of American independence represented by the eagle. It was a spirit of capitulation where our President was imploring a foreign country to solve the problems that we face. A confident country, an energetic country solves its own problems. It doesn't look to others to help solve those problems. It takes on the challenge. Energy is a big challenge. It takes on the challenge of solving those problems on its own. And that's the question that this Congress faces: Will we have the self-confidence of a vigorous and strong Nation to chart a course of energy independence? Now we're hearing arguments that the problem we face can be solved by drilling our way out of it, and of course, that's an argument that has been pursued vigorously since we discovered oil. But you know, there's enormous evidence that allows us to take a look at this proposition. Will more permits to drill, will more drilling reduce the cost of oil? And I have here, Mr. Speaker, a chart. The first chart shows the number of wells. The number in red here, we've got the number of leases, and in this blue, we have the number of wells. Starting in 1994, there's been a steady increase of the number of leases and a steady increase in the wells drilled. And step by step by step, as leases and as drilling has increased, so has the price of a gallon of gas, from $1 up to about $4 a gallon today. So reasonable people would step back and ponder the question, whether more drilling and more leases results in lower prices. History shows us, in nearly the past 20 years, that is simply not the case. The other proposition is that the problem is the Federal Government is denying leases to the oil companies so that they can't do drilling, and the evidence is overwhelming that's simply not the case. This chart, the second chart, shows on a pie chart, the whole circle there is the land that is available for leasing. And the green is all that's available, and the red here, or orange, is all that is open for leasing. Pardon me, I have it the opposite way around. But of all of the land open and available for leasing, 79 percent is open and subject to exploitation and exploration by our oil companies. Only 21 percent is off limits. Yet, of this land where the oil companies have leases, 68 million acres where they can put metal to the ground is not under production, and there's no effort to put it under production. My friends on the other side have argued that the oil companies have to go through certain environmental permits. I'm not sure you're right about that because much of that work has been done. Assuming that is the case, that's no different than what has been the requirement for the production of oil on federally-owned lands. You know, there are many people who are asking the question as to whether the fix is in for the oil companies, and there's overwhelming evidence, in fact, that it is. Number one, the amount of speculation that now is core to the energy future trading markets is inflating the price at the pump, inflating the price of home heating fuel. How did that happen? Thanks to Congress. In 2002, under the Tom DeLay Congress, the Enron loophole was passed at the request of that great company, Enron, that did so much for America's energy situation. Enron passed a loophole that took away any kind of regulatory oversight of the energy future trading market, and it led directly and immediately to an explosion in speculation. Hedge funds, private investors, folks who saw that they could make a lot of money on the misery of a lot of people rushed into the speculation in the oil energy markets. Now, that's wrong. There should be no speculative premium that comes at the expense of American consumers, folks trying to heat their home, small businesses trying to run a business. This Congress has had an opportunity to get rid of that Enron loophole. House Democrats have passed legislation. It hasn't gotten through because of opposition on the other side, either in the Senate or the consistent opposition of the President of the United States. So what can we do if you want to be independent? One, we can get rid of the Enron loophole, wholly and completely. The second thing is that the energy companies, in fact, are hording leases, and that's a fact. There's an enormous push on this Congress to open up ANWR, and the argument is made and it has a surface appeal that if you open up ANWR, then it is going to mean a reduction in prices because the supply will go up and demand will go down. A couple of problems with it. First and foremost, the oil companies have leases on 68 million acres. They're not exploiting them. Why? We don't know exactly why because they won't say. They will come in, raise their hand, take an oath, acknowledge that they're paying their executives 10s of millions of dollars, acknowledging that when one executive was retiring he was given a $400 million payday to say good- bye, but they won't tell us why they're not putting drill bits to earth to exploit the leases they have. But you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what the motive may be. If they keep that lease and the oil or the natural gas sits in the ground and it goes from $28 to $48 to $68 to $134 a barrel, that's sound money for those companies, and it will fatten the already extraordinary profits, $125 billion in profits for the oil companies last year, the big five oil companies. Second, oil companies push hard to bring online as much Federal land for leases as possible because the Big Oil companies have been extremely successful in crowding out some of our small, independent producers, and in fact, my view is that's a detriment and a reason why this 68 million acres aren't exploited. If you had smaller, more independent, hungry, energetic companies that had an opportunity to make good money at $134 a barrel, and they owned those leases, they'd be drilling. So what you have is a situation where the oil companies are doing quite fine, they really are, and the status quo serves them very well. What may not serve them so well is the self-confident Congress, the self-confident President saying, you know what, we're not going to play that game anymore. There are other ways. We're going to take away the tax breaks, about $13 billion that American taxpayers are turning over to our oil companies, and that, with all due respect, is just an astonishing public policy. Our folks are paying over $4 a gallon for gas. In my home State of Vermont, we're paying over $4.25, $4.40 for a gallon of home heating fuel, and taxpayers are paying the oil companies about $13 billion in tax breaks. That's your money and mine. It's hard to see how that's justified, but the oil companies are quite happy to take that taxpayer subsidy. But what they won't like is what the House is pushing, and that's a policy of energy independence, where we take those tax breaks, we steer them, as America has frequently done when there's something important for the American people, and it's taken a push from our taxpayers to get us over that initial technological hump, and that's having those tax breaks go as incentives to alternative energy sources, wind and solar, biofuels. You know, if we could step back a minute and take a look at some of our friends in Europe and the leadership they're taking because of self-interest, a recognition in Portugal that investing in alternative fuel is a way to strengthen the economy, or Germany, investing in solar, Germany has less sun than Vermont. And let me tell you, I'm here to tell you that Vermont doesn't have as much sun as we need and I want. They have less sun than we do, but they are leading in solar technology. So, the bottom line question is really very simple. Do we want leadership, as best exemplified by President Bush when he was with the Saudi prince, imploring the Saudi prince to rescue us from ourselves, or do we want leadership where we say we will take care of our own future, that particularly in face of what I think are unfounded arguments, that we can drill our way out, that Congress or the American government is an impediment to drilling that is available immediately for our oil and natural gas companies, and that there isn't supply that we can achieve through efficiency and alternative energy.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank my friend and fellow member of the Rules Committee for yielding me 2 minutes. Madam Speaker, this is really a very simple question, and it is whether we're going to extend unemployment benefits to American workers who are suffering the largest 1-month surge in increased unemployment in 22 years. And we can bring in all kinds of other arguments about what our energy policy should be, what the compensation should be, what the formulation of the benefits should be. But the bottom line is that we have Americans who have worked, and through no fault of their own, but because of economic forces completely and utterly beyond their control, they've lost their jobs. And when we have discussions about micromanaging how these go out, in lump sums or weekly payments, and we're talking about trying to give an incentive, it is, in my view, Madam Chairman, very patronizing. What is worse to an American than to lose his or her job? Most Americans find their sense of satisfaction and self-worth in taking care of their family, in being providers, and by being a good, productive worker. All of us who've had the opportunity to have a good job know that there's nothing better than that. So there is a lot of built-in incentive for any American who's without a job to get a job. But, in the meantime, $300 a week, that's about what the average benefit is, is barely enough to keep gas in the car, keep your home heated, to put groceries on the table. We know it's not even close to adequate. So there is plenty of incentive. And the question for us is not behavioral psycho dynamics. The question for us, as a Congress, is whether, when there is this largest spike in unemployment in 22 years, we're going to ignore it or we're going to respond. And we have the tool that was started in 1935 to respond, where workers and others put money into a fund that is to be used at times of stress.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just briefly close. Madam Chairman, there are two issues that have been debated during the course of this proposed amendment. One is what is the proper way to try to provide new supplies of oil. There is a debate here, as Mr. McKeon has outlined it, and it has been carried on in many other bills relating to energy, about the possibility of the United States drilling and capturing more oil and natural gas here in our own territorial boundaries. The premise, of course, is if we did that, we would be able significantly to address the problem, and it also has as a premise that the obstacles to drilling are what is causing us not to drill. In fact, that simply is not true. There are tens of millions of acres of federally owned land that are leased to the oil and gas companies, and only 28 percent of acres on shore and only 20 percent of the acres offshore where there actually are leases left are producing oil and gas. So there is an enormous capacity already that is out there for oil and gas companies to do the drilling. Why they don't, I guess we would have to ask them. But it is hard to imagine that there is a disincentive for them to take these leases that they have, giving them the opportunity to drill, when we have got oil that hovers around $130 a barrel. So the suggestion that that is the problem I think is incorrect. Secondly, the United States, and we have got to face this, we have 2 percent of the world's oil supply. That is it. Yet we consume 24 percent of the oil. So if we think that it is going to be a long-term approach to dealing with the increasing cost of oil when we are using 24 percent and we only have 2 percent of the known reserves, I think that is going to fall on its own weight. The second issue really is putting aside that debate about what is the long-term, shall we be drilling or not, it begs the question of whether shouldn't we be doing everything that is within our capacity right now to give tools to local communities to save money on their energy costs and don't make the policy argument about whether we should or shouldn't be drilling be an impediment to taking the concrete step that this bill proposes to give our schools the tools they need to save money. Let me just give you a couple of examples in Vermont. We have 32 schools that have transitioned to wood biomass. These are small schools, but they have saved over 1 million gallons of home heating oil. Home heating oil now in Vermont, the last bill I paid was $4.30 a gallon. That is over $4 million. That also, as my colleague Mr. Arcuri said, is a trifecta, because it reduced carbon emissions by 11,000 tons. It also provided jobs to local Vermonters who are providing the basic material that provided the energy to these schools. So this is an extraordinary incentive for our local schools to try to save money. That is a burden that is immense on the property taxpayers, and this is a practical piece of legislation that allows our communities and our schools to take positive steps to reduce the bottom line. I urge, along with my colleagues who have offered this amendment, led by Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter, a ``yes'' vote on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. As the designee of Ms. Shea-Porter of New Hampshire, I call up an amendment made in order by the rule.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. At this time I recognize the principal author of this amendment, Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter of New Hampshire.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank the gentleman. This war is the first time in American history when we have had tax cuts during a war. And if ever there is a moment in time when our country should be called upon to share a sacrifice, it is when we are sending our sons and daughters to war. This amendment calls the question, it says the obvious: We can't keep paying for this on a credit card. There are costs that are going to be paid not only by this generation, but by future generations. The President has put this war on the credit card, and the irony of that is that it is the sons and the daughters of the men and women who are fighting this war who are going to pay for this. It is time to be candid and honest with the American people.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank the gentleman from New York. The Israel amendment recognizes that we have a responsibility to the Iraqis who by helping us have put a bull's eye on their back. The interpreters every single day are in immense jeopardy. They have many people who, if their identity is determined, will kill them. But as aggressive as Mr. Israel is in promoting this amendment, he is really the second-most aggressive advocate. The most aggressive are our soldiers, who have benefited day in and day out from the services of people they have come to call their brothers. They want us to stand up for the people who have stood up for them. And do they need a job when they come here? Of course they do. This is about doing work so that they can maintain body and soul. It is also about them having work that can continue to help our men and women in uniform.