Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the work of a remarkable journalist--Matt Pommer of Madison, Wisconsin.

Matt Pommer is retiring from The Capital Times newspaper where he worked for nearly 45 years. The past 35 of those years were spent covering the State Capitol beat. During that time, he covered virtually all of the major stories in the state, including the work of seven Governors.

Matt Pommer is a true journalist, who stayed focused on the facts and worked to make certain that he got the details right. He has an extraordinary knowledge of the inner workings and history of Capitol activity which was reflected in the outstanding quality of his stories. On many issues, most notably the Wisconsin retirement system, he knew as much or more than the legislators working on the issue.

In his years covering legislation Matt was steadfast in his determination to keep the public informed of the on-goings in Wisconsin

government. He devoted his energies to bringing the story to his readers without any fear or favor. He had no interest in ``spin''.

Mr. Speaker, over the years I have had the privilege of reading Matt Pommer's work, and interacting with him during my service as a state legislator. He is a professional in every sense of the word.

On a lighter note, Matt and I enjoyed the opportunity to work together as ``extras'' in the film ``Chain Reaction'' with Keanu Reeves and Morgan Freeman. We were told that Director Andrew Davis preferred to fill the role of ``extras'' with people who actually worked in the job they were portraying. When he looked for a real journalist, there is little wonder that he found Matt Pommer.

Thank you Matt, for the years of service you have provided to the citizens of the State of Wisconsin and the readers of The Capital Times.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the U.S. Department of State's recent action to reinstate Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and defense exports to Indonesia, by waiving restrictions placed on that aid by this Congress.

In 2000, due to the Indonesian military's record of abuse in places such as East Timor, Congress responsibly placed conditions on military assistance packages to Indonesia. The restrictions on military aid to Indonesia were included, once again, in the Fiscal Year 2006 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. Two days after the bill became law in November 2005, the State Department waived all remaining restrictions on Foreign Military Financing and defense exports to Indonesia. This Administration's waiver was in clear contravention of the will of this Congress. It greatly diminishes the leverage we have to press for human rights improvements.

Organizations such as the East Timor Action Group and Human Rights Watch are highly critical of this waiver. Indonesian military officers and soldiers who have committed human rights violations have not been prosecuted. At least 15 human rights defenders, including Indonesia's foremost human rights advocate Munir, have been murdered since 2000. To date, no senior Indonesian officer has been held accountable for crimes against humanity in East Timor in 1999 or before.

To this day, there are reports of the Indonesian military terrorizing the people of West Papua, but documenting these human rights violations is nearly impossible because the government and military severely limit access to the province.

While the people of Indonesia have made democratic advances, these have happened in spite of the military. I believe the Bush Administration's decision to waive the restrictions this Congress placed on FMF and defense exports to Indonesia could threaten the democratic advances by once again propping up brutal forces. Human rights activists in Indonesia and East Timor have repeatedly called for continued restrictions of U.S. military assistance to Indonesia. I am disappointed the Bush Administration has chosen to ignore them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. I honor and support our troops and request an open debate on Iraq on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the coach of the University of Wisconsin football team who retires this year, Coach Barry Alvarez. In Barry Alvarez's 16 years as coach, the Wisconsin Badgers have gone from a 1-10 record in 1990 to three-time winners of

the Rose Bowl and the Big Ten Conference. Coach Alvarez has made the University of Wisconsin into a perennial Big Ten Championship contender. The abilities, both on and off the field, of players led by Coach Alvarez, many of whom have been All-Americans and have gone on to play in the NFL, serve as a testament to the standard of excellence that he established at the University of Wisconsin's football program.

It is with great sadness that I acknowledge Coach Alvarez's retirement from his duties as head coach at the close of this season. However, Barry Alvarez will now be dedicating his full attention to being Athletic Director at the University of Wisconsin. There is no doubt that Coach Alvarez will continue to bring the same determination and commitment he has brought to all of the University of Wisconsin's athletic programs as he continues his role of Athletic Director. It is fitting that in Coach Alvarez's final year as football coach, the team excelled beyond what some had predicted and will take on Auburn in the Capital One Bowl, on January 2, 2006. While at the close of this season he may no longer be Coach of the University of Wisconsin's football team, his legacy of dedication, hard work, and excellence at the University of Wisconsin is far from being complete. Thanks Coach, Job Well Done.

Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I spent much of the Thanksgiving recess holding office hours throughout my congressional district to listen to the concerns of my constituents. Understandably, I heard how worried they are about skyrocketing energy prices, our lack of progress in Iraq, rising health care costs, and the recently passed budget cuts that predominately hurt the poor.

One need look no further than the tax bill on the floor today to see why many Americans are frustrated and disappointed with the work of this Congress. Republicans just don't seem to get it. Instead of trying to make progress on the pressing issues facing American families, House Republican's top priority is passing this $56 billion tax bill that primarily benefits wealthy investors. H.R. 4297 is truly shameful as it clearly puts enriching the wealthiest Americans before the biggest concerns of working Americans.

The centerpiece of the Republican's tax bill today is a $20 billion provision that would extend tax rate cuts for investors who receive capital gains or corporate dividends. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, the vast majority of Americans would receive no benefit at all from this tax provision.

Specifically, 78 percent of Americans would get no tax benefit from the capital gains and dividends provision, while an additional 10 percent would get less than $100. In my home State of Wisconsin, the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers (those with an average income of more than $1.3 million) would receive 43 percent of the tax benefits, or an average tax cut of $18,523 in 2009 and 2010 combined.

This bill does contain a number of tax measures I strongly support, such as the extension of the important research and development tax credit, the state sales tax deduction, and the college tuition tax credit. These provisions are good for our Nation and working families, but they should not be simply used as ``sweeteners'' to garner more support for the underlying bill and more tax cuts for investors.

I find it heartless that Republicans would bring this bill to the House floor right after they I passed a Budget Reconciliation bill that makes harmful cuts to health care for children and the elderly, food stamps for needy families, student loans, and child support enforcement. Let us be clear: these $50 billion in budget cuts were made solely to pay for these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. How can any Member of this Congress who has an ounce of compassion--justify making college students, the poor, children, and the elderly shoulder the cost of providing more tax cuts for the wealthy? I certainly cannot.

In Wisconsin, 91,000 children lack health insurance, up over 7% in just the last year. American families are struggling with soaring costs for fuel, housing, health care, child care, and college. Yet today, this Congress again turns a deaf ear to those concerns--not to reduce the deficit, not to pay for the war in Iraq, not to help the hurricane and tornado victims of 2005, but simply to satisfy those whose greed has no bounds.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4297 is a sad indication of who House Republicans are fighting for in this Congress. It should come as no surprise as we have seen the very wealthiest Americans receive special tax breaks every year since President Bush took office. The question today is whether this House will ever stand up for the many, not just the few, with budget and tax policies focused on need, not greed? I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to recognize a talented group of students and teachers from Wisconsin whom I am proud to represent. From Les Paul to Boz Scaggs, Wisconsin has a long history of producing diverse musicians of international acclaim. Continuing this legacy, the University of Wisconsin at Whitewater's Symphonic Wind Ensemble always sets a high standard and soon it will set that standard on a much larger stage. On November 4-6, they will travel to England for the Royal Northern College of Music International Festival of Winds. The ensemble will perform at one of the most prestigious band conferences in the world.

In being invited to the festival, the ensemble will not only be representing Wisconsin but they will be the sole representative of the United States at the festival. The ensemble embodies the American values of hard work and dedication, which is a testament to their Director, Mr. Glenn Hayes. Fittingly, Wisconsin will recognize these students as Official Musical Ambassadors as they travel abroad.

While at the festival, they will receive the special privilege of instruction from faculty at the Royal Northern College. I applaud the University of Wisconsin at Whitewater's Symphonic Wind Ensemble for their accomplishments and for their contributions both to Wisconsin and the United States.

Mr. Speaker, for more than 10 years, the Cambridge High School Environmental Club has performed valuable community service. Their activities have ranged from collecting of old cell phones to be recycled to puppet shows that promote ecology lessons for children. The club's recent research at Custer State Park in the Badlands of South Dakota is a fine example of their desire to be active at both the local and national level. They are a diverse group of ``active environmentalists'' whose lives and goals are as varied as the projects that they have taken on. Living together for 14 days, the club worked as an environmental research team at Custer State Park. The club, using the advanced protocols of a professional research team, performed chemical tests and journaled about their research at night. These students have experienced a life lesson that is of far greater value than anything that could be read in a

textbook. It is with great pride that I congratulate the Cambridge High School Environmental Club, and the leadership of their student advisor, Ed Grunden, for their commitment to environmental research and awareness.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the importance of National Coming Out Day. Next Tuesday, October 11th, will be the 18th annual National Coming Out Day.

As public officeholders, we know the power of telling real life stories and putting a human face on the policy issues that we deal with to convey the ideas that a dry public policy speech could not convey.

In the movement towards full equality for gay, lesbian, bisexuals and transgender Americans, no actions have been more important than the steps that millions of Americans have taken in being open, truthful, forthright, with their friends, families, co-workers and neighbors about who they are.

For much of history, gays and lesbians were invisible, so people knew us through stereotypes and myths. Visibility serves to shatter those stereotypes. Truth telling not only chips away at the myths, but serves to open minds and hearts.

National Coming Out Day is a time for us to celebrate that freedom and rededicate ourselves to the freedoms yet to be won.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 16th annual celebration of National Recovery Month, and to salute those who have shown us the promise and possibility of recovering from addiction. I am proud to be a member of the Congressional Caucus on Addiction, Treatment, and Recovery, and I join my colleagues in highlighting the need for increased access to treatment.

Despite the fact that virtually everyone has a relative, coworker, friend, or neighbor who has had problems with alcohol, drugs, or other addictive behaviors, the difficulties in getting into and completing a treatment program are not often publicly discussed. Public stigma further compounds the problems of a system that is alarmingly overburdened. Health insurance policies often do not cover treatment of alcohol or drug dependency; and, when they do, coverage is not always adequate.

In Wisconsin, more than 120,000 people are currently unable to gain access to treatment for alcohol or drug dependence. To family and friends trying to help a loved one, the many obstacles standing in their way can seem insurmountable. With appointment wait times often approaching three weeks or longer and costs of care becoming prohibitively expensive, only one in four people with alcohol or drug addiction is able to get treatment.

In Congress, I'm working to address the problem in several ways. I have re-introduced the Health Security for All Americans Act. This legislation would provide health care for all Americans by encouraging the States to expand coverage through various methods of their own choosing and providing them with the funds to do so. Equally important, the legislation sets standards for the level of coverage and includes parity for mental health and substance abuse treatment benefits. This means that no limitations or financial requirements could be imposed on the treatment of mental illness or substance abuse that are not also imposed on other medical and surgical benefits.

I'm pleased to report that exciting work is being done on this issue in my home State of Wisconsin. Last year, the University of Wisconsin-- Madison, along with The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, launched a national program to help treatment providers find innovative ways to meet their many challenges. The Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment, or NIATx, works with providers who are trying to treat more people with fewer resources. The 29 participating organizations are applying business and quality improvement principles to reduce wait times to get into treatment and the number of no-shows for treatment while increasing admissions to treatment and the number of those continuing in treatment.

NIATx agencies experienced dramatic improvements in access to treatment and retention, proving that significant change may be a lot simpler, less time consuming, and less costly than is often presumed. They're also developing new ideas and tools to share with the rest of the treatment field.

As we celebrate National Recovery Month throughout September, it's important to recognize and salute the dedicated and determined addiction treatment providers, as well as and the brave and committed individuals who are recovering. I look forward to continuing my work with my colleagues, especially.those who are members of the Addiction Treatment and Recovery Caucus, in ensuring that all Americans have access to timely and affordable addiction treatment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the International Day of Peace, a world-wide observance of 24 hours of nonviolence and global cease-fire.

The International Day of Peace was first established by the United Nations in 1981 to coincide with the opening session of the UN every September, and, in 2001, was unanimously adopted by Member States to formally recognize the day on September 21 of each year. Today, citizens across the globe will mark this occasion. I know that there are many of my constituents observing the International Day of Peace, affirming a vision of our world at peace, and fostering cooperation between individuals, organizations and nations.

I hope that individuals will take the opportunity today to consider what they can do to promote unity and cultural understanding, and help make the idea of peace not just a utopian dream, but something that humankind can achieve. I applaud the efforts of Member States, organizations of the United Nations, governmental and nongovernmental agencies, as well as civil societies and religious groups for their promotion of the International Day of Peace and the principles of peace and nonviolence through education and public awareness efforts.

As Secretary General Kofi Annan stated, ``24 hours is not a lot of time.'' Please join me in taking a few moments today to reflect on our aspirations for peace and the measures we will take to achieve them on this International Day of Peace 2005.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill that we are dealing with today is about safety and protection, and so is the Conyers amendment, which is why I rise in strong support of it.

It is tragic when hate crimes occur, but they do. It is irresponsible and naive to deny that there are people out there who seek to commit violence against others because they are gay, lesbian or transgender or because they are female or because they have a disability. It happens far too often, and we must not be silent about it.

The FBI collects statistics on these crimes; and for the past 10 years, violent hate crimes committed on the basis of sexual orientation have been the third highest number of hate crimes committed. The problem is real, and people are dying solely because of who they are.

Enactment of Federal hate crimes protections is important for both substantive and symbolic reasons. The legal protections are essential to our system of ordered justice; but on a symbolic basis, it is important that Congress enunciate clearly that hate-motivated violence based on gender-sexual orientation or disability is wrong, because, quite frankly, too much of what we do in this Chamber conveys the message that we really do not believe in equality for all, and that is sort of like a wink and a nod, that a little discrimination is okay.

I want to speak briefly about why hate crimes differ from other violent crimes. A senior Republican Member of the other body said a few years ago: ``A crime committed not just to harm an individual, but out of motive of sending a message of hatred to an entire community is appropriately punished more harshly, or in a different manner, than other crimes.''

Hate crimes are different than other violent crimes because they seek to instill fear and terror throughout a whole community, be it burning a cross in someone's yard, the burning of a synagogue, a rash of physical assaults in a gay community center. This sort of domestic terrorism demands a strong Federal response because this country was founded on the premise that persons should be free to be whoever they are, without fear of violence.

Both in the 107th and 108th Congresses, the House of Representatives voted in favor of motions to instruct conferees to retain the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act as part of the Department of Defense authorization bill. Unfortunately, despite the support of a solid bipartisan majority in both this body and the other body, the provisions were dropped in conference.

The urgency to pass hate crimes legislation and protections is as great as ever. Just last year, in separate instances, two men in Mississippi were brutally murdered based on their sexual orientation.

Scotty Joe Weaver was strangled, beaten, and stabbed before his body was carried to a wooded area and set on fire. The following week, Roderick George was shot in the forehead. Authorities have concluded that anti-gay animus was a motivating factor in both cases.

All Americans, regardless of their race, gender, disability, or sexual orientation, have a right to feel safe in their communities. Gays and lesbians should not have to live in fear anywhere in the United States of America.

For far too long this body has failed to act to prevent or respond to hate crimes. We have the opportunity to do so today. I urge my colleagues to recognize that both the underlying bill and this amendment are about safety and protection of our citizens. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, with a heavy heart, I rise today in solidarity with my fellow Americans who suffered the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. We deeply mourn the loss of life. We share the pain of those who are suffering physically and emotionally from this trauma. And we also mourn the loss of some of our faith in government to respond in full measure to people in need.

In the past few days I have received scores of calls and e-mails from my constituents in Wisconsin expressing their support for the victims of the devastation and also their outrage at the slow and inefficient federal response to that tragedy.

Wisconsinites are deeply ashamed of the images of abandonment and neglect they saw on TV and desperate to help in rescue efforts. My heart goes out to the victims of Hurricane Katrina and to those family members here in Wisconsin and across the country waiting for word from their loved ones. While Americans are reaching into their wallets to support private relief efforts, there should be no doubt that the federal government must provide the leadership to ultimately meet the challenges of this situation.

Particularly disturbing is that we have spent more than $36.7 billion dollars since the September 11th terrorist attacks planning for a response to a disaster of epic proportions. Now we've had one. Given the response of the Department of Homeland Security to this disaster, every aspect of that Department's performance and capability is now called into question and the security of every American hangs in the balance. Wisconsinites are not alone in calling for a government investigation into this catastrophic failure and an immediate overhaul of the system so that such a failure never again occurs.

Congress has now sent more than $62 billion in federal disaster relief to help save and aid hurricane victims and I supported this authorization of money. But money, alone, will not solve the problems we face.

The response to this disaster showed us many things, among them that our social safety net has been badly neglected. It showed us also that we have been inadequate stewards of the environment.

Whether it's our failure to fight poverty and provide health care to all in America; or our failure to make proper and adequate investments in infrastructure (including our emergency communications infrastructure); or our failure to protect the natural buffers, our coastal wetlands and barrier island which serve as Mother Nature's shock absorbers; or our failure to listen to scientists long warning us of climate change; or our failure to embark upon a path that decreases (rather than increases) our dependence on finite resources so that future generations won't experience the fear and anxiety that grips all of our constituents when fuel becomes unaffordable.

All of this was revealed stunningly in recent days. Let us not ignore what was exposed to us. This time, let's seize the opportunity to work toward the common good; to help those with the least, not just those with the most; and to make good on the social compact.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we have the opportunity to reclaim the promise of America. Failure is not an option.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Trek Corporation of Waterloo, Wisconsin, for their contribution to Lance Armstrong's seven straight Tour de France victories.

When Lance Armstrong triumphantly rode across the finish line in Paris, France on his Trek Madone SSLx on July 24, 2005, it marked the 7th time a Waterloo-manufactured Trek bicycle powered Armstrong to a Tour de France victory.

In 1998, while others doubted Armstrong's chances at returning to professional cycling after his battle with cancer, Trek signed a contract with him. One year later Armstrong won his first Tour de France on a Trek 5500 OCLV Carbon stock bike.

Every push of the pedal by Armstrong on his way to each Tour de France victory is a testament to the quality of Trek bicycles. Whether pushing up the Pyrenees Mountains or racing through the French countryside, Armstrong could always depend on his Trek bicycle.

Trek embodies the best of American innovation and dedication in business. Started by Dick Burke in 1976 with only 5 employees in a Waterloo barn, Trek now manufactures 700 bikes a day in Waterloo. Trek has a long history of innovation, which includes the introduction of their first carbon road bike in 1986 and the creation of the OCLV carbon bicycle in 1992. Trek got their start in professional cycling in 1983 when they sponsored their first race team.

Trek is still family owned, CEO John Burke is the son of the founder, and the company employs over 1,500 people dedicated to making some of the finest bicycles in the world. The devotion Trek has to producing superb bicycles is further demonstrated every time Lance Armstrong has raised his arms in victory.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I voted against the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement. As negotiated by the Bush Administration, it fails the fundamental tests that our trade agreements should meet.

First, our trade agreements must be structured to raise labor standards, not put downward pressures on the rights and protections of American workers. All workers--in the U.S., the Dominican Republic and Central America--deserve fair wages, safe workplaces, and reasonable working conditions.

Second, all citizens--in the U.S., the Dominican Republic and Central America--deserve clean air and clean water. Polluting factories that poison our environment should not be located in San Salvador or San Jose, any more than they should be in Baraboo or Beloit, or Waunakee or Wisconsin Dells.

The United States should be a leader in the world in raising standards for everyone. DR-CAFTA was an opportunity to enshrine these fundamental protections in a model trade agreement that could have served as a template for raising working standards, wages, safety and environmental protections around the world. Instead, it is an opportunity squandered.

Unfortunately, even more than an opportunity squandered, it threatens to undermine those very protections that American workers and their families have every right to expect. We need a truly fair trade deal. DR-CAFTA isn't fair, and it isn't a deal.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the energy bill on the floor today. As our dependence on foreign oil increases, this plan fails to directly confront our nation's future energy challenges. It provides a false sense of security to the American people that this Congress is serious about addressing our future energy needs and the skyrocketing cost of oil.

Some of my colleagues have lauded this bill, saying that it is the most comprehensive energy bill to be brought to the House floor in 30 to 40 years. While the bill may be wide-ranging, it provides no solutions, no tools, and no blueprint for reducing our demand for foreign oil or for giving families and small business owners relief at the gas pump.

Over 58 percent of the oil used to transport our nation's food from farms to consumers, heat our homes, and get us to work or school, is imported from overseas. Even the Department of Energy acknowledged that this bill will do next-to-nothing to lower gasoline prices or reduce America's demand for foreign oil. In fact, the Energy Information Administration, EIA, predicts our dependence on foreign oil will increase to more than 68 percent by 2005 regardless of whether this energy bill is signed into law or not.

If this bill does become law, Congress will have missed a monumental opportunity to make real progress in reducing our demand for foreign oil Even small efforts in this direction were rejected. For example, during conference negotiations, Republican conferees voted against a modest Senate proposal that would have required the President to reduce U.S. oil consumption by 1 million barrels a day by 2015.

This energy bill also fails to raise the efficiency standards for automobiles, which have not been increased in decades. Instead of challenging our nation's talented engineers to build safe cars, trucks and SUVs that can travel further on less gasoline, Republican conferees wilted to lobbyists who do not seem to believe in the American worker's ``can do'' ingenuity anymore.

Instead of diversifying the portfolio of the energy resources we depend on to power our nation, a Senate provision that would have required electric utilities to generate 10 percent

of its electricity from renewable sources was dropped during conference. A handful of States, including my home State of Wisconsin, have adopted similar targets and have had tremendous success. The use of renewables in these States has significantly increased while their benefits and popularity among consumers have proved the initial ``doomsday'' predictions by electric utilities wrong.

Rather than make Herculean efforts to bring renewable technologies to the market and expand their use, the bill provides oil and gas companies billions of dollars to subsidize their exploration and production efforts. To me, these taxpayer subsidies do not make much sense when the oil industry already expects to have 40 percent higher profits this year, with Exxon Mobil, BP, and Royal Dutch/Shell expecting to post a combined profit of more than $60 billion.

Despite the many misplaced priorities in this bill, I was pleased a number of provisions were included in this conference report that will benefit our Nation as well as Wisconsin. For example, conferees made the wise decision to expand our use of renewable fuels, such as ethanol, by 7.5 million gallons over 10 years. This is good for the environment, good for our Nation's energy future, and good for America's farmers. We could have done much more, but this is an important step in the right direction.

I believe now is the time to make substantial investments in improving technologies that generate more electricity from fewer resources and developing alternatives that won't pollute our environment. We must start today to ensure our Nation's energy security in the future.

I also strongly support the electricity reliability language in the bill that will help shore up the procedures and rules that govern the flow of electricity across State borders. While the reliability standards are long overdue, I believe they will help keep the lights on and ensure that a blackout similar to the one in 2003 does not happen again.

I also support the provision that will permanently ban oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes are among our Nation's most valuable natural treasures and I believe they should not be threatened by potential oil spills or have their beauty or recreational appeal tainted by massive oil rigs.

Furthermore, I applaud conferees for not including a provision that would open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and natural gas production and exploration. Destroying one of America's most pristine wilderness areas for a few months of oil is not the long-term answer to reducing our-dependence on foreign nations for oil. Energy bill conferees also deserve credit for not including a safe harbor provision that would have shielded the manufacturers of the gasoline additive, MTBE, from lawsuits. This measure would have made taxpayers shoulder the burden of cleaning up hundreds of contaminated water supply systems across the country at a cost of more than $30 million.

Despite these positive provisions, Congress has had almost five years to get its priorities right, to put the American people before special interests, and to put forward a plan that curbs our demand for foreign oil. It is now clear that Congress has failed, and that this bill represents a lost opportunity. This House should not pass a bill that provides a false sense of security to the American people while failing to truly address the energy challenges our Nation will face in the future. I urge my colleagues to vote against this energy bill.