Peter Welch

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman). (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota, a woman who has been a leader on this issue for years, Ms. Herseth Sandlin.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall).

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 846 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have remaining on our side.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, this point of order is really essentially about whether or not we are going to consider the rule and, ultimately, the Energy Independence and Security Act. In fact, I would say that it may well be an effort by folks who are opposed to the legislation to find a way to kill the legislation itself. We believe that this legislation should proceed. The fact is that the other side had absolute control in this body or had a majority in this body for 12 years, enjoyed control in both bodies and in the administration for the past 6, for most of that 6, and did not come up with an energy policy that did anything other than raise the cost of oil, home heating oil, gasoline, increase our dependence on foreign oil, weaken our national security and contribute to global warming. This legislation is about changing the direction of American energy policy, and the issues that have been raised in this legislation are ones that have been debated outside of this body for several years. The legislation now brings to this body for its consideration such topics as increasing fuel efficiency, energy efficiency, green buildings, cellulosic agriculture-based energy efforts that will be vital to the farm sector and rural sectors of our economy. So we believe that the House is going to have an opportunity to vote on this point of order and reach its judgment about whether it wants to proceed on the important question of changing the energy policy in this country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I am not aware of any earmarks in the bill. I'm completely unaware of any earmarks in the bill. There is CBO information suggesting that the unfunded mandates, which is a separate one, is not within any of the rule provisions as it applies to the public sector, maybe as it applies to the private sector.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona for his comments and his arguments here on this point of order, and also for the work that he has done. I happen to believe that process does matter, but I also think substance matters, and they have to go together. Ideally, when we're working in a perfect world, they do. But one of the major reasons that we don't have an actual conference committee report is because our friends in the other body refused to go to conference, refused, refused to go to conference to discuss our energy future, Mr. Speaker. How is that right? Is that a proper use of process? The reason we are here and the way that we're here is because there has been a decision made by the majority of the American people that they want a new energy policy, and the basic question for this body is whether we want to give that new energy policy or we don't. The best process is going to get the best bill, but it takes cooperation on both sides. And if we have, in the other body, a refusal to even go into conference, it leaves leadership in this body with a single choice: do nothing and capitulate, or move ahead. On this question of earmarks, we have given you as much assurance as we can possibly give you that there are not earmarks in here. We have the CBO letter about so-called unfunded mandates in the private sector. That's going to be a decision for the body. I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank very much my colleague, Mr. Mahoney, for his excellent work on this legislation and Mrs. Capito for her excellent work on this bipartisan legislation. It is incredibly important to America's seniors, Vermont's seniors, that they have security in housing as they age. And that is a challenge because we are getting more folks older and incomes are not keeping up. H.R. 2930 addresses the issue in a timely and overdue way. It improves HUD's section 202 program, providing low-income elderly households access to affordable places to live. It is the only program that provides housing exclusively for the elderly. Established in 1959, it makes capital grants and project rental assistance available to developers so they can build housing that is affordable to low-income elderly households. Over 320,000 housing units are currently available. But it is not enough. There are 10 seniors waiting and in need for every housing unit that is available, and approximately 3.6 million of our seniors across the country in every State live in poverty. This bill is going to help make a down payment on what needs to be done. The U.S. population is aging; 12.4 percent are over 65, but in 18 years that is going to be 20 percent. We are going to need 730,000 units of housing. So I thank the sponsors, the leaders, to begin the process of moving forward. I want to mention just in a very practical way something that Mrs. Capito said. Housing is a partnership. What it does is unleash the activities of volunteers in our communities and housing advocates, and they brought this to our attention. Grand Way Commons in Vermont, opened by the Cathedral Square Corporation, is going to have a housing project that is going to help 63 families, seniors, have access to housing, and they are combining it with services from United Way, from AARP and from the Vermont Nurses Association. Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong vote in support of moving ahead for senior housing.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, Thanksgiving Day, as my colleague just mentioned, is next week and we have the threat of another Presidential veto to deny 10 million children across this country of all races, all poor, access to health care. The President has become a born-again fiscal conservative, disregarding any requirement that we pay for the war and disregarding the fact that we are paying for children's health care. On Thanksgiving Day, all of us are thankful, those of us who have health care, and we are determined that the children of this country will join the Members of Congress in this country, government employees, and citizens across this country who do have access to health care. The President has refused to meet with congressional leaders. And, by the way, this is bipartisan. Republicans and Democrats in this body stand united in wanting to insure our kids, and the only obstacle is the Presidential veto.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. This may well, Mr. Speaker, turn into a bit of a pile-on. There were a lot of new Members in the class, and Dean Aguillen was the person that greeted us. And if there was one person that we met who seemed to have worked harder than the Speaker, it was Dean. And I remember every single one of us, as new Members, being anxious about what our place was going to be, how to find our way. We were very anxious about committee assignments, about how you become an effective and contributing Member of the House. And, Dean, you were terrific in just giving us calm advice, getting us together to work together, giving us some reassurance that we needed as new Members of Congress, that, in fact, it wasn't an accident that we were elected, and helped all of us find our way. And you've been the same way all of the time that we have been here. In politics so much of the interactions that we have are transactional, and all of us all of the time are trying to make them a bit more than that. And, Dean, you really helped provide the glue that made this class such a memorable experience for all of us who are Members of it. I thank you for the wonderful contribution you made to me and to all of us in our entry into the United States Congress.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. One of the ongoing challenges of democracy is to maintain an economy that creates opportunity for everybody, at the low end of the ladder, as well as at the top. What our Ways and Means Committee has done, in two areas, is recognize that we have seen our economy start skirting so that the wealthy are doing very well, the middle class are falling behind, and the poor are barely hanging on. And in two areas, trade and taxes, the Ways and Means Committee has brought legislation that basically says we're all in it together. On trade they want to have a policy that shares the benefits. They aren't just concentrated at the top, and that shares the pain. And on taxes, they're asking the question and giving us the opportunity to present a tax policy that respects work as well as capital, that reduces rather than increases our debt, and accepts the reality that one taxpayer's tax preference is often another taxpayer's tax burden. What is a fact is that the gap between the wealthy and everyone else is widening. We can ignore that or we can acknowledge it. This legislation is middle-class tax relief. It acknowledges that the middle class has been working harder, paying more in taxes, getting less in government services and falling farther behind. One of the things that pays for this is by going after a glaring loophole. We've heard people talk about the ``carried interest.'' But there's one other provision in here that is long overdue for remedy. It's how a corporation doing financial advising is treated differently than a partnership. It was a New York Times story, Mr. Speaker, that spoke about Goldman Sachs that did great work, earnings of $3.4 billion in one quarter. They paid $1.1 billion in taxes. They paid the corporate tax rate. Good corporate citizens. A private equity partnership, the Blackstone Group, doing the same work, had revenues of $1.1 billion. They paid $14 million in taxes, or 1.3 percent. This tax bill says tax fairness requires that those two entities be treated the same, that they pay their fair share before we start asking middle-class working families to pay more.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3685, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Unfortunately, in 31 states, it is still legal to fire someone because that person is gay, lesbian, or bisexual. In 39 states, it is legal to do so if the person is transgender. I am proud that Vermont already protects individuals against employment discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender identity. Vermont's 1992 Human Rights Law included sexual orientation protections in public and private employment, as well as public accommodations, education, housing, credit, insurance and union practices. In May of this year, Vermont included gender identity protections in employment, public accommodations, and housing. I applaud Vermont for these important steps and we must do the same on the national level. When making employment decisions, employers should look at an individual's qualifications and the quality of the work they produce, not their sexual orientation or gender identity. The public strongly supports this notion. Many employers have already acted on their own. Approximately 90 percent of Fortune 500 companies include sexual orientation in their nondiscrimination policies. More specifically, 49 of the Fortune 50 companies have a policy against employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Progress is being made on the gender identity front as well. Approximately 25 percent of Fortune 500 companies include protections against gender identity discrimination in their corporate policies. Where employers do not act, however, the Federal government must step in and extend this protection to employees across the country. Employees are currently protected from discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, national origin or disability. If not enacted today, I believe this Congress will soon realize that gender identity protections, like in Vermont, are also necessary and I stand ready to join my colleagues in taking that next step. The decision before us today is whether or not we take a giant step forward. Whether or not we as a Congress want to protect the millions of gays and lesbians across the country from employment discrimination. This legislation is a perfect example of how this Congress has made a commitment to a new direction. This new direction embodies the values of equality and fairness, making sure that workers, children, families, and communities can fully participate in the successes of our economy. This bill would have never seen the light of day in past Congresses. I am glad that the rule makes in order the amendment by Representative Baldwin to include ``gender identity'' protections in the bill. I urge all my colleagues to support the rule, support the Baldwin amendment, and support the underlying bill. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 793 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington In section 1 of the resolution, strike the sentence which begins ``Amendment number 3 in the report of the Committee on Rules''.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee. If a gentle breeze were to come into this room and dispel the fog of rhetoric that we've been listening to, we'd understand and return to the basic proposition that's quite simple, and that is, the budget of the United States Congress reflects the priorities of the United States Congress. And what will be debated and the substance before the House is whether on the Labor-HHS budget we will appropriate and spend 2 percent more than was recommended by the President of the United States. What will be debated and decided by this House of Representatives is whether we will approve and spend 4 percent more for military construction in overdue services to our veterans. It comes to you from Chairs of subcommittees who are operating under the tight restrictions of pay-as- you-go budgeting that has been adopted by this new Congress after it had been abandoned by the previous Congresses. So what do the American people have to judge us by what we do? It's this: first, we will pay for everything on a pay-as-you-go basis; second, when the President says that we're spending more than he recommended on Labor-HHS and for our veterans, we plead guilty. We're paying for it, but we're doing it because we believe it's overdue and it's right. Think about the lack of investment that has occurred as a result of the clear priorities of the administration approved by previous Congresses: all Iraq all of the time and impoverishing our domestic programs, even as Americans are struggling to make ends meet. The Labor-HHS budget does a couple of things that are very straightforward. It makes a fundamental commitment in the National Institutes of Health. It increases LIHEAP funding, Low Income Heating Assistance Program. Is it needed? Oil is at $93 a gallon on a barrel. And on the veterans budget, this Congress has made a fundamental decision, and it's very simple again. The cost of the war must include the cost of caring for the warrior. Yes, it's true, this VA budget is the highest increase that we have had in the history of the VA. Why? It's because it is absolutely necessary to meet the obligation we have to the men and women in uniform. We will have an opportunity to vote yes or no. We will have an opportunity to state explicitly and be judged by the American people as to what our priorities are, and the priorities we have are to begin to renew our commitment to our veterans and to renew our commitment to basic science and investment in the people of this country.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, 1 year ago the American people went to the voting booths and voted for a new direction. This decision was not only asking for a new Congress, but asking Congress to head in a new direction. One area: Make America safer. The last Congress ignored the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. This Congress is implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Our ports and skies are safer. Our first responders have better access to emergency communication. We are also recognizing very straightforward and directly that the cost of the war must include the cost of caring for the warrior, and that is why we have passed the largest increase in the veterans health care budget in the history of the Veterans Administration. And finally, with cop-on-the-beat oversight, we have uncovered the scandal of tens of billions of dollars of waste, fraud and abuse by companies like Blackwater and Halliburton that have benefited enormously from our appropriations.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?