Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, often we take to the floor to speak to the American public. Well, today I would like to speak to my colleagues in the House of Representatives and the men and women who are preparing their work for our floor action this week.

I would call to their attention that according to the Defense Department's own data, the program to clean up unexploded ordnance on formerly used defense sites will take as much as 252 years. That means in the year 2255 that Congress passing spending bills will still be appropriating money to deal with the problem that we could solve today.

Why, if we have technology that has already realized $100 million saving at the former Lowry Bombing Range outside of Denver, Colorado, why are we not moving forward to address this problem?

Despite the fact that this Defense Science Board has proposed 5 recommendations that would allow us to address this problem, 80 percent of it over the next 5 years, why do we do nothing but continue to study it? Worse yet, we have actually decreased the funding that is crippling the Department of Defense. It is burdening other Federal land management agencies and it is endangering the health and safety of the American public.

We have to ask why.

Is it because we need another tragedy to occur like what happened in San Diego when 2 boys were killed when they discovered bombs in their neighborhood that, unknown to the residents, sat on top of a former bombing range? Is it because somehow we do not need 8 million acres of land that we could put in productive use in 5 years instead of 252 years? Is it because we believe somehow this contamination exists only in isolated places when, in fact, it is in every State in the Union and almost every Congressional district? Are we somehow unaware that when wildfires strike our public lands from New York to Colorado to Alaska that many of these lands are former ranges?

Three times since I have been in Congress we had to pull men and women out of the front lines fighting the fires because the extreme heat is exploding bombs around them.

Is it because we are unaware of the plight of a North Carolina couple with 5 children who are risking bankruptcy because they moved out of their home when their young son found an old bomb in their front yard and they feared for the safety of their family? It is now a year-and-a- half later and they are still paying the mortgage on a home they cannot live in. They cannot sell it because the clean up has yet to begin because we underfund these programs.

Are we unaware that in the same area of North Carolina, the former Camp Butner, the Army Corps of Engineers has determined that they need to investigate another 20,000 acres for unexploded ordnance contamination? Yet, developers are buying up land and building homes before clean-up has even begun.

Can we in good conscience risk the health and safety of future residents? Is it because we do not know that other residential and business developments already exist or are being proposed in Texas, South Carolina, California, Colorado, here in Washington, D.C., and Massachusetts? Others will surely follow.

Is it because we are unaware that many of these unexploded bombs and discarded munitions are on tribal lands, thereby posing yet another hazard to the highly at-risk Native American population? Are we somehow unaware that the Federal land managers in the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife system, the National Forest Service, the National Park Service, where many of these former ranges are located, do not have the capacity needed to ensure the public safety?

Or is it despite the fact that the Department of Defense believes that ordnance and munitions on these formerly used sites poses enough of a national security risk to remove critical information about the sites from the public because they are afraid terrorists may find out, but we do not believe these same sites left untouched pose a risk to our citizens? Or is it simply that we hope that we can avert a tragedy in our lifetime and just pass this risk off to further future generations?

Whatever the reason, it is simply unacceptable. It is indeed unconscionable that we continue to turn a blind eye to a responsibility that we should be undertaking now.

After years of working on this issue and seeing Congress still missing in action, I will work this week to make sure that my colleagues have a chance to be heard, to take action that might help protect people at risk in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. BLUMENAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the comments that the gentleman from Wisconsin made and particularly highlighting the long-standing contribution of our friend, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) who I have been privileged to work with the last 6 years on this bill, but I know he has been working on this issue and is a recognized congressional expert, one of the gentleman's many areas of expertise.

I think it is also important to note the cooperation with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Ranking Member Frank) who worked with us as we were maneuvering with our friends in the Senate. I think this is a better bill for the effort.

We have also had a great deal of back and forth from other Members who are from States that have suffered from repetitive-flood loss; and as a result of their efforts, and the work in the Senate, I think we actually have a bill that provides better and broader protections than when we had first begun this work.

Last but not least, I note on the floor the presence of Kyle Gilster, who has done outstanding work staffing this on behalf of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). I note that we also have Janine Benners who has been doing this in my office.

Mr. Speaker, I would insert at this point in the Record the remainder of my comments.

Thank you to Mr. Frank, Senator Bunning, Senator Shelby, and Senator Sarbanes.

I also want to thank the staff of Representative Bereuter, Kyle Gilster, and Representative Frank, Jeff Riley, for their work on this issue.

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is crucial and good example of working with local communities to reduce impact of disasters. Benefits economy, environment, and individual property values.

NFIP started in 1968--private insurance companies suffered high losses and stopped offering coverage for flood damage. NFIP helps homeowners deal with flood losses and gives communities tools to prevent future flood damage. Program has already lowered flood damage by 25 percent below the level that would have occurred without the program.

Some problems with the program: in some cases, federal flood control policy encourages floodplain development by financing the construction and repair of levees and underwriting the risk of flooding.

FEMA was concerned about this problem during the Clinton and Bush administrations. Mr. Bereuter and I worked with former FEMA Administrator James Lee Witt to develop our proposal to fix NFIP problems.

The Office of Management and Budget has pointed out that in too many years the program has expenses greater than its revenue from insurance premiums which prevents building long-term reserves to handle the costs of flood insurance.

Twenty-five percent of the policyholders pay substantially subsidized premiums, with the Federal Treasury and other policyholders paying the difference.

Losers of the NFIP are people who live in areas that require flood insurance, even though they do not have their property flood often, pay dramatically high rates.

The program is currently self supporting from premium income. However, in the 1980s federal taxpayers had to make up a shortfall of $1.2 billion when the income from the low premiums was not enough to cover the flood claims. The chances of this happening again are high.

Repetitively flooded properties are a significant strain on the NFIP.

FEMA reports that just 1 percent of the properties account for 25 percent of NFIP flood loss dollars. Many of these properties have received more in flood insurance claims payments than the building's value.

Subsidizing people to live in repetitively flooded areas does not make sense.

It is bad for the federal taxpayer, bad for the environment, and bad for the families that are continually placed in harm's way.

Property owners are trapped in a dangerous and expensive cycle. We do flood victims no favors by rebuilding their homes in harm's way.

The legislation we are considering today will avoid many of the injuries, deaths, and damages before they occur, and give property owners the option of moving to a less hazardous area.

Our approach helps build disaster resistant communities and safe homes by providing mitigation assistance to communities.

This bill has a number of benefits:

Most importantly, it will move people out of harm's way and discourage newcomers from moving there. This bill will save lives by moving people to higher ground.

Often overlooked, it will save the federal government millions of dollars in avoided flood damages. FEMA reports that mitigation and building standards already in place have resulted in over $1 billion annually in reduced flood losses. Our bill will significantly increase these savings by increasing funding for mitigation.

Savings to ratepayers in the National Flood Insurance Program. Mitigating repetitively flooded properties will reduce the pressure to raise flood insurance rates. The Association of State Floodplain Managers estimates that avoiding just one 10 percent rate increase could save the 4.4 million policyholders $175 million each year.

Finally, this bill will significantly benefit the environment. If property-owners choose to relocate, the land will convert to open- space. Non-structural approaches to flood control, such as voluntary buyouts and restoration of natural floodplains, are often much more effective in controlling floods than structural approaches. Natural floodplains also prevent pollution problems from flooding.

As the bill went through the process in the House and Senate, we worked with Members from coastal areas to make the reforms more sensitive to the plight of their constituents.

I would like to highlight one change we were able to make in the Increased Cost of Compliance (ICC) program. The bill not specifically provides for use of the ICC program funds as local match monies. This program, created in the 1994 Flood Insurance Reform Act, uses a flood insurance premium surcharge to raise money for mitigation--but it hasn't yet functioned well.

Freeing up these funds for use in mitigation of repetitive loss properties will help the affected property owners by dramatically reducing costs to them and will help all policy holders by stemming the drain on the Flood Insurance Fund from repetitive claims.

I respectfully urge passage of the Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 204. This is one of the best fiscal and environmental opportunities for Congress this year.

We can't stop natural hazards from threatening our communities, but we can try to minimize or stop them from becoming disasters, and that's what this bill does.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 1: Page 7, line 21, insert after the dollar

amount the following: ``(increased by $1,400,000,000)''.

Page 17, line 21, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(increased by $2,000,000,000)''.

Page 33, line 19, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $3,500,000,000) (increased by

$100,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 2: Page 7, line 21, insert after the dollar

amount the following: ``(increased by $60,000,000)''.

Page 17, line 21, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(increased by $400,000,000)''.

Page 33, line 19, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $500,000,000) (increased by

$40,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 3: Page 33, line 19, insert after the dollar

amount the following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000) (increased by

$5,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 4: Page 7, line 21, insert after the dollar

amount the following: ``(increased by $140,000,000)''.

Page 33, line 19, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $200,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 5: Add at the end of title VIII, the

following new section:

Sec. 8__. There shall be an Assistant Deputy Undersecretary

of Defense for Military Munitions Response, who shall serve

under the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Installations

and Environment, oversee policy and budgeting issues

involving the characterization, remediation, research, and

management of military munitions response at former military

ranges known or suspected to contain unexploded ordnance or

other abandoned military munitions, and be the single point

of contact for elements of the military departments with

munitions response responsibilities. There shall be a

separate account, to be known as ``Military Munitions

Response Program'', through which funds will be provided for

the remediation of unexploded ordnance, discarded military

munitions, and munitions constituents at Formerly Used

Defense Sites.

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 6: Page 17, line 21, insert after the dollar

amount the following: ``(increased by $200,000,000)''.

Page 33, line 19, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $250,000,000) (increased by

$50,000,000)''.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to my friends who are advancing this amendment, and there are a number of things that I agree with them on. I would be happy to have a debate on this floor about corporate inversion and about tax policy. I am troubled by some of the outsourcing of our activities in this country. I think that there are a number of valid points that have been raised. I am concerned, though, about how we are mixing them.

First of all, this is not, as has been referenced, a Stanley Works; this is a spin-off. I have been following this for a number of years, because the gentleman that I started in the political process with some 30 years ago founded the Arthur Andersen office in Portland, Oregon. He has been a close friend. He has not been associated with Arthur Andersen for some 20 years, but we have had many discussions about the travail of that once great accounting firm.

Accenture is a result of a spin-off that was brewing between the consulting wing and the accounting wing, and this finally was formalized in 1987.

Accenture has never been a United States corporation, a United States partnership. Never, not once. I have had this conversation with my friend, I have exchanged documents, I have requested information from them, and I have yet to receive, and I will welcome clarification on my colleague's time, anything that suggests what we are saying is not true. Never a United States corporation, not a United States partnership, spun off 15 years ago. I will enter into the Record the Notes To Consolidated Financial Statements from Accenture, LTD, that talks about the amount of tax that this entity pays on United States income.

My friend, the gentleman from Arizona, pointed out the effective tax rate was actually higher than that of the competitors that were involved here. We are talking about almost a third of 1 million American jobs, including some in many of our districts. I am troubled that we mix apples and oranges here, that we are having a rhetorical flourish and driving home some important points and mixing it in the only vehicle that is available. I think my friends on the majority side actually invite this sort of debate because we so seldom have a chance to kick it around in an open and honest and direct way, but this is not the vehicle.

Let me give one example in my community where I had to push back with friends on both sides of the aisle. I have the most productive truck manufacturing company in the world, Freightliner, headquartered in Portland, Oregon. There were people who wanted to push back against the purchase of the finest trucks in the world for our troops in Iraq because the ownership of this company that has been headquartered in my community for 50 years, employing union machinists, union teamsters and painters, was purchased by Daimler-Benz, a German company, and the Germans were not our friends in Iraq for a while. Now the Germans are our friends, because people find out we need them. But there was an attempt to punish a foreign corporation by making it impossible for my employees in my district to be able to bid on a contract.

I would suggest the analogy is exactly the same. I pushed back to protect those jobs. I think we err if we mix apples and oranges and try and throw this contract out.

Mr. Speaker, I find some small amount of irony with my friend on the other side of the aisle talking about secrets that somehow we do not want the American people to know. The American people can judge for themselves about the extent of this economic recovery who wins and who loses; and the prescription drug benefit, the seniors of this country have seen through the sham that it is.

But for them to talk about secrets, I find particularly ironic, because Members of the minority party have to come to the floor today in the 1-minutes to talk about the important FSC bill, because that is a secret; and we are voting on it in a few minutes. There is not a printed copy that is available. Only the lobbyists are aware. There will not be adequate time for debate, a meaningful debate, in 30 minutes. They will not allow amendments. They will not even allow the bipartisan alternative to be voted on on the floor.

I find a great deal of irony about their concern for secrecy. I think they

ought to start by opening up the legislative process so at least their own Members have a chance to participate with people on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I listened a moment ago as my friend from New York talked about: ``dragging it out and messing it up.'' I can think of no better terminology to describe the bill before us today, because it has been ``drug out and messed up.''

I heard my friend, the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means, somehow assailing our side of the aisle for wanting to ``bend the rules'' when the rule that we are debating here today allows all points of order against the bill to be waived. So, they bend the rules for things that they want to protect; but if we are seeking an opportunity to have meaningful amendments, a meaningful alternative, somehow that is trying to ``bend the rules.''

Certified smart people of good faith could have found a way to have allowed a meaningful debate on this floor. We have a serious bipartisan alternative offered up by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), people who have a proposal that is paid for, that would not increase the deficit, that would not be all ``messed up and drug out.'' But we are not going to permit that today. We are limiting debate on this proposal to 30 minutes, despite being something that has tied this Congress in knots for months and is a problem that is weighing against small manufacturers across this country.

There are legitimate policy differences. There is a great deal of emotion. There is a great deal of significant policy underlying it. We are not going to have an opportunity to deal with that. There is no good reason to have permitted only 30 minutes of debate on the other side of the aisle.

Maybe they think that is better, because this proposal is moving through this Chamber in a fog of over 700 pages of technical Tax Code and report language that the vast majority of this Chamber has had no access to and certainly has not had a chance to study it even if they had the time. I would suggest that this is a testimony to how far the rhetoric of the majority obscures their action and suggests contempt for people in both parties who disagree with them.

Mr. Speaker, there is no more fitting counterpoint to the Reagan legacy than what we are seeing here today. Ronald Reagan was President during one of Congress's most significant tax accomplishments--The Tax Reform Act of 1986. It truly was tax reform. It made the tax system more fair, less complicated, and reduced governmental distortion of fundamental economic decisions by reducing categories of taxation. There was at least some nod towards maintaining a balance between resources and requirements.

Today's bill, H.R. 4520, is the antithesis of reform, making the tax code more complex while ignoring fiscal realities. Some provisions are just downright cynical. The Republican leadership was forced to withdraw an invitation for churches to break the law and to violate the fundamental principle of separation of church and State three times every election year.

This bill represents a troubling breakdown of the legislative process, illustrating how far the Ways and Means Committee has fallen from its previous reputation for bipartisanship and cooperation in crafting tax policy. This measure is a political grab-bag for lobbyists. Good legislation has been taken hostage by adding on provisions to ``buy'' votes for passage. We will then roll the political dice and let the chips fall where they may.

At a time of exploding deficits, when there's a battle over adequately funding our Nation's infrastructure which would put tens of thousands of people to work everyday, we're spending at least $34 billion, but realistically up to $180 billion over the next 11 years, if supposedly temporary provisions are extended.

The saddest aspect of this legislation is not a lack of fiscal responsibility or an abnegation of sound tax policy. This bill signals a surrender; not just by the leadership, but by Members of Congress, in the struggle to be meaningful, responsible policy makers. This cannot be foisted off on the inability of one committee chairman to manage the committee inconsistent with its historic role and achievements. It's not merely his failure. It's not just the failure of the majority leadership to be able to have the committee function and have a set of comprehensive objectives that meet the needs of the country. A vote of support on H.R. 4520 is our failure as a Congress.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Madam Chairman, I have been listening to my friend from Montana's presentation, and I noted the reference to mad cow disease. Would that we had the same zeal on the part of the Department of Agriculture to protect American consumers from mad cow disease, a sort of zero tolerance that is being advocated here dealing with the bison. It may well be the reason we have only discovered one case of mad cow disease in the United States is because the American consumer for years has been eating the evidence. We have such a limited, tiny sampling process at present, unfortunately, our not being able to find out in a wide and broad fashion whether or not we have a problem. I note no small amount of irony that we are going to prosecute the poor hapless beef producer in the Midwest who wanted to test all their beef for mad cow so that it could be exported again to Japan.

Listening to the debate here today, the Chair of the Committee on Agriculture is making a compelling case for more aggressive action for elk, but as has been pointed out from my colleague from New Hampshire, my colleague from New York, there has not yet been a documented case dealing with the bison. Never a confirmed incident of brucellosis transmission in the wild from buffalo to cattle. Yet we have got 13,000 Yellowstone elk, some of which are infected after we have documented the problems, that are allowed to wander unfettered to federal land outside the park. It seems at least from a distance that Montana has a different philosophy from Wyoming.

I see my colleague from Wyoming perhaps approaching the well, but it seems that Wyoming does not deem buffalo to be a threat to the cattle because for more than 4 decades buffalo with brucellosis and cattle have grazed together in the Grand Teton National Park evidently without incident.

It would seem to me that what has been proposed in this amendment is a simple common sense approach to just have a 1-year moratorium. It is not seeking to establish in law at this point, a prohibition, but giving an opportunity to array the evidence, having an opportunity to look at less invasive solutions. Maybe we only have killed three by shooting them, but my understanding is that we had 277 that were sent to slaughter. It may be a distinction without a difference if one is a bison whether they are shot or sent away to be slaughtered. I would hope that there would be an opportunity for us to think about how we are upsetting these natural ecosystems. I would hope that we could look in a broader context for wildlife management. I would hope that there would be an opportunity for people to not single out bison for slaughter when it appears, from what we have heard on the floor today, that the problem instead is one of infected elk which are treated differently and will continue to be treated differently.

I would respectfully suggest that we adopt the amendment from the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from New Hampshire, give us a year's breathing room, be able to find ways to solve this problem in the future in ways that deal with a more humane treatment for our American Great Plains icon.

Madam Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Madam Chairman, because, as fellow westerners, I did not want there to be a misunderstanding, what I said when I was on the floor earlier was that there had been four decades of having buffalo grazing in the Grand Teton Park with cattle without incident. Does the gentlewoman have evidence that I misspoke, that there have been problems in the last four decades between the buffalo and the cattle in the Grand Teton National Park?

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I am listening to the debate as it has proceeded. I speak with the trepidation of somebody who is even further west than Idaho, but I do not think that gives me any special knowledge or wisdom or right to speak on this any more than my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), who I know to have been deeply involved with issues that deal with natural resources, and I know that he was not originally from New Jersey. My colleague from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who has been deeply concerned with issues that relate to national resources and has a wildlife refuge in his district, people do not recognize is in Connecticut.

I just finished a day-long conference with my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), about the future of Mt. Hood, which is in my district. There is a national forest. There is a national scenic area. We were aware of the balance, the struggle to try and deal with the issues of urban life, of recreation, of competing demands. But we concluded in our community, as have most Americans, that it is a fallacy to say if you cannot get in and enjoy every square inch any way you want that you are shut out and you cannot enjoy it.

We are not talking about putting a gondola to the top of Mt. Hood. There are areas that are too sensitive to have motorized dirt bikes or even pedal dirt bikes, and we are working with people who deal with that form of recreation to work with them in a way to manage and respect the resources. I have a friend, an Oregonian ex-pat, Mike Finley, who was the superintendent of Yellowstone. I have had conversations with him for years about this issue.

The ban on snowmobile use in this particular area was the result of extensive study, not once but twice by the Park Service. It included the EPA, not once but twice. There was a massive involvement of public input, and this is a decision that was studied and was appropriate for the Yellowstone area that is unique. It is outrageous what is happening in terms of the noise and the air pollution in some of these sensitive areas, and the vast majority of the American public agrees.

I am not opposed to all motorized, mechanized forms of recreation. There is a place for jet skis, for snowmobiles, for mechanized dirt bikes. But for heaven's sake, we have to recognize that there are some areas where they are not appropriate. There are hundreds of miles immediately adjacent to the areas in question where snowmobiles are allowed. This Congress and the Park Service are able to work with the recreation industry, the manufacturers, and the people who practice them to be able to make sure that they are not shut out in the future. That is not the intention.

This is the culmination of over a decade's work. We heard my friend from Idaho talk about changing signals. Well, there are an awful lot of people who have been involved with this for a long time who think that the original proposal reversed by the Bush administration was itself a compromise. It was itself a studied, deliberative action that was thrown in reverse by the Bush administration for ways that I have not been able to understand and I think are inimical to the expectation of the vast majority of the American public.

I hope that this body has the wisdom to approve this amendment; to reinstate the result of a long, careful, thoughtful, deliberate action; to not confuse this with denying access, which it is not, and for heaven's sake not fall into the trap that we have to continue the way we have done it in the past. If anything, we need to avoid further exploitation of sensitive resources to mechanized activities that are in many cases not appropriate.

This is a balanced amendment. It is a studied effort, and I hope that we will approve it when the time comes.

Mr. Speaker, I am introducing the ``Friends of the Children National Demonstration Act'' that would authorize $7 million for Friends of the Children to support local program operations at existing sites and dissemination of findings to policymakers and other youth-serving programs. Friends of the Children is the only program in the nation that provides carefully screened full-time professional mentors to at-risk children for 12 years starting at five years of age. The Portland program started in 1993 with 3 ``Friends'' mentors serving 24 children. Today, Friends of the Children serves over 600 children in 11 communities across the nation. The children served by this innovative program are truly the most defenseless--they are children of poverty; they have been in foster care, on welfare, and have parents who are incarcerated or are homeless. Friends of the Children's first class is now graduating from the Portland program; and the graduates are outperforming their peer group of at-risk children.

Here is a real-life example of the impact this program has: Natasha joined the Friends of the Children Portland program in 1993 and has overcome a family history of drug abuse and prostitution. Natasha has developed a strong relationship with her mentor, Jennifer. When she first enrolled in the Friends program, Natasha was unmotivated and did not enjoy her school work. With Jennifer's guidance, Natasha has found the determination to become a leader and maintain a positive attitude. She follows this philosophy in other aspects of her life, refusing to bow to peer pressure and confronting her friends when they are considering risky behaviors such as smoking. Now 17, Natasha has excelled as a member of her high school softball team and has become an avid photographer. She plans to study photography in college and will begin the college application process this fall by visiting college campuses with Jennifer. Natasha is a wonderful role model for the children and has benefited in a unique way from the Friends program. Natasha lived with her great-grandmother until she passed away in 2000. She is now living with a former Friends of the Children mentor who serves as her legal guardian.

In Portland tomorrow, the first class of Friends of the Children, including Natasha, will graduate from the program. These were children who were identified 12 years ago by their elementary schools as most likely to fail. They now show great progress in leading successful lives.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bill and make a commitment to improving the lives of at-risk children.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from Louisiana's impassioned point, and I happen to agree that there are things we need to do with this devastating coastal erosion in Louisiana. But the way that we go about that and the way we deal with some of our significant energy problems is not simply ritually repassing an inadequate and failed energy policy that has already stalled in the other body.

It does not have to be this hard. We do not have to hold good ideas hostage. The wind energy production tax credit would pass in a heartbeat; energy grid reliability would be massively supported; increased fuel efficiency standards are long overdue; and, yes, maybe even some assistance for the coastal erosion.

Hopefully, after we get past this week's ritual repassage and the beating of our gums, I hope the House will return to enact simple, common sense proposals that will make America more energy efficient without compromising the environment, and make our families safer, healthier and more economically secure.