Peter Welch

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. First of all, Mr. Perlmutter is right, oil has made us vulnerable in foreign policy. A big reason we are in Iraq clearly is related to oil. I think we have to be much straighter with the American people than Congress has been. We are doing two things here. One, with this legislation, the price gouging legislation, we are providing basic protection against rip- offs, and that is just the fundamental responsibility that people's government has is to make sure that the people with a lot of money, corporate power, don't use that power to rip them off. That is one. Second, we have to develop an energy policy. An energy policy, as has been said, is going to give us a lot more freedom in foreign policy, not create these enormous pressures to get involved in wars that we shouldn't be involved in. Secondly, it is obviously good for the environment. Third, as the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley) has been saying, it is good for the economy. The legislation we have to pass is not just on protecting the consumer, it is about creating a projobs, pro-high-tech, progrowth approach to addressing in a straightforward, confident way the energy challenge that we face. One of the small bills that I have sponsored and you are a cosponsor of, Mr. Perlmutter, and I am soliciting more, is to make our offices carbon neutral here in Washington. When I got here, I was concerned about global warming. I checked into how much carbon pollution did I create just by turning my lights on here in Washington and Vermont, flying back and forth to my district, and then driving around. It is quite staggering: 754 tons. That is a lot just to show up for work. I tried to find out how to offset that. Change the light bulbs, turn the thermometer so you don't use as much air conditioning or heat, and then invest in renewable energy that would allow a farm in southern Vermont to do a digester, a methane digester, which adds to the bottom line of farms, and all of our farms are struggling to make ends meet. We have to keep our farms in production and have local production of agriculture for the ag economy, but also for a way of life that a lot of folks in Vermont and Iowa want to maintain.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I think people are making fun of me.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the openness of that committee, to let anyone with a good idea to help veterans to come in and have an opportunity to do that. Mr. Filner, Mr. Michaud, and, of course, Mr. Buyer and Mr. Miller, thank you. Rural Americans have always served the Nation's armed services, National Guard and Reserves in very great numbers. In fact, though only 19 percent of the Nation lives in rural America, 44 percent of the current U.S. military recruits come from rural areas, and nearly one- third of those who died in Iraq are from small towns and communities across the Nation, Vermont very much among them. And unfortunately, access to health care for many of our veterans in rural areas is limited by mileage, distance and just the difficulty of transportation. Especially true, the provision of mental health care in rural settings has historically been a challenge for all health care systems and providers, including the VA. And therefore, what we recognize in this legislation is that we need to help the VA develop innovative solutions to address the need for mental health services in remote areas, TBI being the big injury that's been discussed by my colleagues. This legislation takes a significant step towards improving the mental health services available to geographically isolated veterans. It creates a pilot program where at least two mobile vet centers will provide readjustment counseling and mental health services to veterans in at least five Veterans Integrated Service Networks that have the highest concentration of rural veterans. One of these covers New England and my home State of Vermont. These mobile vet centers will also provide information and outreach concerning veterans benefits and, when practicable, assistance with claims for benefits. Rural individuals and their families have strong bonds and ties to their communities. These mobile vet centers will allow veterans to stay in their communities and prevent endless hours of car rides for the care they receive. I urge support and passage of this legislation and thank the committee for its indulgence.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 404 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. WELCH of Vermont asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) General Leave

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I'd inquire of the gentleman from Texas if he has any remaining speakers at this point?

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I'm the last speaker on this side. So I will reserve my time until the gentleman has closed for his side and has yielded back his time.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Before yielding to my friend from Massachusetts, I just want to emphasize that every single Member of this House did have an opportunity to preprint an amendment, as was done by my friend from Texas. In a recent rule, we had a specific deadline by which that had to be filed. There were complaints from our friends on the other side of the aisle about a specific deadline. In this case, we extended it so that depending on what the floor schedule was, there would be the maximum time available for folks to put their amendments in printed form, and now there are complaints about that process as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

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

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 1427, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007 ensures that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the GSEs that support the mortgage markets, operate in a safe and sound manner and fulfill the missions assigned to them under their charters. The bill does this through the establishment of a strong, independent regulator and through the enhancements to the GSEs mission responsibilities. The bill also creates the first new funding source for affordable housing. Since the HOME program was created in the early 1990s, it's been almost 20 years since we have put any infusion of money from a new source into a growing crisis in housing. The $500 million Affordable Housing Fund, which housing advocates in Vermont, in your State and States all across this country are very excited about, will be used by them for badly needed construction and the preservation of affordable housing. Very similar legislation, as has been discussed between my colleagues from Texas and from Massachusetts, passed this House on a strong 331-90 vote last Congress, and this bill, H.R. 1427, was approved in the Financial Services Committee by a bipartisan vote of 45-19. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 404.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, as the Clerk just described, H. Res. 404 provides for consideration of H.R. 1427, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007, under an open rule with a preprinting requirement. As of the date required for filing, 36 proposed amendments have been printed and met the preprinting requirement. Mr. Speaker, affordable housing is absolutely critical as an issue to many Americans and certainly to folks in my State of Vermont, as well as yours. Along with food, health care and energy costs, affordable housing can make all the difference in economic survival, and we must begin to take seriously the challenge of affordable housing for renters and perspective homeowners. In Vermont, just to give an example, affordable rental units, we have a shortage of about 20,891 rental units, short of what we need for working families in Vermont. They need in Vermont an annual income of $29,000 to afford a statewide average two-bedroom apartment. The challenge of home ownership, in addition to renting, is daunting. While many low- and moderate-income households aspire to own their own home, limited supply, rising costs and other significant barriers can make that dream out of reach. Beginning in 2005, the new construction of 12,300 owner-occupied homes in Vermont was needed to meet the demand expected in 2010, not something that most Vermonters think will be possible. The average purchase price for an average single-family home in Vermont in 2000 was $144,000, a lot less than it might be in the City of Washington, but beyond the reach of many Vermonters. But 5 years later, in 2005, the average price had increased a staggering 60 percent to $232,000, and very few families have seen their paychecks rise 60 percent in the past 5 years. More than 1 million low-income households across New England, including the elderly, disabled and families, live in federally assisted housing. Most of these households have annual incomes of less than $8,000, well below the poverty line. They are at serious risk of homelessness. Even larger numbers of households are struggling to survive in the private housing market and are paying more than 50 percent of their income for rent. In 1995, the housing community started facing dramatic changes in Federal housing policy, including funding cutbacks, program reforms and the devolution of responsibilities to State agencies who lack the funds to meet the need. Budget cuts aimed primarily at low income people presented an enormous challenge for communities across the country. Vermont and the whole of New England region, due to its high housing cost and large stock of subsidized housing, was one of the most heavily impacted regions in the country, but by no means unique. In the past few years, we have witnessed even more dramatic cuts to the important Federal housing programs, such as section 8, again imposing enormous burdens on our local communities. The crisis of affordability is not just a well-crafted political phrase. It is a fundamental fact in Vermont and around the country, and it is a problem we must begin to address, as this bill, H.R. 1427, does. What H.R. 1427 does is ensure that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac operate in a safe and sound financial manner and they fulfill the responsibilities assigned under their charters given to them by Congress. These government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs as they are called, support the mortgage market, and this bill establishes strong independent regulation and enhances GSE responsibilities under their mission. The bill also creates the first new funding source for affordable housing since the HOME program was created in the early 1990s, and it does it without asking the taxpayers to pick up the tab. The $500 million affordable housing fund, which housing advocates in Vermont and around the country are very excited about, will be used for the badly needed construction and preservation of affordable housing. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and several of the Federal Home Loan Banks have experienced considerable accounting, financial reporting and managerial problems in recent years. Unacceptable. Significant operational safety and soundness issues have arisen since 2001 that highlight the need to fortify the supervisory structure for all the regulated GSEs. This bill will do that. The Federal National Mortgage Association, or Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Loan Corporation, Freddie Mac, were chartered, as you know, by Congress in 1934 and 1970, respectively, in order to create a secondary market for mortgages and increase liquidity. Through their charters, GSEs are granted special privileges not available to other private sector firms. For example, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to purchase up to $2.25 billion of the enterprises' obligations. Additionally, GSEs are exempt from State regulation, State income tax and SEC registration, substantial benefits conferred to meet a public need of providing affordable housing. In January 2003, Freddie Mac announced that it needed to revise its financial statements, resulting in a special review by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, known as OFHEO. In November of the same year, following the discovery of accounting irregularities and a reorganization of its management, Freddie Mac announced that it had overstated its earnings by $1 billion in 2001. An investigation into that is ongoing. The company said that the error, restating its earnings by that $1 billion, stemmed from failure to properly account for derivatives activity. In December 2003, OFHEO reported that Freddie Mac disregarded accounting rules, internal controls and disclosure standards, again all completely unacceptable. Furthermore, the report found that the company had misstated its earnings overall by $5 billion between 2001 and 2003, and that the Board of Directors had failed to exercise its oversight responsibility. This has got to be corrected. This bipartisan bill takes an important first step to provide effective oversight of GSEs in response to the lack of affordable housing that plagues so many of our communities. Specifically, H.R. 1427 does the following: Federal Housing Finance Agency: It establishes this as an independent regulator that oversees the safe and sound operation and mission function of the housing GSEs, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the 12 Federal Home Loan Banks. Director and Deputy Director: The FHFA will be led by a Director appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for a 5-year term. A Federal Housing Enterprise Board is established. Affordable housing goals: GSEs will be required to meet goals established by the FHFA for single and multi-family home purchasers in low income or very low income areas. The goals would be based on data using 3-year averages to determine the market and they would be set annually, but could be set for a multi-year period, allowing flexibility. It requires GSEs to serve underserved markets such as manufactured housing and affordable housing preservation in rural areas. It also establishes an Affordable Housing Fund. The bill creates this with funds sent directly to the States to be administered as the States see fit. So we have a local control element here, enhancing the prospects that the money will be used for its intended purpose. The fund is intended to be a down payment toward the eventual creation of a much larger National Housing Trust. In fact, the bill provides that funds allocated for the Affordable Housing Fund may be transferred at a later date to the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund that hopefully we will enact that into law. The bill also makes sure we take care of the victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The individuals living in the devastated gulf coast need the money immediately. Seventy-five percent of the Affordable Housing Fund available in the first year will go to Louisiana and 25 percent will go to Mississippi for affordable housing needs arising out of the hurricanes. Also the bill is deficit neutral and directs that all of the spending is fully offset. Seventy-five percent of the contributions made by the GSEs would be used for the Affordable Housing fund. Twenty-five percent would be allocated to the Federal Government to keep the bill deficit neutral. All of us applaud the work of Chairman Frank for recommending an open rule to this bill and for the content of this bill, and providing the first new infusion of funds into an ever rising crisis about affordable housing. Chairman Frank came before the Rules Committee and testified we should allow consideration of all amendments, and we have done that, with the limitation of a preprinting requirement so as to allow us to manage and the Members to know what it is they will be debating on the floor. The rule was agreed to with the chairman, and I am pleased to bring forth such an open rule. This is a bipartisan measure. It is supported by a diverse group of financial institutions, lenders, housing industry participants, housing groups and other financial service providers. The administration also supports the bill. I urge all Members to support this open rule that allows the House to consider H.R. 1427. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

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

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I rise to report on an effort in Vermont that honors the tradition of Vermonters speaking out on issues of conscience. Vermonters take public service, political integrity and citizen involvement extremely seriously. This is a tradition that dates back to our earliest days when Vermont became the very first State to ban slavery. But with rising alarm, Vermont has watched abuse of power and a disregard for checks and balances in Washington that has occurred over the past 6 years. Vermonters have such extraordinary concern, particularly with the prosecution of this war in Iraq, that many are now actually calling for the President and the Vice President to be impeached. Impeachment is a dramatic position, but it reflects the collective judgment of many in Vermont that we are in extreme circumstances. Madam Speaker, I do not believe that impeachment is the answer, but I endorse the indictment of the policies of the current administration. What this Nation has experienced over the past 6 years has been staggering: a war in its fifth year that was justified based on false intelligence; the politicization of our Nation's top law enforcement agency; the cavalier disregard for civil liberties and constitutional protections; no-bid war contracts to well-connected friends; the use of signing statements to disregard the law; and the denial of habeas corpus, a basic right, for those in U.S. custody. The list could go on. These and other transgressions have caused some Vermonters to rise up and promote the use of impeachment to restore accountability and curb the abuse of power. This impeachment movement in Vermont started last year in the small town of Newfane, population 1,700, by Dan DeWalt, a selectman on the town board. After voting for the town clerk, the tax collector and voting whether to fund a village sidewalk project and the local school, the town then voted on a resolution to send a message to Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings. This initiative then spread from one small southern Vermont town to 40 towns across the State. My own hometown of Hartland joined this call, and I've spoken with many of my neighbors, farmer, teachers, doctors and store owners, about their vote, and what they share is an outrage about the conduct of this administration and the prosecution of this terrible war. Even last month, the Vermont General Assembly took up the issue. On April 20, the Vermont State Senate voted 16-9 in favor of Congress launching impeachment investigations, and while the Vermont House of Representatives defeated the resolution, it still received 60 supportive votes from Vermont legislators. And nearly 400 Vermonters representing 102 of Vermont's 251 towns came to the State House that day to voice their views. And this past Saturday, I held a town meeting in the town of Hartford, Vermont, and heard from 250 Vermonters advocating for this extraordinary measure. I applaud these citizen activists who have acted in the Vermont tradition of speaking out and taking a principled stand to protect our democracy. They raise valid concerns about the actions of this administration and, if those actions are allowed to go unchecked, the threat to democracy that we face. Their concerns are well-founded. But let me be clear, opinion is divided in Vermont about whether impeachment is the right remedy and whether it's the right tactic, but what motivated this effort is a commonly shared view that this administration has grossly abused its power and pursued terribly misguided policies. Madam Speaker, while I disagree with the tactic of impeachment, I completely share the goal of restoring accountability and a new direction to our government. Our oversight investigations in Congress have exposed egregiously substandard care at Walter Reed where we have heard about soldiers still recovering from brain surgery forced to wander the grounds to find the outpatient care they were promised. Congressional oversight has documented unacceptable accounts of political interference by the administration over sound global warming science, with political appointees editing scientific reports. And our probes have uncovered waste and fraud and abuse associated with the war in Iraq to an unimaginable scale, $12 billion of $100 bills flown from the United States to Iraq and then distributed from the back of pickup trucks. And through our oversight and subpoenas, we are vigorously seeking to expose and investigate the peddling of faulty intelligence that the administration presented to justify their case for war. And through our oversight and subpoenas, we are vigorously seeking to expose and investigate the peddling of faulty intelligence the Administration presented in their case for war. We must demand to know whether the Administration's active dissemination of bad intelligence was premeditated with the intention of deceiving the American people, or was it reckless and cavalier, done to justify a decision to go to war that had already been made? At every corner, step by step, Congress is methodically peeling back the layers of deception and deceit, holding this Administration accountable. We must get the facts and follow the facts. And that is exactly what is being done. Madam Speaker, this pursuit of impeachment has consequences to real lives and real people. I measure every decision I make here in Congress based on whether it will hasten or delay an end to this war. Nothing illustrates this urgency more than a phone call I received before a recent trip to Iraq. The call was from a mother in the town of Brattleboro who lost her son in this terrible war. She so desired closure over her son's death, that she asked to accompany me to Iraq so she could see where her son had died. It was a stark reminder that there is no greater challenge we face than ending this war. I also submit for the record a letter that was read at the Hartland town meeting from Lisa Johnson of Essex Jct. about the death in Iraq of her son Captain Pierre Piche. I am proud of the Vermonters pushing for facts, prodding for accountability, and demanding oversight. As I travel around the State, meeting with Vermonters, I also hear a sense of optimism: it is the optimism that comes from Congress restoring the checks and balances that had for too long been lost and an optimism from seeing a Congress finally getting down to making progress with new priorities and a new direction for this country. Senate Resolution 16 Whereas, President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney have exercised the duties of their respective offices with respect to both domestic and foreign affairs in ways that raise serious questions of constitutionality, statutory legality, and abuse of the public trust, and Whereas, the President's conduct in his role as Commander in Chief in leading our nation into the military conflict in Iraq, and the Vice President's continual advocacy for American troops remaining in Iraq, have cost the United States much of the good will that was extended to our country in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, and Whereas, the President's and the Vice President's domestic leadership on issues relating to individual privacy and personal liberty under law has raised constitutional issues of the greatest concern to the nation's citizenry, now therefore be it Resolved by the Senate: That the Senate of the State of Vermont urges Vermont's Representative in the United States House of Representatives to introduce, and Vermont's United States Senators to support, a resolution requiring the United States House Judiciary Committee to initiate impeachment proceedings against the President and the Vice President of the United States, and be it further Resolved: That the Secretary of the Senate be directed to send a copy of this resolution to United States Representative Peter Welch, United States Senator Patrick J. Leahy and United States Senator Bernard Sanders.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, we must end this war. On November 7, when the American people spoke in the last election, from Washington State to Florida, from Vermont to California, they made a very clear decision that they want to bring our troops home. Their challenge to us is to implement that policy. Americans want a new direction in Iraq. The citizens of America know that the time has come to change direction, to bring our troops home with their heads held high in honor of a job well done. Mr. Speaker, many of our finest, most highly decorated members of the military, now retired, can say publicly what in the past they could only say privately. It is this: Iraq is engaged in a civil war. It is not the proper job of our men and women in uniform to referee an Iraqi civil war. The citizens of our country also recognize the obvious: if the Iraqi leadership is unwilling to help itself, how can we expect the American people and the American military to do that job for them? Iraqi leaders will not spend $10 billion in funds available to improve electricity and water, yet expect Americans to spend our taxpayer dollars to do that. Commonsense citizens in our country are asking an obvious question: If the Iraqi Parliament has work to do, why is it taking a 2-month vacation this summer, a vacation, when they haven't reached agreement on oil sharing, when they haven't allowed former Baathists, low level with no blood on their hands, to resume a place in that society, when they won't crack down on sectarian violence, and, Mr. Speaker, when they interfere with the efforts of the American military when they attempt to do so? Mr. Speaker, there is a very clear recognition on the part of the American people, and it is this: our men and women in uniform have done their job. They toppled Saddam, they reported back that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and they did provide stability in Iraq so that they could have three elections. What we face now is a White House that has dug its heels in and a President who refuses to change and adjust and provide leadership to the facts as they exist. Those facts: Iraq is engaged in a civil war, something the White House denies. Those facts: it is the job of the Iraqi political leadership and the people of Iraq to create a civil society. It is not the job of the military to do nation-building. The legislation we have is going to allow us to change the direction of our policy from escalating militarily, as the President stubbornly pursues that policy, to a strategy of Iraqi self-control and stability in the region. I support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady and the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I first congratulate the gentlelady from New York and the gentleman from Ohio on the incredible hardworking committee that is producing more legislation that is good for the American people, and I think just about everybody else in Congress, so all of us appreciate your good work. And it is all about the fact that they recognize, as I think we all do, that small businesses are the backbone of our Nation's economy. They must have the opportunity to compete for Federal contracts. This underlying legislation establishes broad parameters and goals to make small business opportunities available to folks in this country who have not had access to that opportunity. The purpose of this amendment is to establish a goal that will give an opportunity for businesses that are green to have access to these contracts. Small businesses in my State of Vermont create two out of every three jobs, and it is critical that small businesses be encouraged to develop and supply products and services in an environmentally sound way. My amendment would take a step towards encouraging green businesses by recognizing that those practices of companies can be considered in Federal Government contracts. This isn't just because it is the right thing to do for the environment, it is because there is a growing recognition that if we take on the challenge of cleaning up our environment, it can be pro-high-tech, pro-growth policies that will accomplish that, and I urge favorable consideration. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, accountability has returned to Washington with a new Congress that takes its oversight responsibilities very seriously. In the past 4 months, Congress has conducted over 180 oversight hearings on issues very important to the American people. These are not just hearings; they're hearings that have led to action. Walter Reed: Since we concluded our hearing, we determined on a bipartisan basis after the information came out that more money was needed. We put $1.7 billion to make certain that we would take care of our wounded warriors. Congress now continues to oversee the ever-changing U.S. attorney scandal. The American people absolutely must have confidence that the U.S. Attorney's Office is about enforcing the law, not making it up as they go along or pursuing outcomes for partisan political reasons. Mr. Speaker, we cannot have real accountability without congressional oversight, and this is one of the ways the new Democratic Congress is changing the way that we do business here in Washington.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, three points. First, why is this an emergency? It is an emergency because the administration has never funded this war on the books. The people who will pay for this are the sons and the daughters of the men and women in the military who are now fighting it. That is wrong and irresponsible. Number 2, the military has done its job. They were asked to get rid of Saddam. He's gone. Find weapons of mass destruction. They don't exist. And allow Iraq to have democratic elections. They have had three. Third point, the President says ``no'' to timetables. Of course we must have timetables. How else to hold the Iraqi politicians responsible? They have to have an oil law. They have to renounce sectarianism in the security force. And the only way that we are going to stop asking our military and our taxpayers to referee a civil war and to finance it is by having the President of the United States do what he must do and say we want accountability from the Iraqi political leadership.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Florida for her national leadership on an issue of national importance, Head Start. Later today I will be joining with my colleagues, Representative Space from Ohio, Representative Hare from Illinois, and Representative Altmire from Pennsylvania to offer an amendment that will require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to pay special attention to the unique needs and challenges that our rural kids face to have access to Head Start. This is a great program, as was described by my colleague from Florida, but there is a misconception oftentimes that Head Start is about urban America, poor kids from cities. In fact, there are many poor kids from rural America that benefit from access to Head Start, and as a federally funded national program, we know the different communities have different needs. The National Advisory Committee on Rural Health and Human Services, in fact, acknowledged this when it issued a report that found several issues to be particular challenges for rural America in access to Head Start: transportation, workforce, enrollment fluctuation, performance standards, health requirements and financial matching. What we know is that one size does not fit all, but what we also know is the opportunity for all is an essential American goal. This amendment, when it is offered, is directing the Secretary to make certain that those special challenges that our rural kids face in America are included in an execution plan so that there will be opportunity for the rural kids as well as the urban kids.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Last week, the Government Reform and Oversight Committee voted to subpoena Secretary Rice and it was faced, the committee, with a simple question. We could do our job or not. There is no question, no question that the intelligence used by the administration to justify the war in Iraq was dead wrong. Secretary Rice was the administration's principal spokesperson, and under her leadership the administration was certain but wrong about the Niger claim; certain but wrong about the aluminum tubes, certain but wrong about the al Qaeda connection, about the mobile labs, about unmanned aerial vehicles. And there are now three questions that Congress must answer. How did the White House and Secretary Rice have such confidence they were so right when, in fact, they were so wrong? How can we protect the American people and U.S. military from such misinformation in the future? And was the administration's active dissemination of bad intelligence premeditated and deliberate, done with the intention to deceive the American people, or was it reckless and cavalier, done to justify a decision to go to war that had already been made?