[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 112 (Friday, August 3, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1560-E1561]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              SECURING AMERICA'S FUTURE ENERGY ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                       HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN

                           of virgin islands

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, August 1, 2001

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill. (H.R. 4) to 
     enhance energy conservation, research and development and to 
     provide for security and diversity in the energy supply for 
     the American people, and for other purposes.

  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the managers 
Amendment and HR 4 which does not really secure America's energy future 
at all. This bill is a bad bill, largely because it favors energy 
exploration and production at the expense of the environment and 
conservation. As we seek to secure our country's energy future as the 
title of this bill refers, we must take into account the social and 
environmental costs of energy development and also remember that 
negative impacts on the environment in one part of our world can also 
affect other, even far-off, parts of the world.
  Instead of securing America's future, HR 4 threatens the future of 
Alaska's and one of this country's most pristine and beloved natural 
resources. It cuts back on clean air standards, and opens up more 
public lands to mining and drilling, while relieving the oil companies, 
which already have registered humungous profits, of their 
responsibility for paying the American people what they owe for the 
right to drill on our lands.
  Mr. Chairman, on ANWR, what those who support drilling there do not 
say, is that 95% of the Alaskan wilderness is available for drilling. 
We must preserve this fragile and important small 5% in the Wildlife 
Refuge and use the rest to drill to increase our oil and natural gas 
supply, and still create the jobs our workers need.
  Mr. Chairman, the Resources Committee, on which I serve as Ranking 
Member of the National Parks and Public Lands Subcommittee, reported an 
Energy bill, two weeks ago, which represented nothing more than a 
``grab bag of goodies'' for the big oil companies and an unprecedented 
assault on our country's precious natural resources.
  During consideration of the bill, I supported a substitute amendment 
offered by the Ranking Democrat, Mr. Rahall that provided a far better 
solution to the concerns over energy production in our country. This 
amendment would have ensured that more domestic energy is introduced 
into the domestic market, would relieve transmission constraints for 
our western States, encouraged renewable energy on federal lands, 
assured fairness in oil royalties, and protect our environment and our 
nation's monuments and parks.
  The Rahall substitute would have also provided for a significant 
number of new jobs by facilitating the construction of the Alaska 
Natural Gas Pipeline originally authorized in 1976. This provision 
would enhance the delivery of 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas 
already discovered in existing development fields, and the Rahall 
substitute would require that a project labor agreement govern 
construction activities on the pipeline.
  Sadly, Mr. Chairman, the Rules Committee prevented Mr. Rahall and 
other Democrats from offering perfecting amendments, which means that 
much of what the Rahall substitute would have provided, will not be 
allowed today.
  H.R. 4, does include one aspect of the Rahall substitute which would 
update a nearly twenty-year-old assessment of energy importation, 
consumption, and alternative indigenous sources that can be used by 
insular areas. A new part of this reassessment will be a recommendation 
and a plan to protect energy transmission and distribution lines from 
the effects of hurricanes and typhoons. The amendment also gives the 
Interior Secretary the authority to fund such recommendations.
  We are all aware of the tragedy and destruction a hurricane or 
typhoon brings once it reaches land. The majority of Americans become 
aware of such a storm when it heads up the eastern seaboard or makes it 
way inland from the Gulf of Mexico. They are awesome and dangerous. And 
there is not much that can be done when it is headed your way. Those of 
us whose districts have been in the path of such storms can attest to 
the devastation.
  The Virgin Islands are affected by the strongest of storms, like 
Georges and Hugo that eventually make their way to the U.S. mainland. 
But we are also all too frequently a target for lesser known hurricanes 
that never make it out of the Caribbean Basin but still manage to 
inflict just as much damage as those that reach Florida.
  Some of the costliest destruction during these events in the Virgin 
Islands and the other offshore areas is to electrical infrastructure. 
Island-wide outages are common in the wake of a storm because our lines 
are not as hardened as they could be from a storm's strength. Ideally, 
in any location that experiences as much hurricane activity as my 
district, transmission lines should be buried underground. To have the 
majority of our electrical lines above ground poses a great threat

[[Page E1561]]

to residents during storms and makes our system vulnerable and costly 
to repair.
  While I appreciate the recognition of the vulnerability of the 
Insular Areas energy supply to natural disasters, in H.R. 4, I remain 
opposed to the bill as a whole because of its over-reliance on energy 
production at the expense of pristine areas of our environment, as well 
as large tax breaks it provides to energy companies who are enjoying 
record profits. I hope that we can provide this relief to my district 
and others through another legislative vehicle.
  H.R. 4 also leaves rural America behind. I ask that the attached 
statement from the National Rural Electric Cooperatives Association be 
included in the Record.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not the way to secure America's future, I urge 
my colleagues to oppose both this ``figleaf'' amendment and H.R. 4.

                          ____________________