Doris Matsui

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, whatever position Members have on this legislation, they should vote against the previous question so we can consider a much better approach to our Nation's refinery shortage. The Boucher-Dingell substitute, which is identical to the text of H.R. 5365, will establish a strategic refinery reserve. This reserve would complement the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It would provide a much needed safety net for this Nation during times when existing refineries are temporarily or even permanently unavailable. It would also be used to supply fuel to the Federal Government and the military during those times when oil production is not compromised. Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can consider this important and responsible substitute. I want to make it very clear that a ``no'' vote will not stop us from considering H.R. 5254, but a ``yes'' vote will block consideration of the Boucher-Dingell substitute. Again, I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, the security of our Nation is this institution's highest priority. Therefore, I was pleased to see that overall funding for homeland security was increased. This includes an increase for our security efforts at our ports, borders, critical infrastructure, and all modes of transportation. There is also increased funding for our brave State and local first responders. This bill, however, still falls short because it is controlled by limited resources rather than need. The allocation isn't high enough; and, therefore, our security is compromised as a result. For example, the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program grants which are very important to local police response capabilities. These are funds my own hometown of Sacramento has received and used for things like information analysis. Unfortunately, the administration zeroed out its funding. Wisely, the committee recognized the value of this program and restored its funds. But to do so they had to move funds from the Urban Area Security Initiative grant known as UASI, to the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program grant. In Sacramento, UASI funding has proven vital. Funds have been spent on such items such as gas mask filters, first responder training and communication equipment upgrades; but earlier this year, the guidelines changed. Sacramento, along with a number of other cities, was deemed ineligible to apply. Yet in all of my meetings and letters with DHS and the White House, the only plausible explanation I walked away with is that budgetary constraints necessitated this change. Both of these programs provide critical resources to our communities, but to ensure preparedness we are left robbing Peter to pay Paul. DHS's core mission is to secure the safety of Americans. It is Congress's responsibility to ensure that their efforts are adequately funded. However, Democratic attempts to boost funding by $3.5 billion for border security, port security, aviation security, first responders, and disaster preparedness were defeated. I have an obligation to ensure that we are meeting our national security needs and a responsibility to my constituents. I am glad that this bill does increase funding. I hope that will continue to address all of our security funding needs.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time. I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. Mr. Speaker, I will be calling for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so that we can consider the Visclosky amendment that was rejected in the Rules Committee tonight on a straight party-line vote. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, today we consider the rule governing debate for the energy and water appropriations bill. The issues of energy and water are always important, but this year these issues are front and center of our national dialogue. Over the past 9 months, the American people have seen the direct impact of water infrastructure on their day-to-day lives, from Hurricane Katrina's devastation of New Orleans and the gulf coast to the worst flooding the New England States have experienced in 70 years, and just this week NOAA announced the upcoming hurricane season will bring an increase in strong storms reaching land, category 3 and above. In our communities, in our States, and every region of our country we are seeing the importance of flood protection. But we are also witnessing the growing strain on our already fragile water infrastructure. Yet even with this added pressure, our Nation's civil works programs do not see a corresponding increase in funding. These projects provide critical protections and we need to make investing in them a priority. On repeated occasions you have heard me discuss the critical need to improve flood protection in my hometown of Sacramento. In terms of lives and property, I recognize what is at stake. Sacramento has the dubious distinction of being the most at-risk river city in the Nation. I certainly understand the heightened concern that arrives with each rainfall. This year, our region has experienced an especially wet winter and wet spring. Each year we delay making these necessary investments is one more year of wondering what Mother Nature will bring. Members of the committee attempted to make the most with its limited resources. They did improve on the President's budget. However, as Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Obey and Energy and Water Subcommittee Ranking Member Visclosky rightly pointed out, we still need an additional $250 million to protect vulnerable areas from flooding. With these funds, the Army Corps of Engineers could speed up construction on a number of flood protection projects across the country. Additionally, they would be able to provide some support to the operation and maintenance of completed projects, as well as restore the Corps' research and development program. As a Nation, we are at a crossroads. We can continue in a defensive position, responding to Mother Nature's whims as in New Orleans and recent storms in the northeast, or we can take the offensive, working to strengthen and reinforce our Nation's water infrastructure. In my view, we must seek out opportunities like this to be proactive and not reactive, as Congress is beginning to do in science and investing in renewable energy sources. I was pleased that the committee increased funding from last year's level for the Department of Energy's Office of Science. This will fund basic energy research, nuclear physics, as well as biological and environmental sciences. A 15 percent increase is a good start, but if we truly want to reverse the trend of the past few years, we need to make a greater investment in science and research and development. I was home in Sacramento this past weekend and everyone was talking about rising gas and energy prices. The net effect for working families is perhaps a shorter vacation and perhaps not eating out at a restaurant. Escalating energy prices threaten not only the quality of life and pocketbook of every American but the very stability of our national economy. We must do more as a Nation to develop energy alternatives. I believe that America must modernize its energy policy to decrease this Nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil and preserve the environment. To accomplish this, Congress must develop a strategic and forward-looking energy plan that places a high priority on new research into renewable fuels and greater energy efficiency. Unfortunately, the programs this bill cut are the exact programs necessary to develop a national renewable energy portfolio for the 21st century. There are drastic reductions in funding for wind, solar and geothermal programs, some of the programs that must be grown if we are ever going to curb our reliance on oil. I am concerned that we are missing an opportunity to expand our energy alternatives. As much as this Energy and Water Appropriations bill is about funding current needs, it is also about investing in the future. While I think the committee tried to the best of their abilities to do this, in the end, the tight funding constraints limited their ability to strike the necessary balance. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make some comments also that I appreciate Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky for working with me on my project in Sacramento. That is much appreciated. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky). (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, the Visclosky amendment would provide $250 million for a number of ongoing flood projects that are not funded in the bill. It also adds $750 million for research into alternative sources of energy, such as coal, ethanol, and biodiesel, that would reduce or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. The spending increase in the Visclosky amendment is offset by reducing by 2.4 percent the tax cut received by people earning more than $1 million a year. Mr. Speaker, this amendment deals with two urgent national priorities. It puts our money where our mouth is when we say our country needs to diversify our energy supply, increase energy efficiency, and reduce our addiction to foreign oil. With the hurricane season approaching, it puts more resources into the major flood control projects that would protect our property and our lives. Mr. Speaker, it is important for Members to know that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us from considering the energy and water appropriation bill under an open rule. But a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on the Visclosky amendment. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us will allow the House to consider the fiscal year 2007 Military Quality of Life and Veterans Administration Appropriations bill. All Members know that the support in this bill for military housing, for veterans' health care, and for retiree benefits is part of the promise we made to the men and women when they joined our Armed Forces. As we consider this bill, there should be little disagreement over the tremendous demands being placed on the Veterans Administration and on the military construction accounts. In 1995, the VA treated 2.6 million veterans and their families. By the end of this year, that number will have more than doubled to an estimated 5.4 million people. This places additional stress on the many hospitals and the VA network. These World War II-era buildings are badly in need of upgrades at the cost of billions over the next 5 to 10 years. It was for this reason, increased strain in time of war, that the Democrats have consistently criticized the administration's less-than- adequate funding for veterans and veterans' health care. Last year, the administration admitted to accounting errors which underestimated the demand for veterans' services by $3 billion in fiscal years 2005 and 2006. It turned out that the administration had failed to account for the new veterans, those returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. After Democrats, the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans and many other veterans organizations expressed outrage, steps were taken retroactively to address the shortfall. With that backdrop, this year's appropriations bill does increase veterans' medical services by $2.6 billion over last year's amount. Unfortunately, it does so by employing a budget gimmick. This year's shortsighted budget did not provide full funding to meet this Nation's veterans' health care needs in a time of war. So the Military Quality of Life Appropriations Subcommittee was forced to boost money for veterans using money originally designated for military housing and then pay for military housing by declaring that money emergency funding. In truth, it was no emergency. It was simply a shell game that ignored the principle of shared sacrifice upon which our Nation has relied in every other time of war, except this one. These budget gimmicks should come as no surprise. Even to the casual observer, this majority has shown disregard for budget matters. After all, 3 years into the Iraq War, the administration and this majority continue to fund it with ``emergency spending.'' We are using a credit card to pay for war and sending the bill to our children and our grandchildren. Nonetheless, it must be noted that the only reason this bill comes close to meeting the health needs of so many veterans is because of this gimmick. And the bill pays for construction of some housing for military families, but again only because of this gimmick. Many Members on both sides of the aisle are frustrated with this approach. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government cannot go back on our responsibility to support our troops, assist their families, and continue our commitment to the veterans. This responsibility is particularly important in a time of war. With troops fighting the war in Iraq, they should not be the only ones to make sacrifices; they must be shared by all Americans. No loopholes for a select few, no kicking the can down the road for another generation to deal with by way of increasing the national debt. In cities and towns across America, our constituents notice when Congress uses these gimmicks. My local paper, in fact, hit on this very theme of sacrifice in time of war earlier this week, and I include for the Record an editorial from the Sacramento Bee. Its title says it all: ``Where's the Sacrifice.'' I could not agree more. [From the Sacramento Bee, May 16, 2006] Where's the Sacrifice? The Republican majority in Congress wants to go into the November elections bragging that they've cut taxes again. The House and Senate just extended record-high Bush tax cuts until 2010. They call it a political victory. Will the American people really buy this one-note chant again? It represents the triumph of rigid ideology over practical reality. At a time of war, these members of Congress are demanding sacrifice only of the young people fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The tax cuts of 2001, 2002 and 2003 have given us record-high deficits and debt, driving this country into a financial mess political leaders are passing on to future generations. The tax cutters rely on two fallacious arguments. The first is the ``starve the beast'' idea. Tax cuts, the theory goes, will reduce government revenues and choke off government spending, making government smaller. Even conservative economists now reject that hypothesis. For example, economists William Niskanen and Peter Van Doren of the Cato Institute show convincingly that since 1981, for each one percentage point decline in tax revenues, federal spending increases by about one-half percent of GDP. Government spending grows because tax cuts make government look cheaper than it actually is, so people want more of it. A tax increase does a better job of reducing government because it forces people to pay for government services. At least ``starve the beast'' proponents were honest in saying that tax cuts would reduce government revenues. Today you have members of Congress actually saying the opposite: ``Lower tax rates equal more federal revenue.'' The facts show otherwise. Bush tax cuts have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level as a share of the U.S. economy since 1950. Where revenues typically have been 17 percent to 20 percent of the economy, in 2004 they were 16.3 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A CBO report, ``Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates,'' shows that a 10 percent cut in income tax rates lowers revenues by $775 billion over 10 years. So when tax cut proponents say that tax cuts benefit the Treasury, take it with a grain of salt. The tax cut vote was a party line vote. Voters know whom to blame for the nation's financial mess come November. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas to respond to the gentleman from Georgia.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I understand the gentleman has no additional speakers.

Ms. MATSUI. Then I will proceed to my closing. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so we can consider three important amendments that were not included in this rule. These amendments will help fix the funding shortfalls in this bill. I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of these amendments and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote.

Ms. MATSUI. The first amendment by Ranking Member Obey would pay for the $507 million cost for 20 routine military construction projects instead of designating them as ``emergency spending'' so that the funding would not count against the bill's allocation. The Obey amendment pays for the 20 projects by reducing the tax cuts for people making more than $1 million a year by $1,400 or 1 percent. The second amendment by subcommittee Ranking Member Edwards provides the $735 million needed to fully fund the Defense Health Program throughout the next year. The cost of the amendment is offset by reducing by 2 percent the tax cut for those making over $1 million annually. The third amendment by Representative Farr, would increase veterans health care by $1.82 billion and pay for it by reducing the average tax cut for those with incomes above $1 million a year by about $5,000, leaving them with $109,025, Mr. Speaker, these amendments together will help us meet the obligations we have to the members of our military, our veterans and their families. This Nation made a promise to those serving in the military that they would receive quality health care in return for their valiant service to this country, and now that wounded soldiers are returning to their homes, they deserve the best medical treatment and care available. We can fix this today if we allow these amendments to be considered on the floor. But the only way that will happen is if we defeat the previous question. I want to assure my colleagues that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us from considering the Military Quality of Life Veterans Appropriations bill under an open rule. But a ``no'' vote will allow us to vote on these important amendments. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, our forests are a valuable natural resource. They offer beauty and recreation for many across the Nation. My own hometown of Sacramento is but a couple of hours from Tahoe National Forest. Throughout the year, Sacramentans can be found taking advantage of this proximity, using the park for hiking, skiing and camping. With 18 national forests and 20 million acres of national forestland in my home State of California, we face the challenge of a wildfire on almost an annual basis. Many western States deal with forest fires every summer. In addition, Americas's forests also endure damage from hurricanes, floods, mudslides and our natural disasters. All of these events require swift action from our Nation's brave network of first responders as well as tailored government policies to help forests regenerate over the long term. The rule before us would authorize debate on H.R. 4200, a bill which its supporters see as a way to speed forest recovery by loosening or eliminating some Federal regulations protecting our public lands. Such a proposal demands scrutiny and debate. To warrant congressional action, there must be a demonstrable need for such a proposal and reliable proof that the proposed solution meets that need. Unfortunately, the evidence on the need for this bill points in both directions. While some sources claim that this bill would improve the state of forests, other scientific accounts indicate that H.R. 4200 would actually hurt the forest recovery process. We do know that it would create a loophole to allow some industries to skirt compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. Supporters contend that the logging industry is saddled with unfair government regulations which impede their postfire operations and ultimately hurt the forests themselves. At the same time, 35 percent of all logging in national forests in the past 6 years came from timber salvage in ways similar to this bill, accounting for $35 million to $40 million annually. The only difference is that now these activities have to comply fully with NEPA and the Endangered Species Act before moving forward. While a CBO estimate projects that this bill would increase timber profits from salvaging by 40 percent, the first question which must be answered is not one of business, but one of science. Does the policy recommended under this bill make sense? As I stated at the beginning, the evidence is too murky to tell, and we need to spend more time learning about and debating this issue before we act. I am encouraged that the Rules Committee recognized this and made four amendments in order which will add to the public discourse on this bill. However, it is difficult to ignore the arguments of those opposed to H.R. 4200. One such voice comes from a January 2006 issue of Science Magazine. In that issue, a group of researchers published a study of logging in the aftermath of the 2002 Biscuit fire in Oregon. This peer- reviewed study concluded that the impact of logging in these areas reduced regeneration of new trees by some 70 percent. This single scientific article is not the final word on such a complicated matter for sure, but its findings are consistent with a good portion of the larger body of literature on this subject. And when so many experts express concern with H.R. 4200, Members would be well advised to listen to their reservations and take time to reconsider the issue. Mr. Speaker, I will insert at this point in the Record a letter to Congress signed by 169 experts in the areas of biology, ecology and forest management. This group of researchers includes UC Davis professors Dr. Robert Coats and Dr. Peter Moyle, as well as 13 other Californians. March 14,2006. Dear Members of Congress: The United States has made great strides by relying on science to inform our decision making. Science helped us travel to the moon; advance medicine and health; and understand the complex web of life on land and in rivers, lakes, and oceans. Science has also opened our eyes to the workings of forests and provided blueprints for federal plans to better protect the abundant natural resources of our public lands. When we, as scientists, see policies being developed that run counter to the lessons of science, we feel compelled to speak up. Proposed post-disturbance legislation (specifically the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act [H.R. 4200] and the related Forests for Future Generations Act [S. 2079]), crafted as a response to recent fires and other disturbances, is misguided because it distorts or ignores recent scientific advances. Under the labels of ``recovery'' and ``restoration,'' these bills would speed logging and replanting after natural disturbances. Although logging and replanting may seem like a reasonable way to clean up and restore forests after disturbances like wildland fires, such activity would actually slow the natural recovery of forests and of streams and creatures within them. Many scientist-reviewed studies and syntheses (please see the selected citations appended to this letter) have recently come to this conclusion. For example, no substantive evidence supports the idea that fire-adapted forests might be improved by logging after a fire. In fact, many carefully conducted studies have concluded just the opposite. Most plants and animals in these forests are adapted to periodic fires and other natural disturbances. They have a remarkable way of recovering--literally rising from the ashes--because they have evolved with and even depend upon fire. We are concerned that H.R. 4200 and S. 2079 will bind us to land management practices that, perhaps logical in the past, are no longer tenable in the light of recent scientific understanding. Specifically, post-disturbance logging impedes regeneration of forest landscapes when it compacts soils, removes or destroys so-called biological legacies (such as soil organic material, seeds in the soil, large standing and downed trees), damages riparian corridors, introduces or spreads invasive species, causes erosion, delivers sediment to streams from logging roads and steep slopes, degrades water quality, and damages populations of many aquatic species. In testimony before the House Subcommittee on Resources (November 10, 2005), eminent forest ecologist and University of Washington Professor Jerry Franklin noted that logging dead trees often has greater negative impacts than logging of live trees. He concluded that ``timber salvage is most appropriately viewed as a `tax' on ecological recovery.'' Beyond those concerns, post-disturbance logging often intensifies the potential severity of future fires by concentrating the slash from logging at or near the ground. Rather than leaving plant material standing--and providing perching, nesting, and feeding sites for wildlife--such logging abruptly moves the material to the ground. Most of this material would naturally fall to the ground, adding important supplies of nutrients and energy to the forest floor and structure in the form of woody debris to stream channels. But this naturally happens over decades, not in the relatively short time associated with a logging operation. Advocates of post-disturbance logging may argue that this slash can be disposed of with controlled burns and other treatments. Yet such treatments can severely damage underlying soils, imposing other taxes on natural recovery. One additional tax concerns us. Postfire logging taxes the public treasury. Recent analysis of postfire logging operations after Oregon's Biscuit fire of 2002 shows that costs of the logging operations exceeded revenue by about $14 million for logging that removed more than 53 million board feet of timber (DellaSala et al. 2006). Science provides the best insight into the real consequences of our policies and actions. Ironically, this legislation is crafted to ignore the science by waiving environmental reviews, reviews that would make use of the scientific knowledge often available only because of expenditures of public funds. Failure to conduct full environmental reviews informed by that science will inevitably lead to ecological and economic harm from post- disturbance logging. In short, neither ecological benefits nor economic efficiency result from post-disturbance logging. We therefore urge you to defeat these legislative efforts because they will set back forest recovery. We urge you to work with your fellow lawmakers to craft legislation that will rely on the most up-to-date scientific knowledge to protect the natural resources of the nation's public lands. Sincerely, Isabella A. Abbott, Ph.D., Wilder Professor Emerita, Botany University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI. Paul Alaback, Ph.D., Forest Ecologist, University of Montana, Missoula, MO. James P. Amon, Ph.D., Professor, Wetland Biologist, Department of Biological Sciences, Wright State University, Dayton, OH. Thomas H. Anderson, Ph.D., Professor, Geology, Department of Geology and Planetary Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. Robert Angus, Ph.D., Professor, Biology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL. Julian D. Avery, Avian Ecologist, Eastern New Mexico University, Portales, NM. William L. Baker, Ph.D., Department of Geography, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. Mark Bamberger, Ph.D., Professor, Geology and Environmental Sciences, Miami University, The Union Institute & University, and Capital University Oxford, OH. Linda Sue Barnes, Ph.D., Professor, Biology (specialty Botany), Methodist College, Fayetteville, NC. Frank Barnwell, Ph.D., Professor, Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. Carol J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Professor, Biology, Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, TN. Craig W. Benkman, Ph.D., Professor, Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. David H. Benzing, Ph.D., Professor, Biology, Oberlin College, Oberlin, OH. May R. Berenbaum, Ph.D., Swanlund Professor and Head Department of Entomology, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL. Robert L. Beschta, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor, Forest Hydrology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Alfred Beulig, Ph.D., Professor, Biology, New College of Florida, Sarasota, FL. John G. Bishop, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Biology, Washington State University, Vancouver, WA. Scott Hoffman Black, Ecologist/Entomologist, Executive Director, Portland, OR. David E. Blockstein, Ph.D., Chair, The Ornithological Council, Washington, DC. Jane H. Bock, Ph.D., Professor Emerita, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO. Reed Bowman, Ph.D., Associate Research Biologist, Head, Avian Ecology Lab, Archbold Biological Station, Lake Placid,

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I noted at the beginning of the debate, 169 scientists, all experts in the field, oppose this bill because its policies will impede the national forest recovery process. The preponderance of scientific literature supports this assumption in their opinion. The letter concludes with the following: ``Science provides the best insight into the real consequences of our policies and actions.'' I could not agree more. There seems to be a disconnect between the policy recommended in this bill and the consensus among the scientific community. For that reason, I cannot support the underlying legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for yielding me this time, and yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)