[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 49 (Thursday, April 21, 2005)]
[House]
[Page H2452]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         REMEMBERING EARTH DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the 35th anniversary of the 
first Earth Day, which is considered the birth of the modern 
environmental movement in this country. In the 3\1/2\ decades since, it 
was first celebrated in 1970, Earth Day has become a day for 
reflection, a day for education, and a day for action. It provides an 
annual benchmark by which we can measure our progress as stewards of 
our planet.
  That stewardship is about more than preserving pristine wilderness 
and endangered species. Our economic and national security are also at 
stake. The biggest impediment to sound environmental policies in the 
United States comes from those who see environmentalism as competing 
with our economic prosperity and our national security.
  The energy bill that was just considered by the House was advertised 
by its supporters as providing security for America by reducing our 
dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuels. It does this through $8 
billion in tax breaks to encourage domestic production.
  Unfortunately, 95 percent of the tax subsidies benefit the oil, gas, 
coal and nuclear industries, while only 5 percent are directed towards 
wind, solar and other renewable sources. In my opinion, the energy bill 
is a short-sighted response to two of the central strategic challenges 
confronting our country, beginning the transition to a post-fossil-fuel 
economy and reducing the emission of greenhouse gases that every 
reputable scientist knows are contributing to global warming.
  We cannot drill our way to energy independence. We cannot burn our 
way to a cleaner environment. We cannot go on behaving as if time and 
resources are on our side.
  Rather than making America more secure, the energy bill does the 
opposite. Both economically and in terms of our national security, the 
policies enshrined in this bill will make us profoundly weaker.
  In doing so, we have shied away from the challenge of developing new 
ways of powering our lives by unleashing the driving force behind 
America economic competitiveness, technological innovation mixed with 
entrepreneurship.

                              {time}  1700

  And while America sits on the sidelines, our competitors in Europe 
and Asia are developing technologies that will enable them to reduce 
fuel consumption and lower emissions of greenhouse gases. Rather than 
American entrepreneurs driving these changes, it is our competitors who 
prosper.
  In just one graphic example, there are 6-month waiting lists to buy 
Japanese hybrids while American car makers fall further and further 
behind.
  In addition to environmental and economic considerations, there are 
equally compelling national security reasons to confront the scarcity 
and costs of oil, the challenge of global warming and environmental 
degradation. Imagine the increased strength, independence, and security 
that would come to an America that could tell the oil-producing 
nations, we do not need your oil, we do not want your oil, we can do 
better. And imagine the risk to America if we negligent the sobering 
evidence of global warming.
  Last year the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment issued a report on 
the national security aspects of climate change. The report evaluated 
one scenario in which the Earth's climate rose by 5 degrees in North 
America over a 15-year period between 2005 and 2020. The consequences 
of such a rapid temperature increase were myriad and catastrophic: 
drought, fire, storms and sea levels that rose around the world, 
flooding heavily populated coastal regions.
  Unfortunately, the administration has failed to provide leadership or 
vision on this issue. Senior level positions at the National Security 
Council and in the Department of Defense dealing with the security 
threat of environmental degradation have been downgraded or eliminated. 
From the President on down, this administration has had a contempt for 
science that is at odds with its policy or belief.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, at a time when this Nation should be marshaling its 
talents and resources for a new Manhattan Project to make practical 
solar, wind, and wave energy, we have instead opted to subsidize the 
extraction of every last barrel of oil and ton of coal that we can get 
our hands on.
  Even as we have driven up the financial burden on our children 
through reckless fiscal policies, we are imperiling their very 
existence through willful neglect of our responsibilities to the 
environment. I can only hope that we will not have to tell our 
grandchildren, to paraphrase the words of Kurt Vonnegut, We could have 
saved the Earth, but we were too darned cheap.

                          ____________________