[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 62 (Thursday, May 18, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H2774-H2785]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 818 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5386.
The Chair designates the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) as
chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Kuhl) to assume the chair temporarily.
{time} 1220
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 5386) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior,
environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2007, and for other purposes, with Mr. Kuhl (Acting Chairman) in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered
read the first time.
The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, today we bring to the House floor the 2007 budget for
the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies. This
bill provides $25.9 billion, which is $418 million above the budget
request and $145 million below the 2006 enacted level.
It has been a challenging year and difficult choices were made to
stay within our allocation for the bill. In keeping with long-standing
tradition, this bill has been developed as a bipartisan effort and
focuses funding increases on the operations of our national parks and
other public lands; Indian programs, including health and education;
forest health; and preservation of our national cultural treasures.
In order to provide these increases, there are decreases to many
grants programs and there are limited new construction and land
acquisition projects. In most cases, these choices are not a reflection
on the effectiveness of the programs being reduced, but rather reflect
the committee's belief that mission-essential Federal programs like the
national parks, National Forest and Native American programs must be
the number one priority.
[[Page H2775]]
While we appreciate input from the administration each year, we have
made some significant changes to the request, including restoring funds
for Johnson O'Malley Education Grants in the Bureau of Indian Affairs;
restoring funds for the operations of 32 urban Indian health clinics;
restoring funds for PILT; restoring funds for Superfund remediation and
environmental education, and research in EPA; restoring funds for
forest health and forest road maintenance; and restoring funds for
National Heritage Areas and for U.S. Geological Survey mineral
assessments.
We have provided significant increases to support the operations of
our national parks and the Indian Health Service, and we fully fund the
National Fire Plan.
One area that deserves particular mention, in which we have supported
the administration's budget proposal, is the energy area. In the Bureau
of Land Management, there are significant increases that will enable us
to expedite the permitting of on-shore oil and gas exploration and
development on Federal lands. In EPA, we were unable to provide all the
requested increases that were associated with the Energy Policy Act of
2005, but we have provided significant increases, including $26 million
for the National Clean Diesel Initiative.
This committee, and this member in particular, soundly rejects the
administration's proposal to sell National Forest lands throughout the
country, and we think this will not be happening.
We have eliminated Stateside Land and Water Grants, the Forest
Service Economic Action Program, the BLM Rural Fire Program, and the
Asia Pacific Partnership in EPA.
This is a responsible bill that is focused on protecting Federal
lands, Indian programs, environmental programs, cultural programs, and
other programs under the committee's jurisdiction. I urge you to
support this bill.
The Ways and Means Committee has recommended that we make a technical
change in the appropriations language for the Leaking Underground
Storage Tank program in EPA, and we will do that in the final
conference agreement.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a table detailing the various
accounts in the bill. I want to thank our staff, and my colleague, Mr.
Dicks, and his staff for the fine work that they have done in preparing
the bill and the cooperation they have shown.
[[Page H2776]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18MY06.001
[[Page H2777]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18MY06.002
[[Page H2778]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18MY06.003
[[Page H2779]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18MY06.004
[[Page H2780]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18MY06.005
[[Page H2781]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18MY06.006
[[Page H2782]]
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, at the outset, I want to thank Interior Subcommittee
Chairman Charles Taylor and his staff for the fairness with which the
minority has been treated in the development of this bill. We have been
consulted throughout the process. As a result, the bill reflects our
input in a number of places.
From a process point of view, this bill is a model for how the
majority and minority should work together to produce legislation.
Unfortunately, as Chairman Taylor and I have discussed throughout the
year, a fair process cannot produce a good bill when the Interior
Subcommittee is given an inadequate allocation. What we were given to
work with for 2007 is, once again, inadequate.
The $25.9 billion allowed by the full Appropriations Committee for
Interior and environment programs is essentially a hard freeze at the
FY 2006 enacted level. This is roughly $800 million below the level
necessary to maintain current services for the programs funded by the
Interior Subcommittee.
The result is a bill in which our parks, refuges and forests are
again to be squeezed to cover fixed costs. It means funding for clean
water and clean air programs at the EPA are going to be substantially
reduced. It means critical new investments requested by the President
in areas like homeland security and diesel emissions reductions are
dramatically reduced or in some cases not funded at all. Assistance to
our States with their environmental and conservation programs is
dramatically reduced.
It means the very real problem of global warming will not be
adequately addressed. And I assume that when consideration of the bill
is completed, the provision approved by the Appropriations Committee
acknowledging the existence of global climate change and the human
involvement in that change will no longer be part of it. I will talk
about my disappointment over that later.
I won't go through all the numbers today, but I think it is important
that Members are aware of some of the most troubling recommendations.
Despite facility maintenance backlogs of at least $15 billion in our
parks, refuges and national forests, funding for construction projects
throughout the bill are cut by $216 million below last year and more
than $400 million below the level in 2001. There is no funding at all
for new schools on Indian reservations. Park Service construction is
cut by $100 million.
In most cases, this bill has only been able to fund 70 percent of the
increases mandated by law for Federal pay and for other fixed costs. As
our recent GAO report on the parks made clear, this inevitably will
mean cutbacks in staff and cutbacks in visitor services for people who
visit our parks, refuges and other Federal facilities. Staffing in our
wildlife refuges has been cut by more than 700 FTEs over the past 5
years.
Funding for the Clean Water Revolving Fund is cut by another $200
million below the 2006 level. Over the last 3 years, the Clean Water
Program, which EPA cites as one of its most effective, has been reduced
by $662 million, or nearly 50 percent. This means either that essential
infrastructure repairs for this country's aging water infrastructure
won't occur, or that local water and sewer rates will increase as
communities pick up the Federal share of these costs.
Other State grant programs broadly supported in the House are cut
below the current rate. This includes a $14 million cut in PILT, as
well as a significant reduction in State Wildlife grants and the North
American Wetlands programs. Stateside Conservation grants are
completely eliminated. Over the past 5 years, assistance to States for
these environmental or conservation programs have been reduced by more
than $750 million.
Funding for Federal land acquisition and to help States preserve open
spaces is cut by $98 million in this bill and by more than $400 million
since 2001. Funding in this area has been cut by more than 80 percent
in the last 4 years. These are not vast stretches of new land for the
Federal Government to manage. Unfunded acquisitions include smaller
parcels in icon parks such as Valley Forge, Grand Teton, and Acadia.
These purchases are the highest priorities of the Bush administration
and are ready to go in 2007 if we had funding.
I want to express my strong support for the cuts totaling $20 million
to the Smithsonian contained in this bill, which Chairman Taylor and I
believe is the best way for the Interior Subcommittee to express our
extreme displeasure with recent actions taken by the Smithsonian. This
situation involves the recently negotiated commercial venture with
Showtime, the details of which have been kept from Congress by the
Smithsonian.
{time} 1230
On a more positive note, and one our constituents who visits D.C.
certainly will appreciate, the bill makes an important down payment
towards the much needed improvement of the infrastructure at the
National Zoo. This will be a multiyear task to upgrade the zoo's
facilities to a level where they should be. In a smart move, tackling
the most important tasks first, this bill has placed significant
emphasis on replacing and upgrading the fire protection and suppression
systems.
As I mentioned earlier, Chairman Taylor and I have discussed
previously the problems with the Interior subcommittee repeatedly being
given inadequate allocations to meet the needs of this country in terms
of taking care of our Federal lands and protecting the environment.
This is not a pretty picture.
Mr. Chairman, I hope we can improve the bill as it moves forward, but
this is not a bill in my opinion which adequately addresses our
country's needs.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5386,
the Department of Interior Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the distinguished chairman, Mr. Taylor, and
his committee for including funding in the Indian Health Service
facilities budget for joint venture projects. I believe the Service
should take advantage of opportunities like the joint venture program
to leverage tribal dollars with Federal dollars.
In my State of Oklahoma, I am pleased to note that the Chickasaw
Nation has pledged an unprecedented $135,000 million in tribal funds to
design, construct, and equip a new state-of-the-art medical center to
meet the needs of its people, its community, and neighboring tribes.
Congress and the Indian Health Service should look favorably upon
tribes willing and able to make those investments back into their
community and provide the necessary supplemental resources.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge the support of H.R. 5386.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, the majority party believes that if we
just keep drilling for more gas and oil then our energy crisis will be
over. Unfortunately, they are not looking for a solution to our energy
crisis and a solution to our rising gas prices. They are just looking
short term for false security solutions that ultimately line the
pockets of big oil companies.
Mr. Chairman, that is why we are here today discussing offshore oil
drilling instead of promoting efficient and renewable energy policies.
The people that I am fortunate to represent in Marin and Sonoma
Counties north of San Francisco, across the Golden Gate Bridge, do
understand. They get it. The coast of my district is one of the most
biologically productive regions in the entire world, and it would be
threatened, threatened by oil and gas exploration if this bill passes
as is.
For this reason, I have introduced a bill to extend the Gulf of the
Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries along the
entire coast of Sonoma to protect it from offshore drilling threats.
The coastal communities in my district rely on tourism and fishing,
industries that would be severely hurt if offshore drilling was
permitted. If you were to visit this beautiful stretch of coast you
would understand why, and you would know that we must protect it.
[[Page H2783]]
Mr. Chairman, the people who live in my district strongly oppose
offshore drilling. They understand that we need an energy policy that
focuses on investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy
sources, not on oil rigs and the endless depletion of our natural
resources.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the
Capps-Davis amendment.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlemen from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).
(Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank
the chairman for the incredible job that he has done on this bill. It
is one of the toughest pieces of legislation that comes before us every
year, and he has done an incredible job. His staff is always willing to
listen to all of us and put up with all of us, I thank them as well,
and they know who I am referring to.
But I do need to say, Mr. Chairman, that there was an amendment put
on during this process that I think would have, could have a
devastating effect on the State of Florida, and that it would
potentially allow for the drilling of natural gas, potentially up to
just 3 miles off the coast of Florida.
And I do not need to remind everybody how important tourism is for
the economy of Florida, $57 billion to the economy. We depend on that
environment being pristine. There is a consensus in Florida, among the
people in Florida and just about all of the elected officials of
Florida, that this could be devastating for the State of Florida.
There will be an amendment by Mr. Putnam and others to try to remedy
that. I will support that. I want to thank the chairman and staff again
for always listening to us, and we hope that this great bill could be
improved by taking out that part that can be very devastating to
Florida.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlemen from
Florida (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to further elaborate
on the drilling issue that has been discussed by the last two speakers,
Democrat and Republican.
Mr. Chairman, since 1981, this Congress has included language in this
Interior spending bill that says that we draw a line as far as the
extent to which we are willing to risk oil spills off the coast of
Florida and off the coast of the United States in return for drilling.
It has been a matter of balance.
This bill today contains a provision that repeals this language, that
has been there since 1981 and, as was mentioned earlier, will allow the
possibility of leases for oil or gas as close as 3 miles off the east
coast of Florida and 9 miles off the west coast of Florida, my home.
The risk of a spill to the State of Florida is devastating, and to be
perfectly honest, it is entirely uncertain to all of us what the risk
is. But it is a risk that we do not want to accept in Florida,
particularly because the quantities are so modest in return as far as
what the Nation needs.
Now the language in the bill, which I would like to discuss, it is
important to point out what it does and what it does not do. It gives
the White House the authority to issue leases should it choose to do so
right off the coast of Florida.
The language says, it is only for natural gas. But if you look at the
record, including the President's own leader in the Department of
Interior, he says when you go to drill you get what you get. If you
make an investment as a company to drill for gas and you get oil, you
are going to take oil. So this is about having an oil spill as well as
gas.
Secondly, there has been a representation made that this drilling off
the coast of Florida and other parts of the United States is going to
lower the price at the pump. With respect to Florida, nothing can be
further from the truth. The representation is made that if we convert
massive amounts of our cars and trucks to natural gas, then this
provision will lower the price at the pump.
The price at the pump is the problem with the price of oil. This
provision is not going to help deal with the Nation's needs as far as
oil. It could produce enough oil to generate a spill off the coast of
Florida, but it is not going to lower the price at the pump.
Let me finally just say, reasonable people can disagree on where this
line should be drawn. But the way to do that is through hearings around
the country, in the State of Florida. We want to be part of the
solution in terms of meeting the Nation's energy needs.
Mr. Chairman, I do not question for a minute the motives behind the
sponsor of this bill, but there is a right way and a wrong way to have
this debate. The right way is to have an open and honest discussion in
the committee, around the country. Come to Florida. Our beaches are not
just a State treasure, they are a national treasure.
But the wrong way to do it is this last one, to change a balance that
has existed since 1981 is to have a very short debate and to simply
erase what Congress has had in place for decades through other energy
crises and subject the State of Florida and other parts of the country
to the possibility of an oil spill that could be enormously
devastating, not just to our environment, not just to our economy, but
to our way of life.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Members of Congress will choose to take
a responsible approach to this very important issue. This is not just
about Florida. It is about coastlines that are pristine in terms of the
entire country as well as the rest of the coastline.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I also want to point out that this
restriction, which has been in the law since 1981, was also in the
President's budget. This was part of the President's budget.
So we are not only overturning this congressional restriction, but we
are also doing it in the face of the Bush administration's budget.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. I do not
think anybody on the floor of this Congress is going to accuse the
President of being bashful about drilling. He does not support this
drilling right off the coast of Florida.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank Chairman Taylor as well as his excellent
staff for allowing all of the Members to participate in the drafting of
this amendment and a debate on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, there is one provision that is very harmful to my home
State of Florida. Along with my Florida Members, we will be fighting
the Peterson language that is attached to this bill which will allow
offshore drilling just 3 miles off our Nation's coastlines.
The Peterson language would overturn a 25-year bipartisan moratorium
on such drilling. It is bad for the environment, it is bad for national
security, and it is not the answer to our pressing energy needs.
Three miles. That is the distance in which drilling structures could
appear off of Florida's shoreline. These structures could blight the
coast, damage sensitive habitat, undermine our State's economic future.
Last year alone, 85 million people visited Florida, many to experience
the national beauty of our sandy beaches and marine habitats.
Offshore drilling would introduce toxins and pollutants into the
ocean environment. The Florida delegation will unite to promote the
Putnam amendment later today to strip the Peterson language from the
bill.
Mr. Chairman, I am so proud to represent the national treasures of
the Florida Keys. The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary is home to
thousands of plants and animal species as well as the world's third
largest living coral reef system. Drilling would threaten the health of
this national marine sanctuary and undermine our efforts to foster and
restore sensitive areas.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues' help in making sure that we
can protect Florida's coastline and our Nation's ecosystem by adopting
the Putnam amendment and rejecting the Peterson language.
Mr. Chairman, I thank again Chairman Taylor for his time and for this
opportunity.
[[Page H2784]]
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlemen from
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
(Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the principal issue
that is going to be before us as we deal with the overall bill is going
to be the lifting of the moratorium, the congressional moratorium with
respect to drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf.
As a supporter of a bill that Mr. Peterson and I hoped to have heard
in the Resources Committee that will deal with the issue in a much
broader scope, I hope I can bring some level of reality here to what
this is all about.
Mr. Chairman, it is the quite true, as has been mentioned by previous
speakers who want to see this amendment taken out of the overall bill,
that 25 years ago the question of drilling 3 miles off of Florida or
California or anywhere was an issue, and the reason that the moratorium
was put in was to prevent that from happening. But that was 25 years
ago, and now the issue is up for reconsideration, not to drill 3 miles,
but whether there is going to be any drilling at all and whether it
should take place and under what circumstances, given what has happened
over the past 25 years.
{time} 1245
The reason the Peterson amendment is in the overall bill is to give
us the opportunity to start that discussion. There will be no drilling
off of Florida or anyplace else if we pass this bill. It just gives us
the opportunity to begin a discussion as to whether we should
reconsider that position and where it should happen. That is what is at
issue here, lifting the congressional moratorium. There is still a
Presidential moratorium against it; there is still a 5-year plan that
has to be implemented. We need to consider whether we want to continue
with that particular approach.
So what we are asking for is every Member here to be able to vote his
or her own views on whether we can have a discussion on this issue. Our
problem, Mr. Chairman, is, particularly for those of us who are
Democrats, that we are in the grip now of an assault by an
environmental Taliban out there that has absolute revealed wisdom as to
what is involved with us trying to achieve an independent energy source
that we can have as an alternative energy source right now in our
country, and not be in the grip of people around the world who wish us
ill with regard to energy.
All we are asking for is the opportunity to be able to discuss this
issue. If we defeat the Peterson amendment or have it taken out and
pass the Capps-Putnam amendment and whatever other amendments are
associated with it, we won't have the chance to even begin a discussion
about whether natural gas is an alternative independent source of
energy that we need to have now.
That is what our request is. Let us have this discussion. Keep the
Peterson amendment in the bill so we can begin the discussion and have
the hearings that Mr. Davis and others indicated they would like to
have. I agree with them. I think Members know me for a long time, I
would never try to embarrass somebody else or put somebody else in a
position of saying, look, I am right and you are wrong and I have the
only position possible. That is not what it is about. We need to have
this discussion. Let us defeat the Capps-Putnam amendment so that we
can have this discussion. Mr. Chairman, I hope that everybody
understands this is not a Democratic-Republican issue; this is an
American issue about independent energy resources for this Nation.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
Mr. SAXTON. First, let me thank the gentleman for yielding. I would
like to engage the distinguished chairman in a colloquy regarding
funding for an important conservation project in New Jersey.
Mr. Chairman, the State of New Jersey has only 3 percent of its real
estate in Federal land ownership. It is also the most densely populated
State in the country, as everyone knows. From national parks to
wildlife areas, our investment in conservation, preservation, wildlife,
and recreation pay tremendous dividends every day. The coastal areas of
our Nation are under extreme pressure from development.
The areas surrounding the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge
is no exception. It is vital that we assist our State and local
governments in true Federal/State/local partnerships to purchase tracts
of land like the ones surrounding the Forsythe refuge boundary,
environmentally valuable land that can be bought now but most likely
will be lost permanently for public use in the very near future because
of development.
I appreciate the challenges that the subcommittee faced in this very
difficult budget year. However, I am also hopeful that, Mr. Chairman,
you will recognize the importance of this project. We have a
responsibility to our children to ensure that green spaces remain, to
provide clean air and water, and ample opportunities to enjoy wildlife
and the great outdoors.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I thank my colleague from New Jersey
for bringing this important project to my attention. I will be pleased
to consider this funding need, should additional funds become available
in conference.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting
me to speak on this bill, which should be one of the highlights of this
congressional session, of any congressional session, as it touches on
things that are near and dear to the hearts of the people we represent:
clean air, vast open space, environmental protection, investment in the
arts, and the public lands that are so meaningful to people.
Mr. Chairman, there are important provisions in this bill that I do
support. I appreciate the subcommittee funding for land acquisition in
the Columbia River Gorge which will help us honor Federal commitments
to communities in Oregon and Washington along a priceless national
treasure. But, sadly, overall what should be a positive expression of
our values, our hopes, and opportunities instead is a pattern of broken
promises to our communities. It does represent a lost opportunity and
is a symbol of the inability of those of us in Congress this year and
the administration to match priorities with those of our constituents
and, most importantly, for the future.
I appreciate the fact that there is dramatic underfunding through the
budget allocation in the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, putting
them in the hole from the beginning. I appreciate that the funding for
land acquisition has been increased over the President's budget. But
there is no reason that the billions of dollars set aside in the trust
fund for the land and water conservation fund for that express purpose
should not be used for those purposes.
Without the funding, communities will lose opportunities to purchase
ecologically rich lands and waters, preserving and protecting
recreation and conservation and historic values.
Remember the commitment that was made on this floor in the year 2000.
I appreciate the leadership that Mr. Dicks exhibited with the committee
working with Mr. Young and Mr. Miller in the CARA legislation, which
passed overwhelmingly in the House, but a deal was brokered to
establish funding levels. It is a point of great embarrassment that
that commitment that was made to realize the overwhelming sense of what
needs to happen in this body with CARA is being violated with this
legislation today.
I hope that we will be able to, before we finish deliberations and
move it through this session, go back and revisit it, because that
commitment was made in good faith. I appreciate the work of the
gentleman from Washington together with Mr. Young and Mr. Miller, Mr.
Obey I see here. We should not be violating that commitment.
Mr. Speaker, I do hope that we can focus more attention and have a
healthy discussion on that in the course of these deliberations.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to
[[Page H2785]]
thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for his work and the
staff on the hard work they have done on this bill. Based on the
limited allocation that they have received, I think they did a pretty
good job.
Mr. Chairman, I want to speak specifically to a provision in the bill
that I support, and I want to thank Mr. Dicks for putting the provision
in the bill, and I want to thank the chairman for allowing it to stay
in the bill.
Basically, the provision I would like to speak to is the sense of
Congress in this bill that deals with the fact that this Congress
should pay attention to, work with, and try to understand the
increasing amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and what does
that mean.
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, while it represents a tiny fraction
of 1 percent of the whole atmosphere, is the chief gas that determines
the heat balance; it determines the climate. And there is a scientific
consensus that within the last 100 years, especially within the last 50
years, human activity burning fossil fuel has put huge amounts of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, thus debilitating or changing that
heat balance that we have known for a long time.
An example: 10,000 years ago, at the end of the Ice Age, it is
calculated through analysis that there was 180 parts per million of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It took 10,000 years for that to go
up 100 points. 10,000 years. Now, in the last 100, but especially in
the last 50 years, it has risen 100 points. So what the natural
environment did in 10,000 years, human activity burning fossil fuel has
done in less than 100 years.
Now, what does that mean? Does that mean whoever talked about global
warming is crying Chicken Little, the sky is falling; don't worry about
it, nothing will happen? Or does it mean we need to pursue knowledge?
What it means is, that increase in carbon dioxide in less than 100
years that took the natural process 10,000 years to produce, this U.S.
Congress, this government should pay attention to that issue. And the
sense of Congress contained in this legislation should remain in this
legislation.
I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the gentleman on his statement. This is
not an issue that should be partisan in any way. We have had six former
EPA administrators in both parties say that this is the issue of our
time. A former Member, former Vice President of the United States, Al
Gore, has made a national issue out of this. I would like the gentleman
to repeat what he said about Greenland. I thought that was very
dramatic. I would appreciate it. I think we have more Members now. If
you would repeat that, I think that would be important to the debate.
Mr. GILCHREST. Greenland is an interesting place because you can go
back several hundred years. People were tracking the increasing or
decreasing glacier ice cap. So there is a very accurate record. We saw
some 20 years ago that the ice cap really significantly began to melt
and about 20 cubic miles of ice was flowing into the North Atlantic.
Today, that has increased to 53 cubic miles of ice cap on Greenland
flowing in the form of water, melted water, into the North Atlantic.
The rate we are going, we are going to lose the Greenland ice cap. When
we do lose the Greenland ice cap, sea levels will rise 23 feet around
the globe.
Mr. DICKS. I want that to be repeated: 23 feet. I want my colleagues
from Florida who are sitting here on the floor to think about what that
would mean in Florida, what that would mean in the coast of California,
the coast of Washington.
Mr. GILCHREST. New York City. Boston.
Mr. DICKS. This could be a catastrophic event. Yet we are not even
willing to have a sense of the Congress resolution that says that human
activity may be part of the problem. I mean, we have got to wake up on
this. It is time to wake up.
The former Vice President has been out making speeches all over the
country. There was a movie which opened last night on this issue. This
could be the issue of all time. If we don't get busy and start
realizing we have got a role and a responsibility to play here, it may
be too late. For every one of us who either has grandchildren, or may
have grandchildren, we have got to think about this. What legacy are we
leaving if we don't face up to this reality?
The authorizers simply haven't done it. That is why the chairman, I
thought, was very kind to accept this amendment. But now I understand
they are going to knock it out on a point of order. This is like
putting your head in the sand. I want to thank the gentleman from
Maryland, who is one of the more enlightened Members of this body, for
all the facts that he has brought to this debate today. I hope somehow
working together we can resurrect this at some future point. I would
hope even that maybe the chairman of the Commerce Committee might
rethink his opposition to this sense of the Congress resolution.
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Kuhl of New York) assumed the chair.
____________________