Peter Welch

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1103 provides for consideration of H.R. 2634, the Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Financial Services. The rule also makes in order four amendments printed in the Rules Committee report, each of which is debatable for 10 minutes. The rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Madam Speaker, structured, responsible debt relief has been proven to be one of the most effective methods of fighting global poverty. In 1996 the World Bank and the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, developed the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries, or HIPC, Initiative to provide debt relief to the world's most impoverished nations. The 28 countries that participated in this program have been spending the debt relief on good things in their country for the very poor people, on education and health. In the first 10 years of the program, the IMF and the World Bank provided $62 billion of debt relief, cutting the countries' debt by an average of two-thirds. The results speak for themselves. The participating countries now spend four times as much on health, education, and social services as they do on paying back debt. Tanzania, for instance, has used its money from debt cancellation to eliminate school fees for elementary school education. Think about it. The poorest countries, their kids were having to pay fees to go to elementary school, something that's not even required here, while Zambia eliminated fees for health care in rural areas. Multilateral efforts in Niger reduced debt from 76 percent of their gross domestic product, and think about that, 76 percent of the gross domestic product was used in debt relief, in 2002 to 14 percent in 2006. With that savings Niger has been able to make investments in health and education. They've reduced the infant mortality rate, cut it in half. Primary school completion has increased from 16 to 28 percent, and access to drinkable water increased from 40 percent for the people in Niger to 69 percent. The bill that this rule will bring to the floor today will build on this record of quantifiable success to expand efforts to reduce the debts owed by impoverished nations. This legislation makes debt forgiveness immediately possible for nine countries that meet the standards of the Jubilee Act. This is not a giveaway program. These nations are among the poorest in the world with per capita incomes of less than $3 a day, $1,065 a year. Countries initially eligible under this legislation for debt relief would include Cape Verde, Georgia, Kenya, Mongolia and Vietnam. But as I mentioned, the Jubilee Act does not give countries that borrowed money a free ride with debt forgiveness. It includes strict parameters to ensure that the participating countries: one, have transparent and effective budget processes; two, do not support terrorism; three, cooperate in international counternarcotic efforts; and, four, uphold human rights standards. In addition, funds made available as a result of loan forgiveness must be directed toward antipoverty programs, and countries must publish an annual report to be accountable on how those funds were spent. These criteria ensure the loan forgiveness funds are used wisely and well. They provide an incentive for noneligible countries to reduce corruption and improve human rights practices so they may, one day, become eligible for debt forgiveness. Fifteen additional countries, including Bangladesh, Nigeria and Zimbabwe would be eligible for debt cancellation upon making required reforms. This is the brand of leadership that America needs more of where we are doing our share, but we are working with our allies and where we are using the incentive of debt forgiveness. Many of these debts, incidentally, were taken by kleptocrats who formerly ruled in these countries, and now these countries are trying to free themselves of the yoke of this terrible leadership. This debt forgiveness program allows us, working with our allies, the IMF and the World Bank, to give them a boost. Finally, Madam Speaker, it must be noted that because the international financial institutions like the World Bank and the IMF are expected to pay the bulk of the debt relief, the tremendous improvements that can be achieved under this bill come at a very reasonable cost to the U.S. taxpayer. The cost of America canceling bilateral debt for the countries initially eligible is estimated to be $197 million. That is less than what we spend for 14 hours in Iraq, just to put it in perspective. However, this bill does not actually authorize any debt cancellation. It authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to enter into negotiations to cancel debt. Any debt cancellation agreement reached by the Secretary returns to Congress for our approval. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has scored this legislation at no cost to the taxpayers. Debt reduction has been proven to be one of the most effective, both cost effective and socially effective, ways to achieve significant reductions in global poverty. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I am the last speaker on our side.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I want to point out a couple of things. Number one, this legislation comes to you with bipartisan support from the Financial Services Committee. There was a recognition on that committee between the members on the majority and the members on the minority that this Congress had an opportunity to do something concrete, something practical, to help the most impoverished countries in this world. This legislation is practical. It is going to give relief that translates into higher literacy rates, lower infant mortality rates and better access to education, and it is done at very modest expense to the American taxpayer. It also is America working with other countries and with international institutions, the IMF and the World Bank, to have a positive influence in foreign policy. It makes sense. It is bipartisan. It should be done. I have to say I disagree with the suggestion of my good friend from Texas that we essentially transform this into a debate about extending the Bush tax cuts. That is a refrain we are hearing constantly that is brought up as a way of taking attention off of the things that we can do immediately in the legislation that is before us. The fact of the matter is that what we have seen in the past few years under the fiscal leadership of the Bush administration is we have gone from a record surplus to a record deficit. We have gone from a point of paying down our national debt to increasing it to close to $7 trillion. The reality is that this legislation is about one thing and one thing only: It is about helping countries where the daily income of its citizens is on average $3 a day. That is what it is. We can decide that we are going to take concrete action to help those countries move ahead, or use this as an opportunity to engage in a debate about whether to extend tax cuts, as is being requested by the gentleman. So, Madam Speaker, by passing this proposed rule and this bill for which it provides consideration, Congress can build on this immensely successful debt relief effort we have had on a bipartisan basis and started more than a decade ago to provide relief for the world's poorest countries. It is an essential tool in the fight on the war on poverty. Incidentally, it is money well spent. Much less of our money and the money of our allies is spent than when we have to engage in military conflict. The legislation represents what I believe should be the face of American leadership around the globe. I believe the sponsors of this legislation believe it will make the world a better place and make the world safer and more stable. This is a good bill, a bipartisan bill. It enjoys the support not only of Chairman Frank and Chairwoman Waters, but of their Republican counterparts on the committee, our colleagues Congressman Bachus and Congresswoman Biggert. That is why I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished Chair. There is a fundamental issue that we face in this rule, and it is this: Does Congress cede its authority under the Constitution to the executive, or does it exercise it? Mr. Speaker, from a distance--I have only been here a little over a year--I watched with dismay as a citizen, seeing Congress year after year relinquish its authority, turn that over to the executive, not do its job of accountability and oversight, not do its job on trade, essentially not exercise the constitutional authority that we are custodians of, each and every one of the 435 Members who have been elected. The President exercised his prerogative under a rule that was enacted by this House in 1974, but against the advice of the Speaker and against the advice of the Senate majority leader. The President did what he could do, and that is send over on his own timetable a trade agreement when it wasn't ready to be considered. And the Speaker, in her judgment, and I support this, stood up for the prerogatives of this legislative branch, where we have the responsibility to be the final voice of the people who sent us here. The bottom line question is: Will Congress assert the authority that it has under the Constitution? We can exercise it. The best circumstances, we do it in cooperation and in consultation with the executive. But if it is unilateral, a my- way-or-the-highway approach that has been so often employed by this chief executive, then it becomes incumbent upon us to stand up and assert the constitutional responsibility we have.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Guam, my cosponsor and traveling companion, the new Member, the distinguished Member already from Virginia, my cosponsors. You know, they have said it pretty well. There's nothing that we can say or do that will acknowledge our appreciation for the sacrifice that the men and women of the uniformed services have given to this country. What we are acknowledging here is that we have a common commitment to meeting the needs of those soldiers and sailors and airmen who return from active duty. What we are also acknowledging is that in this war, very much unlike past conflicts, our soldiers, benefiting from this extraordinary battlefield medicine, are returning with extraordinary injuries. That is what they will have to live with for the rest of their lives. Many of us have had the opportunity to visit some of these soldiers out at Bethesda, out at Walter Reed. We are trying, in this small gesture, to acknowledge the sense that all of us have in Congress of our debt and our obligation and our appreciation to them. Madam Speaker, next week, we are going to have a group of these servicemen and -women visiting us in the Capitol. I'm going to be joining with my colleagues here today to welcome those men and women of the uniformed services to this Capitol, and I will encourage all of us to join in welcoming them personally to thank them for their sacrifice.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, there's a new regulation that was in the process of being promulgated that did a practical and sensible thing for taxpayers: it required contractors who receive over $5 million of taxpayer money to report fraud when they are aware it happened. At the last minute, there was an exemption that was put in so that foreign contracts were not subject to taxpayer protection. That makes no sense and flies in the face of reason. By exempting overseas contracts, and this is Iraq and Afghanistan particularly, the Bush administration is sending an unambiguous message: it's okay to rip off taxpayers when you spend money abroad; just don't do it at home. Not only must we stop this reckless rule, but we must have answers: What was the rationale for the loophole? How did the loophole get slipped into the proposed rule? And who advocated for it? Through a thorough investigation, we will stop this rule and get some answers.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Chairman, I believe you spoke for all of us on our side in putting in context the basis of this budget and the arguments of our friends on the other side. I want to just add a few things about what this budget really is ultimately about. It's about real people, with real lives and real challenges, and the fundamental responsibilities of a governing body are to meet a budget and present a budget that meets the needs of its people. I want to tell a couple of stories about folks from Vermont. Scott West, a veteran, of the National Guard, he lives in the town of Albany, in the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont. He used to drive a truck for a living before he went to Iraq. While he was deployed over in Kuwait in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom he suffered very serious injuries to his shoulder, back and wrist. In May the pain from his injuries got so bad he was no longer able to do his job as a truck driver. Nearly 9 months ago, Mr. West filed a claim for increased disability compensation from the VA. As of today, he has yet to have a hearing. Now, the budget that we presented last year and passed, because you had foresight, has finally put in place new people to adjust these claims. We have got 1,800 new claims processors who are now going to help ensure that veterans like Scott will receive the support that they deserve in a timely manner. I thank you for your leadership. That's the meaning of this budget to a man from Albany, and it's going to make a real difference to his family. Peter and Irma McShane, they live in the southern Vermont town of Pownal. They are senior citizens. They live on $1,452 a month, so you can imagine how hard it is for them to make ends meet. Now it turns out that's $22 more than would be available if they were going to be eligible for food stamps. So they have to scrimp and save every way they can. They get hit with this huge fuel bill. We have had a cold winter in Vermont. The budget presented by the administration cut low-income heating assistance. The budget that the committee is presenting tries to protect that, and it is absolutely indispensable to families like Peter and Irma McShane that they have the ability to heat their homes and not have to make a choice between medication and heat, between food and heat. This budget recognizes that. I want to also share a letter I received from a couple from Fletcher, Vermont, in northern Vermont. Margaret Kinne and her husband. They are talking about the rising cost of health care. They have worked in a woodworking business for 13 years, often 6 or 7 days a week. They don't complain about that. They like to work hard. But their insurance has gotten increasingly expensive and now their deductibles have gone from $5,000 to $10,000 to $25,000. What they wrote to me is this, this translates to me to no insurance. The administration budget would cause over a half a trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid that would increase the cost shift and make that unaffordable insurance even more out of reach of this family. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the tremendous work that you have done in putting together a very good budget in very tough times.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, the basic question that we face in America is the basic question we face in Congress, and that is, are we going to turn the page on a fossil fuel-based energy policy that needs to change? Are we going to embrace an alternative energy policy that is going to allow us: A, to protect our environment; B, to create jobs; and C, to give us much more flexibility and independence in foreign policy? This legislation is a step along the road of a new energy policy and a new future for this country. This is not just something that is going to do the things other speakers have spoken about, but it is a partnership with our States. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Vermont Senate approved a very wide- ranging energy bill that's going to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency. The bill that we pass today will partner with that bill and work its way through the Vermont legislature by providing tax incentives that will stimulate a growing market all around the State and the country. This legislation is going to provide up to $3.6 billion in interest-free financing to help our State and our local governments finance environmental conservation and efficiency programs. We all have our positions on how this affects oil. Oil is doing pretty well, $100 a gallon. Consumers aren't. We are looking for ways to provide relief, but we are looking for ways to protect our environment at the same time. What this legislation embodies is a confidence that we have the technology and the intellectual strength in this country to forge a new energy policy that is renewable, that in the process can create jobs and work well with our States who are often ahead of us here on providing that leadership.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, Vermont is proud to welcome General Miroslav Stojanovski, Chief of Staff of the Army of the Republic of Macedonia. General Stojanovski's visit is the latest step in a long history of partnership between Vermont and Macedonia. Established in 1995 through the State Partnership Program of the U.S.-European Command, the partnership began as primarily a military- to-military relationship between the Macedonian Army and the Vermont National Guard. This military partnership has resulted in over 540 joint events that have included over 6,000 members of the Macedonian Army. In September 2006, Vermont National Guard troops and their Macedonian Army counterparts carried out a major, 2-week-long, small- unit exchange exercise to support the professionalization of the Macedonian military in its transformation to meet NATO interoperability standards. Vermonters' engagement with Macedonia has expanded into civil affairs as well, including the establishment of university partnerships, economic development discussions, and support for the Macedonian youth baseball organization. In May 2007, the University of Vermont signed an agreement with the SS Cyril and Methodius University to promote collaborative scientific research, joint conferences and workshops, and faculty and student exchanges. Vermonters have also played an important role in bringing baseball, our national pastime, to Macedonia. C.J. Knudsen, the general manager of the Vermont Lake Monsters minor league baseball team traveled to Macedonia to deliver gloves, balls, bats, uniforms, and other equipment to help start the country's first little league. Macedonia has made incredible strides since its independence in 1991, achieving membership in the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the World Trade Organization, and to NATO's Partnership for Peace and Membership Action Plan. Macedonia is a candidate for European Union membership and may soon be invited as a full member of NATO, hopefully as soon as April of this year. I look forward to the continued strengthening of the United States and especially Vermont's partnership with the Republic of Macedonia.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield to the chairman such time as he may consume.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Chairman, as we know on a bipartisan basis, the cost of college is skyrocketing, and it is putting in jeopardy access to college and achievement of the American Dream for kids across this entire country. The Education and Labor Committee has taken a number of very concrete steps to try to address that. And this Congress passed a major increase in financial aid, $17 billion, over 5 years. Over the last 10 years, student aid has increased from $37 billion to $86 billion. But every time we raise a dollar in financial aid, if it is a dollar increased in tuition that is burned away, the students are continuing to graduate and swim in a sea of debt. So if we are going to continue on this effort and be successful in making college affordable for average kids wanting to achieve the American Dream, we have to work on both sides of the equation. We have to address the financial aid side, which we are doing our best to do, and do it in the context of enormous budgetary pressures, and we also have to do it on the cost side. And we have to look to our university administrators to work with us to do everything that is possible to constrain the ever-rising cost of college education. Many kids now are graduating with a debt that is equivalent to what was the mortgage on the first house that I bought, and they don't have the home. They do have the education. This amendment is very simple. It would require colleges and universities to annually report to the Department of Education on how much of their endowment was spent each year for the purpose of containing college cost, including tuition, fees, textbooks, meals, and room and board. And it would provide Congress really with much-needed information, the same information that goes to the trustees, so it is not in any way a significant burden. We have to work together if we are going to be successful in containing costs. And we have to acknowledge that we have to work on that cost side as well as on the financial aid side. So this amendment would give us information to work with colleges in trying to achieve that goal to maintain cost affordability for our kids. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Thank you. I have been listening, partly presiding, but I have been thinking about this question of why is it there is such a sense that we need to do something called a stimulus package, where we are talking about $100 billion going into an economy that is $14 trillion, and it's a modest amount. Why is it that there is such a sense that this stimulus is needed when in fact, by historical standards, unemployment is actually relatively low. We had bad news. It went from 4.7 to 5 percent. But the historical average is well above 5 percent. The reason there is such anxiety is the reasons my friend from Kentucky and all of you have mentioned, that this has not been a rising tide that lifts all boats. Most people, even those who are employed, have not had wages that have come close to keeping up with their bills, and that has been intensified, of course, with energy, buying gas, buying home heating fuel, paying for your college education for your kids, and medical bills. The story that the Speaker told about that young family with medical bills is painful, but it's true. So what you have had is this economy that is simply not working for average people. So what do we have an opportunity to do? A stimulus package is something that is concrete. We don't offer it as something that is going to ``solve'' the problem, but it is going to show that there's a cop on the beat. And there is an opportunity, by following the advice of economists across the spectrum, from conservative to liberal, that say that in a time of declining incomes, a stimulus is a mainstream Keynesian approach to giving a shot in the arm to the economy and a boost in confidence. Now, we do that and do it quickly, hopefully in the next 2 weeks, and we do it together with our colleagues. It's a statement of confidence, and it also, by the way, establishes that where you need to help is with those folks who are paying their bills on the basis of their salary or punching a clock. Then we have the longer term work to do, and that is to right the inequities that have been so systemically applied to have this vast spread between the middle class, low-income folks, and everyone else. It's all these things people have been talking about, credit card abuse, this scheme that was cooked up by Wall Street and others on the subprime mortgage, and even the so-called exceptional mortgages that are below subprime, the way that Wall Street has found to package these and then sell them to, in some cases, unsuspecting buyers, and in some cases, to knowledgeable buyers who thought they could make money; the degradation of any kind of regulatory oversight, when regulatory oversight done right is going to protect average people. The chairman of Financial Services, I think, put it right on regulation. There's only two problems; one is when you do too much, and the other is when you do none at all. It is something that has to be done in order to protect the pocketbooks of everyday Americans.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. The elements of the stimulus package, as we know, are being discussed, but basically it would be a short-term tax break or check to families; it would be food stamps for folks who are struggling; it would be an extension of unemployment benefits from 26 weeks to 39 weeks for folks who have been laid off from their jobs. So those are some of the things that would help. It's not just Vermont, as you know, my friend from Iowa. By the way, I am a great fan of the Homestead Act, but if your forebears had not walked from Vermont to Iowa, you might be a Congressman from Vermont right now. I yield to my friend and class president from Minnesota.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Yes.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

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

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas. And I will respond and close. A couple of things. First, let's be focused on the fact that the rule that is going to be before the House really applies to two things: consideration of the alternative minimum tax and consideration of the omnibus appropriations bill. And the rule is being brought up for same day consideration in recognition of the fact that there has been enormous work on both sides on the AMT. There is nothing new. And, in fact, the AMT bill that will be brought before the House for consideration today corresponds with the view of the minority as to that being passed without pay-fors. And secondly, the omnibus appropriations bill is bringing before the House appropriations that had been passed in 11 separate appropriations bills but have now been consolidated as a result of the inability of our friends in the Senate to pass those bills individually as we did here in the House. So, there is nothing new that is coming up before the Members of the House. It's just the convenience of being able to act today rather than wait until tomorrow. Secondly, my friend from Texas made some assertions about the conduct of this House in application to the rules. You know, context is everything. The reality is that virtually every piece of legislation that has been brought before the floor has received bipartisan support. Many of the items that the gentleman mentioned in the ``Six for '06'' legislative agenda, student loan cost reduction, price negotiations for prescription drugs, the restoration of the PAYGO rule, these were passed with overwhelming support on the Democratic side and substantial support on the Republican side. When they got to the other body, the Senate has been using, frankly, politics of obstruction to stop virtually anything from being considered: the filibuster, the hold. Every device available procedurally to avoid taking up a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote on a question has been employed by the Senate. And there is a sense by many on our side that the criticism that my friend from Texas is making that we have not done as much as we should in Congress, despite the fact that we in the House have passed substantial legislation helping the bottom line for American families, has been an explicit strategy on the part of the other side to use every rule, every device, every procedural opportunity basically to thwart passage of legislation. And they have the full and complete support of the President of the United States in that effort, who stands behind the whole agenda with the veto pen. And the President appears to many of us to be operating on a one- third-plus-one approach where, as long as he can get his veto sustained, he will be able to block passage of legislation the American people need and then accuse the Congress of not getting anything done. And I think most Americans see through that. So, Madam Speaker, with the passage of this rule, the House will move towards adjournment for this year and have an opportunity to pass the omnibus appropriations bill and the AMT fix. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and the rule. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, we have no additional speakers on this side. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 876 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 876 waives a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII. That rule, as you know, requires a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee. This will allow for the same-day consideration, today, of any resolution reported on or before the legislative day of December 19, 2007. It provides for the consideration or disposition of, one, a bill relating to the Children's Health Insurance Program and a bill relating to Medicare, something that at this point is moot in view of earlier proceedings today. But it also has an application on a bill relating to the alternative minimum tax; a joint resolution making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2008, the so-called CR; and the bill, H.R. 2764, making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, the so-called omnibus appropriations bill. With passage of this rule, it allows the House to move one step closer to passing this omnibus appropriations bill that will fund the government outside of the Department of Defense. That, of course, we have already completed our work on and it has been signed into law by the President. And it will provide for funding for the entire fiscal year of 2008. It will also take us one step forward towards considering and passing a patch for the alternative minimum tax, which will affect, unnecessarily and unwisely, 23 million American families. They would be subject to paying a tax that was never intended for middle-class working families. All of these bills, obviously, are crucially important pieces of legislation that Congress must act on before we go home, and we owe it, obviously, to the American people to get this work done. The omnibus bill is going to reject enormous cuts that had been proposed by the President in his draft budget, cuts to essential domestic priorities such as health care, education, law enforcement, homeland security, highway infrastructure, and renewable energy programs. That omnibus bill instead does invest in crucial domestic priorities: medical research to study diseases like Alzheimer's, cancer, Parkinson's, and diabetes; health care access, including programs like the Community Health Centers that provide more access to health care to underinsured Americans. Small rural hospitals will be helped. Special education, teacher quality grants, afterschool programs, and Head Start; Pell Grants and other student aid programs; technical training at high schools and community colleges; State and local law enforcement for communities across the country; Homeland Security grants to help fight in the war on terror. This meets the guaranteed levels for higher infrastructure and adds funding to our Nation's bridges. It also provides funding for solar energy, wind energy, biofuels and energy efficiency with a careful blend of new scientific investments and conservation efforts. This same-day rule will take us one step closer to completing our work this year. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.