[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 17 (Tuesday, February 26, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E197-E198]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                REMARKS BY FORMER CONGRESSMAN TOM EVANS

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. ROBERT E. ANDREWS

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 26, 2002

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I recommend to my colleagues that you read 
some remarks by former Congressman Tom Evans of Delaware he delivered 
recently at the University of Delaware.
  Tom Evans, who played a key role in the passage of the Alaska Lands 
Act, sets forth compelling reasons why one of America's great 
treasures, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, should continue to be 
protected.
  I strongly agree with him on the need to preserve that great 
wilderness area and protect the wildlife there. There are much better 
and quicker ways to develop energy independence in America without oil 
drilling in the Arctic Refuge.

             PRESERVING THE ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

                  (Delivered by Thomas B. Evans, Jr.)

       It's a great pleasure to be here this evening at the 
     University of Delaware. I appreciate the wonderful turnout 
     and am especially grateful for your strong support of the 
     environment and for the work you do here at the University in 
     that area.
       As you know, there is a critical vote coming up in the U.S. 
     Senate late in February that has enormous consequences for 
     millions of acres of wilderness and all kinds of wildlife. I 
     will address those things, but first I'd like to go back to 
     1980 and reflect on what happened then.
       Although passage of the Alaska Lands Act took place over 
     two decades ago, I can remember it better than some events 
     that occurred just two weeks ago. This landmark piece of 
     legislation set aside additional millions of acres of land 
     and designated them as wilderness areas. It was a gigantic 
     effort to achieve the preservation of some irreplaceable, 
     pristine areas of wilderness for us and for future 
     generations. I was honored to have been one of the three 
     principal congressional backers and the Republican floor 
     leader for the bill.
       The bill passed, and yes millions of acres of land were 
     protected, but there was something that was equally as 
     important. There was a tremendous lobbying effort against it, 
     and millions of dollars were spent. The dollars spent by our 
     Alaska Coalition paled in comparison to the lobbying effort 
     that attempted to prevent passage of the legislation that was 
     designed to protect wild scenic rivers, wetlands, polar 
     bears, songbirds, caribou, ducks and other wildlife of every 
     description.
       We won with 60 plus Republicans voting yea. It was, indeed, 
     a true bipartisan effort; and that, unfortunately, does not 
     take place very often in today's political climate. 
     Afterwards, three of us were invited to a very emotional 
     victory celebration hosted by the Alaska Coalition. That 
     coalition consisted primarily of young people who spent the 
     summer in Washington. They came to Washington to protect a 
     great treasure for future generations. John Seiberling of 
     Ohio, who chaired one of the subcommittees with jurisdiction 
     over this issue, and Mo Udall, a dedicated environmentalist 
     from Arizona, and I were deeply touched by their invitation, 
     and the warm reception we received. I believe I can safely 
     say it was certainly one of the best invitations I've 
     received in my lifetime.
       Mo Udall and John Seiberling both spoke eloquently and 
     certainly covered the importance of the legislation. I didn't 
     want to repeat them; so I took a slightly different tack and 
     said that victory today was great in terms of conservation 
     and preservation of millions of pristine acres. But there was 
     an equally important victory today--all of you proved that 
     regardless of dollars and political pressure, our 
     constitutional system of government still works. You can 
     still win, and that's the American way.''
       Today, we may be facing an even sterner test. Some of the 
     arguments made by proponents of drilling in the Arctic 
     National Wildlife Refuge sound good on the surface. They call 
     for energy independence and equate that to our national 
     security interest. Well, I also believe in developing energy 
     independence so we won't be dependent on a bunch of sheiks in 
     a very unstable part of the world. And certainly energy 
     independence is inextricably related to national security. 
     But this administration, which most of us strongly support in 
     our country's fight against terrorism, is wrong on the 
     centerpiece of its energy policy. Domestic production of oil 
     should not be the primary focus.
       Perhaps it would help us all to better understand the 
     Administration's energy policy if we took a look at how it 
     was developed. Vice President Cheney took the lead, and about 
     half a dozen staff members were specifically assigned to 
     develop a working draft. That staff included two top 
     assistants of Senator Murkowski, the main congressional 
     proponent of drilling in the Arctic, and to the best of my 
     knowledge no one on the task force had any experience or 
     background or demonstrated interest in the protection of the 
     environment.
       The group met often with oil company executives and a 
     number of times with Enron officials. No wonder that their 
     plan emphasizes domestic production and contains very little 
     on the conservation side. In fact, Vice President Cheney said 
     that conservation may be a personal virtue, but it does 
     little, if anything, to achieve energy independence. That 
     statement demonstrates an appalling, but predictable, bias in 
     favor of oil drilling. But he's wrong, and each of us 
     conserving small amounts of energy can make a big difference 
     on a cumulative basis.
       Let me dispel some myths and make a few points on the need 
     for a balanced energy plan--one that clearly should not 
     include drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--one 
     of our greatest American treasures!
       There is not a tremendous amount of oil in the Arctic 
     refuge. Why develop it simply out of greed when there are so 
     many alternatives?
       There is a much better way to achieve energy independence 
     without doing irreparable, irreversible harm to the most 
     environmentally sensitive area of one of the most pristine 
     areas of the world--the narrow coastal plain of the Arctic 
     National Wildlife Refuge.
       Alternative sources of energy, including renewable sources 
     of energy, are available, while oil is a finite resource. 
     Fossil fuels will be exhausted some day, but the wind and sun 
     will always be around.
       Fuel economy standards for cars and trucks hold be raised. 
     Even a very modest mile or two per gallon would make a huge 
     difference. We should also provide incentives for 
     conservation, more efficient power plants, development of 
     fuel cells, better insulation for homes and office buildings 
     and more energy-efficient appliances.
       There are also secure alternative sources of oil and gas 
     outside the Middle East. Russia is a prime example, and I 
     recently spent ten days in that country assessing its 
     potential.
       It will be seven to ten years before oil from the Arctic 
     National Wildlife Refuge comes on stream. Yet, you may recall 
     that proponents of drilling initially used the argument that 
     implied that the California energy problem could be resolved 
     if we drilled in ANWR. Well, California solved its problem in 
     other ways--including conservation--so now the drilling 
     proponents are invoking the national security argument. 
     That's an absurd argument as well!
       New pipelines will have to be built that would be exposed 
     to terrorists. Several months ago, a high-powered rifle shot 
     took out an existing pipeline for several weeks.
       And don't be fooled by the argument that technology has 
     developed to the point where oil wells could be drilled on 
     only 2,000 acres of the 19 million in ANWR. That's not the 
     full picture. You also have to take into account the 
     logistics that support the oil wells--oil derricks, trucks, 
     helicopter pads, people, roads, pumping stations and networks 
     of oil field pipelines, even without the toxic spills and air 
     pollution that are endemic in such fields, destroy wilderness 
     and imperil wildlife. And remember that when you damage the 
     tundra, you may destroy it for 100 years or more. What we 
     grow in our climate in a year takes decades there.
       We have treated Native Americans rather harshly from the 
     beginning. Now, we are doing it again. The Gwichin Indian 
     tribe live in the Arctic Refuge, and they view the land as 
     sacred. Certainly, oil drilling on this land is inconsistent 
     with preserving it as a sacred place.
       As Barrons, the well known financial publication, pointed 
     out recently, ``we are entering a period when there is a glut 
     of oil.'' The publication's cover proclaimed ``The Coming 
     Glut of Oil.''
       Therefore, we should ask the question, is it necessary to 
     drill now? If, in the future, we are unable to develop 
     alternative sources of energy (I believe we can, given the 
     right commitment), if gasoline is $10 a gallon with long 
     lines to even get gas, then it might be something we should 
     consider, but certainly not now! Don't approve something that 
     will do irreparable harm, something that cannot be reversed. 
     Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should be 
     considered only as a last resort!
       So, ladies and gentlemen, let me end by saying as I did 
     over twenty years ago that in spite of the money, the 
     political influence,

[[Page E198]]

     and the greed, you can make a difference. Let history 
     record--say, 50 to 100 years from now--that this generation 
     cared, that we persevered, that we preserved, and that we 
     recognized that important decisions should be made not just 
     for today and not just for a few--but very importantly--for 
     future generations of Americans as well!!

     

                          ____________________