Peter Welch

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. By making my office carbon-neutral earlier this year, my hope was to be able to take a small, but meaningful, step towards addressing the impact of my own congressional activity on global warming. May I clarify my understanding that the committee report on the bill directs the Chief Administrative Officer to purchase carbon financial instruments to offset carbon produced by all House operations, and that these offsets will be fully transparent, verified, American, project- based offset credits? I yield.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Thank you, Madam Chair; thank you, Ranking Member Wamp. We all really appreciate the way you have worked on this bill together. You make us all proud.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. It's my understanding through conversations with Dan Beard, the CAO, that he has agreed to develop a plan to deliver a report to your committee in a timely fashion for accounting the balance of congressional offices' carbon footprints. This plan would expand the Green the Capitol Initiative to be inclusive of all Member official travel in district office operations. I yield to the gentlewoman.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Chairwoman, I rise for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the chairwoman. Madam Chairwoman, thank you for your leadership on this bill; In particular, for your support and leadership of the Green the Capitol Initiative, which accounts for the House's global impact on global warming. Also, I want to thank the ranking member Mr. Wamp, Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Brady as well.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Yes.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding me this time. I also join in the praise for the bipartisan work of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, the excellent work of Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Wolf. Mr. Speaker, the job of the next President of the United States, whoever that may be, whatever party that person may represent, is very straightforward. They are going to have to reintroduce America to the world. They are going to have to reintroduce the America of cooperation, of working together, of multilateralism rather than unilateralism, of diplomacy rather than force, and strength through persuasion and cooperation. This Foreign Operations appropriations bill is the introduction to a new relationship that America will have with the world and a new relationship that our appropriations bill will have with the taxpayers of this country. It really does two things. One, it restores accountability. That is best seen in the fact that it does not give a blank check on more money to Iraq that will go down the sink hole. Number two, it recognizes that we have to be a participant in cooperating with other countries in order to solve global problems. Mr. Speaker, our Appropriations Committee is to be commended for this strong bipartisan work. Our image in the world has been tarnished by the foreign policies of this administration, from the war in Iraq to the rejection of multilateral agreements such to the Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal Court, to human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Through this appropriations measure, we have the opportunity to send the world a different message about America's priorities. We do that in this bill by allocating $6.5 billion to combat global health crises, including HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. We have provided needed help to those suffering from genocide in Darfur by investing $949 million in development assistance. We offer needed food, water and shelter for refugees around the world, and we make good on our obligations to international organizations investing $334 million in multilateral programs to address the global challenges, and we pay $1.3 billion in U.N. peacekeeping operations. The bill also helps protect the American taxpayer and brings needed accountability from the administration. I would also like to commend the committee for restoring funding for a small but extremely important initiative, the Middle East Regional Cooperation, or MERC program. Established in 1979 by my colleague from California, MERC provides grants for collaborative scientific research projects between Israel and its Arab neighbors. MERC grants have made it possible for many Vermont students to travel to the Middle East to conduct environmental research at an innovative program called the Arava Institute. This incredible program, working together on difficult environmental problems, has allowed Vermonters and others to live and work alongside Israeli and Arab colleagues, working together on environmental problems that affect the entire region. MERC grants have made this experience possible, and I applaud the committee for working to make sure this invaluable program receives the funding it deserves. Mr. Speaker, in addition to supporting important work in the Middle East, this bill implements needed changes to our policy in another conflicted region, Colombia, as was eloquently described by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). This bill recognizes that it is time for change in our Colombia policy.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2366, the SBA Veterans' Programs Act of 2007. This legislation will assist our soldiers when they return home with opportunities and information about starting a small business. More than a million and a half men and women have answered the call to serve their country since 2001. They interrupted their careers, put their families economic security at risk, and face big personal challenges upon returning home. I recently visited Iraq and Afghanistan. That trip gave me an even greater appreciation for the significant sacrifices our soldiers must make and must cope with for the rest of their lives. If our soldiers faced mortal danger every day abroad, let us help them have economic security when they return home. It isn't just the veteran who makes the sacrifice, their families do as well: their parents, their spouses, their children, girlfriends and boyfriends and siblings. They give up so much in defense of our country. It is our job, as Members of Congress, to make sure that our Nation lives up to its commitment to our veterans. It is a simple pact we have made with our troops--and one we are obligated to fulfill: after they have sacrificed to serve our country on the battlefield, we must do all we can to serve them here at home. The cost of any war must include caring for the warrior. This legislation helps our veterans get started with business opportunities in their communities. It does so by providing grants, information services, and personal assistance to help veterans evaluate business opportunities; increasing the number of veteran business outreach centers around the country, and encouraging further assistance to women veterans. Countless soldiers are returning from their tours of duty with new confidence and skills developed during their time in the military. This SBA program will help to ensure that those new abilities are put to good use when they return to civilian life. This bill because it is the right thing to do for those who have given so much but also because it will directly impact Vermont and every state around the country. Ninety-seven percent of all Vermont firms are small businesses. My office has been involved in helping the Vermont Small Business Development Centers (SBDC) run business readiness classes for veterans. The Vermont SBDC is the primary small business assistance resource sought out by small business clients, lenders, government agencies and other economic development partners. The Vermont SBDC is the keystone in a statewide business assistance infrastructure tying together all appropriate resources and serving as a ``one-stop'' gateway and clearinghouse to serve small businesses' '' needs. Drawing on collaborative relationships among service providers, Vermont SBDC leverages economic development resources of all kinds for advancement of small businesses, growing the local economy. Roughly 6 percent of deployed soldiers have small businesses depending on them. Veterans face a number of unique challenges, from increasing lengths and number of deployments overseas, to translating their military experience into business ventures. Yet, there is a lack of substantive programs to help these businesses survive through deployment, and to assist veterans returning home. This program is designed to meet current, real-time needs of people on active duty in business who now need to leave for protracted periods, or for those who have just come back and really ``need'' to do something new with their lives. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 2366.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, to govern is to choose. For the past 6 years, the choices made by the Republican leadership in this Congress have been wrong for America: tax cuts for the very wealthy, budget cuts for everyone else in health care, in education and the environment. It has led to the largest deficit in the history of this country. The new Congress is making a different choice, promising to invest in America's priorities, first by bringing back fiscal responsibility and then making government work for average working families. Last week this House passed a Homeland Security bill. It improves aviation and port security, restores cuts to first responders across the Nation. This week we passed an Energy and Water appropriations bill that finally provides a significant investment in studying the effects of global warming, something that's been ignored for far too long. This new Congress is moving this country in a new direction and has made a new choice.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from California (Ms. Matsui) for her excellent work on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, in November Vermonters and the American people demanded a change in direction in Washington and a change in priorities. The past 5 months have been an important down payment on our commitment to change. Today the House takes up the third of 12 appropriation bills where we will continue making this progress of taking America in a new direction. This is a balanced bill adopting the pay-as-you-go principle enacted by this House of Representatives. This Energy and Water Appropriation bill represents a bipartisan approach to our response to a growing energy crisis. We're making real changes by focusing on commonsense priorities. We know we must reduce our dependence on foreign oil and cut our greenhouse gas emissions. This legislation invests $3 billion in addressing global climate change. It does so by researching effects of greenhouse gases and then working on the technologies that will make a new energy future. It also focuses on the growing renewable energy industry, making an investment in energy programs that both reduce greenhouse gases and help our Nation meet its energy needs. This Energy and Water bill provides a 50 percent increase in energy efficiency, renewable energy and important water projects, including $200 million towards solar, $235 million in vehicle technology to increase mileage efficiency, $146 million in energy-efficient buildings, $117 million in enhancing hydropower. In addition, it invests over $5 billion, as the gentlelady from California said, in construction operations and the management of critical water projects around the entire country, including in the State of Vermont. These programs are important not only when talking about the need to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil and greenhouse gas emissions, but to make critical investments in new industries that can be seen across the country. If we make this commitment now, we can have a pro-growth, pro-high tech, pro-environment economy of the future. In my district of Vermont, we have dozens of thriving, renewable energy companies rooted in our community and creating goods jobs. Efficiency Vermont, GroSolar, Agrefresh and NRG Systems, to name a few. This is a timely bill. It invests in our energy independence and makes a down payment on the necessary progress to address climate change in our energy future. This Congress is committed to taking our country in a new direction, working in a bipartisan manner and in a fiscally responsible way. We're committed to making this an energy- independent country.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that (1) it be in order at any time for the Speaker, as though pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, to declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2642) making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, which shall proceed according to the following order: The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the bill may be offered except: Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate; An amendment by Mr. Hayes regarding funding for BRAC 2005; An amendment by Mr. Blumenauer or Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida regarding funding for BRAC 1990; An amendment by Mr. Price of Georgia regarding funding for VA medical services; An amendment by Mr. Franks of Arizona regarding the conduct of studies of missile defense; An amendment by Mrs. Capito regarding the submission of a report on the implementation of the Office of Rural Health; An amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey regarding funding for extended care facilities; An amendment by Mrs. Drake regarding a report on pending disability benefit claims; An amendment by Mr. Brown of South Carolina regarding a report on ALS; An amendment by Mr. Hall of New York regarding awards for certain VA employees; An amendment by Mrs. Musgrave or Mr. Salazar regarding the Pinon Canyon maneuver site; An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding medical centers in underserved urban areas; An amendment by Mrs. Blackburn regarding e-commerce; An amendment by Mr. Donnelly regarding implementation of GAO recommendations related to claims processing; An amendment by Ms. Harman or Mr. Upton regarding purchase of light bulbs; An amendment by Mr. Pearce regarding reimbursement of travel expenses for VA employees; An amendment by Mr. Conaway or Mrs. Drake regarding deficit spending; An amendment by Mrs. Capito regarding interoperable medical records; An amendment by Mr. Moran of Kansas regarding funding for VA medical services; An amendment by Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida regarding funding for the Gainesville Veterans Affairs Medical Center; An amendment by Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico regarding funding for service dogs for disabled veterans; An amendment by Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico regarding funding to create a commission concerning women veterans; An amendment by Mr. Moran of Kansas regarding funding for certain VA offices; An amendment by Mr. Smith of Nebraska or Mr. Salazar regarding funding for the VA Office of Rural Health; and An amendment or amendments by Mr. Edwards regarding funding levels. Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment except that the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans' Affairs, and Related Agencies each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described. When the Committee rises and reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. During consideration in the House of H.R. 2642 pursuant to this order, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker; and (2) House Resolution 480 is laid on the table.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, this week we received more proof from Iraq that the President's troop escalation plan is failing. A senior U.S. military commander told the Washington Post yesterday that if the President really wanted to stem the violence in Iraq, he would have to send an additional 20,000 U.S. troops there, something that no American would support. But even then, it appears that Iraq will remain incapable of taking full responsibility. Iraq is in a civil war, and our troops, it is not the job of our men and women in uniform to be refereeing a civil war. Last week, one of our generals put a surveillance out to determine who was laying these IEDs that are killing our troops, and it turned out to be Iraqi security forces, people who work with us by day and then were trying to kill our soldiers by night. It is time for Democrats and Republicans to work together to bring the President to his senses, to change the direction of the war in Iraq.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. The question of earmarks really has two questions to it. But, first, why are we here having a debate about earmarks? We are because in the 12 years before the last election, the use of earmarks, something that has been around since the beginning of the Republic, exploded and it went from around $5 billion in the budget to around $13 billion in the budget. And it really raises two questions, aside from the political opportunism that may present itself in this debate. The first question about earmarks is whether it is appropriate for individuals who have the most power in this Congress to take advantage of their situation to get appropriations that go to their districts. Generally, the projects that are funded are projects that are supported and worthwhile. But, in fact, in the budgetary process, it is the people who are in the right committees or have the most power that have the opportunity to get the greatest benefit. By the way, that is a fairness issue just within this body, because if there is going to be allocation of resources, they should be extended for the benefit of the entire country, people in each and every one of the 435 congressional districts, people in each of the 50 States and our territories. The second issue is a budgetary reform issue. If you have appropriation by earmarks, if highway projects are funded on the basis of who is on the committee or who is in leadership or who has the ear of the Chair, then it means that decisions are being made on personal relationships as opposed to public need. I come from a State legislature, Mr. Chairman, where we had to wrestle with this question of earmarks. And every legislator had an immense amount of pressure on them to deliver for their district; in fact, the needs of the district were compelling and reasonable. We had to struggle with an approach that would take the limited funds that were available in our treasury and allocate them for highway projects on the basis of where the greatest need was in the State, not on the basis of who had the most clout. So, Mr. Chairman, this debate that has resulted in eight motions to rise, spending over 10 hours on what essentially looks like a minor and very political amendment is really not about earmarks, because there has been a complete erasing of history in the role that the other side has played in getting us to the point where we are on earmarks. Also, this debate on earmarks is taking place in the Homeland Security bill, which is a bill that traditionally has not had earmarks. We could be having a debate about the MILC price support program and arguing about earmarks, but there are no earmarks that have been part of the Homeland Security bill in this Congress or, to its credit, in prior Congresses. So, why is it that we are arguing about, admittedly an important issue, the question of earmarks and what impact it has on questions of fairness and what impact it has on questions of fiscal responsibility in the Homeland Security bill, that has independent integrity and importance to the people of this country, and where the history has been that there are no earmarks? It would allow a reasonable observer to conclude that essentially this is about politics. In fact, it is my view and, I think, the view of most people that we really should not be injecting politics into the question of homeland security. Mr. Chairman, you come from the City of New York. You, better than anyone else, know the urgency of making certain that we have our borders protected, that we are taking aggressive and effective measures to combat terrorism, to detect terrorists coming into our country, to have adequate funds and resources for our local fire departments and our local police stations. So, Mr. Chairman, the loser here is one person, it is the American people. And who wins and who loses in this political debate, whether it's the other side or our side, we will let the commentators decide. We are making no progress on moving ahead on an earmark reform approach, largely because the vehicle that the other side has chosen to use is holding hostage a Homeland Security bill that doesn't have earmarks in it, won't have earmarks in it, in the past has not had earmarks in it.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2638, which makes appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008. Mr. Speaker, in November the American people asked for a change. They wanted us to do two things: one, change priorities; two, restore accountability to this government. We began with a down payment by raising the minimum wage; ending the big subsidies for oil companies, instead putting money into renewable energy; requiring pharmaceutical price negotiation instead of giveaways; making college more affordable by lowering interest rates; and we supported small businesses. These were the beginning. Today, we take up the first of 12 appropriation bills, and in each of these bills we must do what we promised the American people we would do; change priorities and restore accountability. This bill on homeland security, brought before us on a bipartisan basis, does both. It funds the Department of Homeland Security. It was created largely in response to the tragedy of 9/11. Since its inception, the Department has been given a crucial mission, and that is protecting American soil and American lives, enhancing our overall security. They have a big job, and it is no small undertaking. This Homeland Security bill addresses priorities and reflects our change, and it reflects accountability, our responsibility to taxpayers. The priorities that I would like to speak to that are embedded in this homeland security bill are among the following: One, it establishes as a key priority funding our first responders with the training and the equipment that they need. Each one of us knows that the first responders are the ones who are going to be there, and in each of our districts they need the training, they need the funding. This Homeland Security bill has rejected a $1 billion cut that was proposed by the administration and restores Homeland Security grants in Firefighter Assistance grants. Second, it implements a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission by providing improved aviation security. This bill substantially increases efforts to purchase and install the latest explosive detection systems for checked baggage and other things that have been mentioned by the speakers. Also, Mr. Price and Mr. Rogers both spoke about the need for accountability. The good intentions of protecting the homeland does not give this bill a pass when it comes to accountability. The bill mandates that all grants and contact funds be awarded through full competitive processes. Finally, I want to thank Chairwoman Slaughter for leading to a sensible approach on the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. Thank you, Chairwoman Slaughter.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding. Mr. Speaker, in April, I had the opportunity to join five of my colleagues on a delegation trip to Afghanistan. And our six-member delegation, three Democrats and three Republicans, spent 2 days in Iraq, 2 days in Afghanistan. And we had an opportunity to speak with American, Iraqi, Afghani soldiers; military leaders; security forces; government leaders; and civil servants. And at every turn in our trip, we encountered these extraordinary men and women from our country that are doing incredible work in very dangerous and trying circumstances. And I had the opportunity to meet troops from my State as my colleagues met troops from their States, and all of us were incredibly proud at the selflessness of these troops who are performing the missions that we have assigned to them. But the circumstances in each country and each war are very different. Iraq is in a full-blown civil war. The British, our last remaining significant ally in Iraq, will soon withdraw, and American forces are now viewed as occupiers. The situation is much different in Afghanistan. And I came away, as did my colleagues, with the clear impression that there is will on the part of Afghani leaders to step up and to take control of their future. In Afghanistan, we have 37 allied nations joining with us to help the Afghanis drive out the Taliban and to restore order and to create a future for that country. In fact, the differences between these two situations in Iraq and Afghanistan was best summed up by three soldiers I spoke to who had completed full tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I asked, What is the difference in your experience? And the soldiers said, In Iraq it seems as though everyone is interested in fighting each other and us. In Afghanistan everyone is interested in fighting for their future. What this legislation recognizes is that we have partners, 37 other nations, working with us in Afghanistan, and we have a partner, the government and people of Afghanistan, in our effort to restore order and to create a future for that country. H.R. 2446, the Afghanistan Freedom and Security Support Act, reinforces the United States' long-term commitment to support Afghanistan in its efforts to confront its challenges and to complete its transformation into a secure and prosperous future. This bill enhances the narcotics operations. More importantly, it provides incentives to encourage greater participation from our NATO allies in the International Security and Assistance Force. If we have learned anything, it is that we have got to work together and not alone.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. It's very important the American people know that.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter. The gas issue, obviously the price going way up is hitting people pretty hard. But it is a real metaphor in my view for the two economies we are seeing emerge in this country. We are at a time now where the stock market has never been higher. People who have significant assets have never been doing better. Large corporations are making record profits. Executives, CEOs at large corporations, have never gotten better and sweeter pay packages. But the vast majority of Americans are finding that their wages are stagnant, and the prices of things that they need, daycare, gasoline to get to and from work, to and from daycare, groceries, those things are going up and concealing this so-called ``tame'' inflation. So what we are having in this country is the emergence of two economies, and our goal here in Congress is to start having a Congress that stands up and represents the needs and aspirations of average folks. We give them a leg up. Every time the price of gasoline goes up about 10 cents, that is like a $16 billion hit on the consumer in this country. So you think about it. We have got a chart over here that shows gas prices going up, really doubling during the presidency of George Bush. But just take a $1 increase in the price of gasoline, that is like $160 billion tax increase that all comes out of the pockets of working Americans, the people who can afford it the least. You look back at the last couple of years, what has happened when we have been talking about the oil industry are a couple of things. Number one, there has been very favorable legislation that has benefited the oil companies. At a time when the oil companies had record profits, $125 billion over 3 years, $125 billion over 3 years, at that time not our Congress, but the Congress that preceded us, the Republican Congress, gave tax breaks to the oil companies. The mature and very profitable industry got $13 billion out of taxpayer funds on top of the record profits they had received. What we have done here is try to change the rules of the game and say that there has got to be a cop on the beat. It doesn't make sense for the prices to be going up on gasoline when we have seen the price of a barrel of oil go down and we haven't seen an increase in the demand, so that the laws of supply and demand are really being thwarted by the oligopolistic power of the very few oil companies that are able to manage the price and inflate their profits. What we are doing is first taking back those tax breaks that went to big oil. We did that earlier on this year, hoping our friends on the Senate side join us. But, secondly, we are saying that the Federal Trade Commission should be active and aggressive in answering these questions on behalf of the American consumer. Every 10 cents, $16 billion, that is a tax increase right out of the pockets of working Americans. Our responsibility to the American people is to make sure that consumers are protected so they are not getting ripped off. It is that simple. They need to keep that money in their pocket and not just be subject to the abuse of the monopoly power really of big oil. So, that is a little perspective from Vermont. I will turn it over to my colleague from Connecticut, Representative Murphy.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Pay-as-you-go.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Well, all of us come from States where you've got to pay your bills.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Hundreds.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I agree with you. It is very exciting and an incredible privilege for all of us to be here. And there aren't free meals and there aren't free trips and all of the things that have been abused in the past, and that cuts across Republicans and Democrats, and it's all so that we can try to do a good job and give confidence to the American people. But the challenge we have is giving us confidence, giving this Nation confidence that the Congress actually has as its first priorities the needs of the American families, not the needs of the corporations that are doing really well, which is not to say get in their way because we've got to have jobs and corporations do good things and create wealth, but we have to have a commitment to building a middle class. What's always been the great hallmark of American democracy has been we've had an economic agenda that has said to people, who are willing to work, that they could climb the ladder of opportunity, and we pursued policies that gave them the chance to do it. Affordable and accessible education, affordable and accessible health care, nondiscrimination, the big fight that this country had for years that ultimately we've made enormous progress on. So people, regardless of the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, their religion, they have something to offer and they want to work, they're going to have a chance to get ahead. Much of what we're trying to do on ethics, I agree with you. We served in the State legislatures. We had sunshine laws. We didn't have lobbyists buying things. It's all an alien situation that has been described here in D.C., but we're trying to bring the Iowa values and Vermont values, Florida, Colorado, here to D.C., and we've got to hang on to that. But it's all in service of trying to get the job done so that we have an economic agenda that helps average people.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Remarkable.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. That was illegal. That was beyond us. That was pure criminal conduct.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. A good chicken sandwich, $7.16.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Right. What you are describing is the fact that you are going to produce your energy locally, so you are not going to have to go to the Middle East and ship it all of the way back here. The money you spend on energy are going to be dollars that stay in Colorado or Iowa. Every dollar you keep in your local economy gets circulated and multiplied. That is what creates jobs. We have to break the stranglehold of our addiction to oil. It is all about building a local economy.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

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