welch. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman. i also thank my colleague from florida. i appreciate the courtesy that he rules committee extended to mr. gibson and me last evening when we offered our amendment on syria. in my moment here is to discuss this fundamental question about whether america is going to be taking a military action in syria without any congressional debate. we have a responsibility under the constitution, article 1, section 8, clause 11 gives congress the power to declare war and raise and support the armed forces. my colleague from florida rightly said that we have an obligation to support the military men and women. they will do anything that we ask of them to do. but this is the moment when we face our responsibility or shirk it to give them a policy worthy of their willingness to sacrifice. and the idea that we would take military action in arming the syrian rebels is military action, it's intended very specifically to take down the overnment of syria, and i want us to go, but i don't want this congress

mr. welch: mr. speaker, climate change is real. the future, damage that will be done if we fail to address it, is foreseeable and predictable. we're living through an extended period of radical weather. 2012 was the second most damaging weather systems infelix of economic harm in this country in the history of our country. $115 billion, much of it from hurricane sandy, much of it from an extended drought. sea levels are rising. this is measurable. this is not debatable. it is fact. what we're doing in this congress is arguing about energy policy, but we're having that argument in a context where we're denying that thele failure to address climate change won't have serious economic and social implications. sea levels are rising, the damage to our treasury is rising, the suffering of our people is real and it is absolutely essential that the house of representatives acknowledge the reality of climate change and include that in its debate on energy policy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for wh

mr. peterson: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for one minute. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. this is not a farm bill. this is a leadership designed train wreck. we had a farm bill. it was bipartisan. it saves money. it provided farmers with more security. it provided conservation and it it's a way forward. but i stead -- what instead we have is the result of a failure of the leadership to work with their committee chair where they came on this floor and they unraveled intentionally, deliberately, and regrettably, effectively, a compromise that was reached by republicans and democrats who dealt with tough issues. america needs a farm bill not something that is designed for political consumption and for farm failure. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: could i inquire how much time myself and the ranking member have remaining in the debate? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman fr

by mr. introduced stockman and mr. welch would do that. it provides a structure and addresses a contrasting problem addresses the personal problem and put somebody in charge. no one is in charge and then someone should be in charge. accountability is key to success. that is the purpose of this hearing, oversight, to impose accountability and looking forward as the members have reticulated which we must do as we learn from iraq, we have to implement reforms that will affect kuwait -- a effectuate future stabilization reconstruction operations. the u.s. office for contingency operations would ensure such success. thank you, madam chairman and members of the committee. i look forward to your questions. >> excellent, thank you very much. ambassador, we would love to hear from you as well. just push that green button. >> madam chairman and members -- >> a little bit closer. >> thank you for inviting me to appear today and it is a pleasure to appear beside stuart bowen. i am here to offer support for his suggestion to create the u.s. office of c

mr. welch: everyone's heart breaks for the syrian people. over 100,000 people are getting slaughtered by the leader of their government, it's unconscionable. but the question for us is what can we practically do and whatever it is that we do do does congress have a say in the yes or no of military actions? i thank the gentleman for this amendment because there's two questions hoar. one is, the policy itself. the use of military force. arming the rebels. is that a wise policy? will it make things better or make it worse? the second question is whatever the policy is, is it the responsibility of those of us who have been elected to epresent americans, and we all do, is it our responsibility as members of congress to be accountable in making that enormously important and consequential decision about whether we send -- we make a decision that has the potential to send our troop into combat? let me talk briefly about the policy. the military situation there is chaotic. the rebels are united loosely in an effort to bring down assaad. but distingui

mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank my friend from massachusetts. and i want to at the outset associate myself with the remarks of mr. mcgovern and mr. welch regarding the importance of this body having a debate and whether or not we should be sending u.s. taxpayer dollars tone gauge in support -- to engage and support the rebels in syria. this budget supports the defense democratic, it also supports the intelligence agency. so this is the time and place to have the debate about taxpayer dollars going into a civil war in syria. it's also the time and high time that we get on with passing a federal budget. we've heard a lot of talk on the floor today about the importance of supporting our military. absolutely true. but this legislation does nothing to turn off the sequester. so unless the congress comes together on a bipartisan and bicameral basis to resolve the budget, this defense appropriations bill is going to .e cut by about $48 billion just as the nondefense parts of the budget will be cut as a result of sequestration. so, i don't think the ame

hr-2606 introduced by mr. stockman and mr. welch would do that. it provides a structure and addresses a contrasting problem addresses the personal problem and put somebody in charge. no one is in charge and then someone should be in charge. accountability is key to success. that is the purpose of this hearing, oversight, to impose accountability and looking forward as the members have reticulated which we must do as we learn from iraq, we have to implement reforms that will affect kuwait -- a effectuate future stabilization reconstruction operations. the u.s. office for contingency operations would ensure such success. thank you, madam chairman and members of the committee. i look forward to your questions. >> excellent, thank you very much. ambassador, we would love to hear from you as well. just push that green button. >> madam chairman and members -- >> a little bit closer. >> thank you for inviting me to appear today and it is a pleasure to appear beside stuart bowen. i am here to offer support for his suggestion to create the u.s. office of c

mr. tonko: thank you, madam chair. first i would like to thank representative welch and representative sablan for working with me on this amendment and thank the gentlelady from ohio for the opportunity to chair the amendment in the house. madam chair, this bill would be fine if we were still living in the 1950's. in a world where we had few energy limitations, no knowledge of the fact that burning fossil fuels would alter the chemistry of our officer, and the trajectory of our earth's climate. we lived in a world where energy was much more affordable. in a world where the united states was the dominant economic and manufacturing power. it was also a time when there were two nuclear powers and we believed that nuclear weapons were a guarantee of security. well, it is not the 1950's. and this bill does not meet our present or future needs. the overall funding level is too small. and the funding distribution reflects the wrong priorities. our amendment addresses just two of the important programs that are grossly underfu