[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 38 (Wednesday, March 21, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H1047-H1050]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               ADDRESSING IMPORTANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) 
is recognized for the balance of the time allocated to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, and I think we 
have some interesting context that has been established here.
  I would just take a moment to reference what my other colleague from 
Portland, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), talked about, that it 
is going to be 100 years or more before the full impact of actions that 
we take today will be felt, that we have set in motion a pattern of 
environmental destruction that will take decades and perhaps centuries 
to correct.
  There is no time to waste, and it is not appropriate for us to 
continue pretending to do something about it by just reiterating the 
studies that have already been done. Most Americans agree with the 
scientific evidence that global warming is real and that we must, in 
fact, do something about it.
  It is in this context that I must confess a certain surprise by the 
administration's proposal to meet the current energy crisis with a 
proposal to drill for oil in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.
  This issue beyond question, let us just put for a moment aside the 
notion that whether or not it is going to be destructive for the 
environment, whether the environmental costs, whether the problems that 
would deal with the native indigenous culture, treaty problems and 
environmental problems with our friends in Canada, put all of those 
aside for a moment, assume that it is either they could be moderated or 
it would be worth it.
  There is a fundamental question whether or not it is actually worth 
it to go ahead and pursue this approach for the energy security of the 
United States.
  I was pleased recently to read the latest newsletters from the Rocky 
Mountain Institute where Amory and Hunter Levins asked that fundamental 
question, can you, in fact, make a profit over the course of the next 
20 years by invading the Arctic Wildlife Refuge?
  It is interesting that the State of Alaska itself has done its recent 
price forecasting that suggests that what the State of Alaska envisions 
as being the long-term price of oil over the course of the next 10 
years, that it would not generate enough revenue to be profitable.
  If we use our time and our resources to recover this expensive oil in 
some of the most environmentally sensitive areas in the world, it would 
actually end up resulting in a waste of money, and we would have to be 
importing more oil sooner, as opposed to dealing with less expensive 
energy alternatives.
  Many would argue that another fundamental issue, and it is one that I 
agree, is whether this country can continue to use the current energy 
patterns that we have using six times as much energy per capita as the 
rest of the world, twice as much as developed countries like Japan and 
Germany.
  The irony is that conservation and energy efficiency does in fact 
work. It works better than an effort to exploit the Arctic Wildlife 
Refuge. It is estimated that a mere 3 miles per gallon improvement in 
the performance of SUVs would offset the oil production from the 
Arctic.
  If, for some reason, we cannot change those huge and inefficient 
vehicles, just one half mile per gallon efficiency overall for the 
fleet would more than equal the production of the arctic wilderness.
  This is not beyond our power. Last year, the average fleet efficiency 
of 24 miles per gallon was tied for a 20-year low. We can and we should 
do better.
  In the Pacific Northwest, we are sending energy that we really do not 
have to spare to the State of California. Yet we find that there could 
be a 30 percent energy savings for reducing air conditioning just by 
changing the color of the roofs in southern California to a white 
reflective surface.

  It would be far more effective for us to make that investment in 
conservation. When I started in this business 25 years ago, we were in 
the midst of an energy crisis. Even though many of those initiatives 
were reversed by the Reagan administration, conservation has 
nonetheless saved a quantity of energy that is four times the entire 
domestic oil industries production.
  In the West, this is our only immediate solution. Given droughts and 
limited generating capacity, the only way this year that we will be 
able to make a difference is by changing our patterns of consumption. 
When we conserve, there is no threat from terrorists. There is no risk 
of environmental damage. It keeps producing year after year.
  I must point out, perhaps most significantly when I hear on the floor 
of this Chamber people talking about protecting our strategic oil 
reserves, that if we place all of our bets on the Arctic Wildlife 
Refuge, we are, in fact, dooming the United States to a very insecure 
posture. If we are going to place our bets on an aging 800-mile long 
facility, a pipeline through the Arctic that is increasingly 
unreliable, that is wearing out, that is impossible to defend from 
disruption, from terrorists or rogue states or deranged people, it is 
not a very smart way for us to make those investments. Far better to 
deal with how we use energy in a more cost effective and efficient 
manner.
  I have more comments to make on this, but I want to yield to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for yielding to me and for taking this 
special order; and I also want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pallone).
  Clearly, the President has disappointed the Nation when he did an 
about-face and broke his promise to regulate CO2 emissions, 
especially among the older power plants, oil and gas burning power 
plants in this Nation.
  The suggestion has been made by some that it was okay to break this 
campaign promise because it was only one sentence in a long speech, it 
came late in the speech. I do not remember when any of us were running 
that our supporters told us it would be okay to break our promises if 
it was not the first thing we said in the speech or if it was not the 
fifth thing we said in the speech, that they would not take it that 
seriously.
  As my colleagues have pointed out here, the President made this 
statement about these controls in CO2 because he wanted to 
appear to the country to be concerned about the Nation's environment, 
and he wanted to appear to be more concerned than the Vice President Al 
Gore. That is why he made this promise. But the public thought he meant 
it. Now he has broken it.
  Tragically, he has broken it because he is buying in to a very old 
idea that

[[Page H1048]]

somehow America cannot clean up its environment and meet its energy 
needs, a false dichotomy, a fact that does not exist, that we know time 
and again is proven in everyday business life in this country, that 
companies all over the United States are doing exactly that. They are 
saving energy. They are increasing their efficiency. They are reducing 
their greenhouse emissions, and the country and the world are better 
off for that.

                              {time}  1400

  But this President apparently has a very old energy policy. It begins 
by dragging these old, old power plants, these dinosaurs from a past 
age, dragging them into the future and saying this is America's energy 
policy.
  It begins by trying to convince the public that somehow we can have 
oil independence, which is far different than what we should be doing. 
We can develop energy sufficiency, and we can sustain energy in this 
country, and we can meet this Nation's need. But that policy is very 
different than oil independence.
  The first policy of energy sustainability and sufficiency for the 
needs of this country is achievable and in the national interest. The 
other one is not.
  If we are really seeking to strengthen America's hand with respect to 
energy and our economy, we should do all that is possible to develop a 
national sustainable energy policy that would minimize our dependence 
on foreign oil.
  Very similar to the cocaine trade, if we are serious, we would make 
every effort to diminish the demand in the American market. If we are 
very serious about being independent from foreign oil supplies, then we 
must make every effort to diminish the demand in the American market.
  Rather than placing so much of our emphasis on new oil supplies, we 
would build a national energy policy that is based on the strengths of 
our country rather than its weakness. These strengths are the 
marketplace, innovation, technology, and the allocation of capital.
  If these economic forces were truly unleashed to provide a national 
energy policy, the role of coal and oil would be greatly diminished, 
still very important, but diminished.
  America's energy policy would evolve to one where business decisions, 
capital allocations, research commitments, and environmental policy 
would coincide to make business more efficient and productive, 
development of new products and services would expand, and the 
environment would be easier and less expensive to clean up. Such a 
policy demands a synergy that, for the most part, national energy 
policy to date is treated as a stepchild.
  To do so, the Congress must stop thinking of the energy policy as an 
extension of the past. Rather, the Congress and the President must set 
the tools of the future free to create this new energy vision and 
reality.
  Technology, science and the Internet have the ability to almost 
immediately and dramatically change the demand and the cost of 
America's energy futures needs.
  New materials, demand-side energy reductions, contracting out energy 
management, dramatically improved renewable energy sources, inventory 
management, business-to-business networks, transportation shipping 
efficiencies, more development of oil and gas, conservation 
opportunities in the three big sectors of transportation, lighting and 
heating and cooling, all will allow for us to develop a national energy 
policy that in fact provides for an enhanced economic and national 
security.
  This is far different than a policy that only concerns itself with 
the production of oil and continuing to believe in an economy that is 
as large and dynamic as America that we can simply produce our way to 
energy independence.
  No longer would our citizens have to worry every time that another 
leader in OPEC gets into domestic problems and seeks to solve his 
problems on the back of the American consumers and the economy.
  No longer would this generation of Americans pass its energy and 
environmental failures on to the next generation where they become more 
difficult and expensive to solve.
  That would be an energy policy. But the President has turned his back 
on that policy when he began with breaking his campaign promise to 
regulate CO2 emissions from older coal plants.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leadership of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) dating back to the last 
time we were in a major energy crisis.
  We are privileged to have join us the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Hinchey). I thank him for his concern and interest in issues that 
relate to the environment and the leadership he has provided 
individually and on the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon for 
yielding me this time. I thank him and the gentleman from New Jersey 
for organizing this time so we could address an issue that is perhaps 
the most important that faces the economy of our country and the 
welfare of the American people over the course of the next decade.
  We are increasingly alarmed about the statements that have been 
coming from the administration with regard to American energy policy 
and the steps that need to be taken to develop a coherent, 
comprehensive, safe energy policy that is going to maintain the 
strength of our economy and the welfare of our people.
  For example, on Monday, Bush said that he saw ``no short-term fixes 
to the country's energy problem.'' He also said ``it is clear from 
first analysis that the demand for energy in the United States is 
increasing much more so than its production. With the result, we are 
finding in certain parts of the country that we are short on energy, 
and this administration is concerned about it.''
  Well, the administration may be concerned, but the two predicate 
statements before that are both incorrect. The current situation has no 
correlation whatsoever to demand outstripping supply and arises instead 
from what we have seen recently, and that is generators withholding 
energy and price gouging of consumers.
  In other words, those few people in our country who maintain control 
over the energy supply system and the generation system have been 
gouging consumers and withholding capacity from the marketplace in 
order to drive prices up.
  Instead of a responsible energy policy that addresses these 
artificial shortages, the only plan the administration has come up with 
is to open up Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other 
federally protected lands to oil and natural gas drilling.
  So what we have here in effect is a very convenient conflict of 
interests. What the President wants to do, in alliance with his oil 
production friends, is to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 
At the same time, he is using the alleged shortage of energy to try to 
develop public support and public opinion in that direction. While he 
is doing that, he is allowing his friends in the oil industry to gouge 
consumers by dramatically increasing prices and withholding energy 
capacity from the market.
  It is a very shocking circumstance, indeed. Let me just talk for 
another minute about the need to reduce the demand for oil and how that 
is key. Any serious energy plan must focus our efforts on reducing our 
demand for oil rather than on increasing our supplies, as the present 
administration seems determined to do.
  The centerpiece of the administration's energy plan is to drill for 
oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This move would simply 
be a gift to the oil companies that would do little, if anything, to 
affect our energy prices or our security.
  The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated recently that the amount of 
oil that could be recovered from the Arctic Refuge would amount to less 
than a 6-month supply for American consumers. It will take 7 to 10 
years for any oil from the Arctic Refuge to make its way to the market, 
and it would not even help many parts of our country.
  For example, none of it would be shipped east of the Rocky Mountains; 
and no Alaska oil would ever be refined into home heating oil, which 
many people depend upon to heat their homes and businesses. At no time 
would oil from the refuge be expected to meet any more than at most 2 
percent of U.S. demand.

[[Page H1049]]

  The Arctic Refuge is one of our national treasures. It deserves to be 
protected as wilderness, of course, not to spoil for a few months' 
worth of oil. Oil, as we know, is a global commodity; and its price 
will always be driven by world markets that are for the most part 
beyond our control.
  The United States has only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves but 
generates about 25 percent of world demand while gulf state OPEC 
members control about two-thirds of proven reserves. We currently 
depend upon imports for over half of our oil supplies. By 2015, this 
dependence is expected to increase to more than 68 percent.
  It is quite clear that we are not going to meet our energy needs by 
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. What we need is a 
policy of energy conservation, of renewable energy based upon solar or 
wind or other renewable sources, and we need to conserve.
  We can produce much more energy in our country through conservation 
than we can by opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or any 
other portion of the country that is not currently exploited. That is 
where our efforts needs to go, in conservation.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) very 
much for giving us the opportunity to make these points.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's argument 
and continued leadership.
  It is my privilege in our remaining 2 minutes to turn to two final 
leaders that we have here. First, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich), a gentleman who has been active in providing leadership 
on energy issues as a local official, as a mayor, as a legislator, and 
now as a Member of Congress.

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, I was privileged to be one of the 
representatives to the talks, the conference of parties, discussions, 
concerning the effect of global climate change. The talks took place in 
Buenos Aires, and I was one of the few Members of Congress who was 
privileged to attend and present views consistent with the discussion 
that is occurring on this floor.
  There is concern all over the world about changes taking place in the 
global climate. I spoke with individuals from some of the islands in 
the South Pacific who talk about how the sea level is starting to rise 
and it is affecting the properties on those islands.
  We know that there are 2,500 scientists who have done studies in 
connection with the United Nations which have demonstrated that global 
climate change is a reality. I mean, any citizen of this country is 
aware that, in the last few years, we have seen extreme changes in our 
climate.
  We have seen 100-year floods occur every few decades, if not every 
few years. We have seen tremendous heat waves which buckle freeways 
with their great heat intensity. We have seen unusual storms take place 
in areas which have been unaccustomed, hurricanes with much more 
intensity; tornadoes the same.
  I mean, sooner or later, we come to an understanding that it is human 
activity which is beginning to create an overall change in the Earth's 
environment; and sooner or later, we have to come to an understanding 
that our responsibility here is, not only in the present, it is not 
simply to keep certain interest groups moving forward, but our 
responsibility is to many generations forward so that people have a 
place to work out their own destiny on this planet.
  So the survival of the planet is at stake here and the survival of 
the democratic tradition, because we have an obligation as citizens of 
democracy to address this issue in a forthright way and to do it with 
others who are concerned from around the world.
  We have a moral responsibility to reduce emissions. Now, as of late, 
we are seeing assertions that somehow carbon dioxide is not a problem. 
The truth is, since the Industrial Revolution, the concentration of 
carbon dioxide has risen about 30 percent and is now higher than it has 
been in the last 400,000 years.
  Humans have created this level of carbon dioxide that the Earth can 
no longer naturally absorb. So we are driving the rate of global 
warming, and we must take steps to reduce CO2 pollution. The 
United States is the greatest polluter.
  Now, in spite of strong consensus around the scientific evidence, it 
seems that special interests are more influential. The recent pattern 
of environmental decisions are an ironic backdrop to the debate 
occurring right now on campaign finance reform. Before the interest 
groups have made their lobbying effort to prevent carbon dioxide 
regulations, we could all see the science as justifying greater efforts 
to control carbon dioxide.
  We know that Secretary O'Neill 3 years ago spoke of global warming 
significance as second only to nuclear conflagration. He even 
criticized the Kyoto Protocol as being too weak. We know that 
Administrator Christine Todd Whitman has spoken out strongly about 
putting limits on carbon dioxide emissions as part of a multi-pollutant 
strategy to curb emissions. Unfortunately, we are seeing another 
direction taken.
  I would like to conclude by also, not only by pointing out how we are 
going the wrong way on carbon dioxide emissions and dealing with that, 
but, also, yesterday, a statement was made that the administration 
pulled arsenic regulations out of concerns about drinking water.
  Now, this industry that is driving this was apparently more 
influential than studies from the National Academy of Science. And 
before the EPA was even created, arsenic was regulated. So we need to 
be very concerned.
  I urge my colleagues and this administration to pay heed to the 
scientific evidence. Whether the issue is carbon dioxide or arsenic, 
there is a consensus around the issue; and that consensus is that 
scientific proof ought to be carefully regarded.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich) for his leadership and for his comments.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who has been leading on this for years.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) having this Special Order today.
  Of course we have had a stunning set of decisions which have been 
made by this administration just in the past week highlighted by the 
decision not to impose new standards on CO2 emissions, that 
is, the emissions that go into the atmosphere that are causing the 
greenhouse effect.

                              {time}  1415

  Eighty-eight percent of those come from coal-fired plants. If we do 
not put the controls on, we are going to lose our ability to deal with 
that issue.
  Moreover, there is also this drive by the administration to go to the 
Arctic pristine wilderness and drill for oil. Now that oil, of course, 
would go in a pipeline down to California so that the oil could be put 
into SUVs that average 14 miles a gallon. We should first figure out 
how to make SUVs go 20 or 25 miles per gallon before we go into the 
pristine wilderness and destroy it forever. Is not that our 
responsibility as the technological generation, to ensure that two-
thirds of the oil that we put into automobiles, into SUVs, and that is 
where two-thirds of all oil in our country goes to, is first made more 
efficient, that is those vehicles, before we destroy God's beautiful 
creation.
  Now the administration likes to say that we will only create tiny 
footprints like Carl Sandburg's little cat's feet, you can see the 
image, but the reality is in Prudhoe Bay already where we do allow for 
drilling, it has done something quite different. There is over 1,000 
square miles of development permanently scarring the environment. They 
have twice the NOX emissions as Washington, D.C. up there in Prudhoe 
Bay and tons of greenhouse gases. You have pipelines crisscrossing the 
landscape.
  There is a black and white debate here. We can have this or this 
debate. Here is what goes on in Prudhoe Bay right now every day: 1,000 
square miles of development; 500 miles of roads; 3,893 wells drilled; 
170 drill pads; 55 contaminated waste sites; one toxic spill every day; 
two refineries; twice the nitrogen oxide pollution as Washington, D.C.; 
114,000 metric tons of methane and 11 million metric tons of carbon 
emissions every year; and $22 million in civil and criminal fines; 25 
production

[[Page H1050]]

 and treatment facilities; 60 million cubic yards of gravel mined.
  The other side, you have no development which is what we are saying. 
First, let us look at SUVs. First, let us look at buildings. First, let 
us make ourselves more efficient. First, let us use technology to cut 
OPEC down to size. They know that we are addicted to these vehicles 
that get 12 to 14 miles a gallon. We should not go to the Arctic 
wilderness first, we should go to where we consume the energy.

                          ____________________