[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16361-16368]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  UNITED STATES SHOULD PARTICIPATE IN UNITED NATIONS WORLD SUMMIT FOR 
                        SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I have just returned this last week from 
participation in the United Nations World Summit for Sustainable 
Development. It was truly an amazing experience, Mr. Speaker. It was 
the largest conference ever conducted by the United Nations. It was 
attended by over 100 heads of state who took part in the summit, joined 
by over 21,000 people, 9,000 delegates, 8,000 representatives of a 
variety of nongovernmental organizations and 4,000 members of the 
press. It was something that I will remember for a variety of reasons.
  In one respect it was interesting in terms of the context in which 
the summit was taking place. Amidst news of drought, forest fires, 
devastating storms and flooding around the world, millions of people 
had been displaced in Asia, there were disastrous floods in central 
Europe, everybody that I met with and I had the opportunity to visit 
with the representatives of over two dozen countries, there was not one 
person when did not feel that the terrible ecological disasters that 
provided the backdrop in the news were not somehow connected to the 
cavalier treatment that we have accorded to the environment. There was 
virtually no

[[Page 16362]]

skepticism expressed on behalf of the concerns for global climate 
change, for instance.
  Now, while personally embarrassed that the United States did not have 
a greater presence, and somewhat overwhelmed by the environmental 
challenges we face, I returned from that experience with a greater 
sense of optimism than I would have thought possible just a month ago.
  Now, make no mistake about it, I fear the United States was the big 
loser at that summit. I mention that there were 104 heads of state, not 
the President of the United States, who was staying on his ranch in 
Crawford, Texas, and participating in various fund-raising events 
around the country, allowing the United States to be portrayed as an 
obstructionist or uninterested in a conference to which most other 
countries sent their leaders. I found a certain amount of irony when 
the United States, at least some members of the administration are 
beating their drums for a potential action against Iraq, when a number 
of people noted the need if we are going to be moving forward to have a 
global alliance similar to that which was assembled by President Bush's 
father when he was involved with the war against Iraq with Operation 
Desert Storm. It seemed particularly ironic that the head of our 
government, who had an opportunity to meet with our global partners, 
strengthen bonds, and obtain support for difficult policies that 
require international cooperation was not there. It had a number of 
other spill-over effects. Frankly, we did not get credit for many of 
the more positive developments that we were involved with.
  For instance, during the negotiations on the plan of implementation, 
which was the international agreement produced at the summit, the 
United States negotiators opposed most of the specific targets in the 
plan dealing with climate change and energy. The United States opposed 
language that would have set a goal for industrialized countries to 
increase their use of renewable energy by just 2 percent over the next 
decade. It is kind of hard to believe that the United States, with all 
of its resources and technology, its leadership, with a public that 
understands the need for energy independence and not being further 
reliant on unstable energy sources in the Middle East, hard to believe 
that our administration thinks it is not possible that the United 
States could meet the challenge of increasing our use of renewables in 
the next decade by just 2 percent.
  It was disappointing that the United States seemed to avoid any 
discussion of global climate change, our contribution to the problem, 
and meaningful solutions.
  The United States did finally support the summit goal to cut in half 
the number of people living without basic sanitation, matching our 
objectives for clean water, drinking water. This was important, Mr. 
Speaker, because by linking those two goals together, we have the 
opportunity to increase 300 percent the effectiveness of our 
investments. And I was pleased that at the last minute the United 
States abandoned its advocacy of destructive language that would have 
undercut women's reproductive health and freedom. It was a little 
embarrassing for a while that our partners in the fight for 
reproductive women's rights were those coming from the Arab states. In 
its original form it would have been a declaration that the Taliban 
would have felt comfortable with.

                              {time}  1945

  But as I say, this was one area where we were able to see some 
changes that took place.
  Mr. Speaker, I have some other thoughts and observations relative to 
the experience here; but I note that I have been joined by my 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Los Angeles, California (Ms. Solis), 
and I yield to the gentlewoman to make some comments, a woman who is 
deeply concerned about environmental issues and provided leadership 
internationally and at home for herself in California.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I would like to also thank the gentleman from Oregon for putting this 
discussion here before the public.
  And I too, Mr. Speaker, rise to express my frustration with the 
leaders of our country, particularly the Bush administration, in their 
failure to be fully supportive of all the participants at the recent 
Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development. The Johannesburg 
conference was a meeting where nearly 200 countries came together for 
10 days to search for ways to bring clean water and sanitation to 
nearly 2 billion of the world's poorest people, the world's poorest 
people.
  Because of this administration's unwillingness to help meet the needs 
of our global society, there were a few binding commitments made at the 
conference and our world leaders left that conference without 
addressing some of the most pending issues, like issues regarding AIDS, 
smokestack emissions, or uneven benefits of global trade. Carbon 
dioxide emissions, as my colleagues know, have risen 18 percent above 
1990 levels in the U.S., by 11 percent in Japan, 13 percent in Canada, 
and almost 30 percent in Australia. As our carbon dioxide levels have 
risen, so too have our instances of weather-related disasters, and we 
see that here in the U.S. more and more.
  Since 1975 these natural disasters, namely droughts, windstorms, and 
floods, have increased by 160 percent, killing approximately 440,000 
people and causing $480 billion worth of damage in the 1990s alone. And 
still the U.S. negotiators fought efforts to decrease our world's 
dependence on dirty fossil fuels and increase our focus on alternative 
energy use by refusing to commit to deadlines that would have held our 
world leaders accountable? Any teacher or student will say that 
deadlines are necessary to ensure progress. We know that. And yet this 
administration would rather continue to allow people to live in 
unsanitary and unhealthy and unthinkable conditions in the name of 
flexibility.
  During this past week, we heard repeatedly from U.S. officials that 
actions speak louder than words. If our actions are truly commendable 
and beneficial, why does this administration fear committing to 
sustainable development not only in action but in clear words and 
statements? There must be some form of accountability. No longer can we 
live without the understanding that this is a global society and we 
have to work together with real plans and real goals and real 
accountability to ensure that development is sustainable, not just in 
this country, in the U.S., but in the entire world. We have a 
responsibility.
  The world's scientists predict that the Earth's temperature could 
rise by a global average of 6 degrees celsius by the year 2100. This 
reality demands action now; and 10 years ago at the Rio conference, 
many new initiatives and goals were put forward, and at this conference 
there were only two instances where we set a true goal. Number one, by 
2015 we committed cutting in half the proportion of people who did not 
have access to basic sanitation. Number two, we established greater 
marine-protected networks. And in every case existing commitments were 
either reaffirmed, watered down, or altogether trashed.
  When are we going to get serious about solving the problems of 
sustainable development? The goal of the summit was to implement a 
vision for a healthier and more sustainable future; but it fell far 
short, and now our country risks falling behind our competitors who 
will develop innovative and profitable and clean and efficient 
technologies, but where does that leave us? Where does that leave the 
United States?
  It is time for this administration to start focusing on sustainable 
development.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we have also been joined this evening by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), my colleague from Carmel/
Monterey, a gorgeous district in California. I have been impressed 
since the day I first came to Congress with the Congressman's deep 
appreciation for the environment and the leadership that he has 
provided, whether it is for scenic

[[Page 16363]]

highways, coastal conservation, understanding the role that sustainable 
agriculture plays, and was host to the first White House conference on 
the oceans.
  I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) for comments on 
the world environmental summit.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), my colleague and good friend, for yielding; 
and I want to congratulate him and my other congressional colleagues 
who went to Johannesburg, South Africa. While he was in South Africa, I 
had the privilege of being in his beautiful State, in fact in his 
district of Portland, Oregon; and I can tell my colleagues that indeed 
the western United States and particularly Oregon is one of the most 
beautiful States in the United States; and I would recommend to 
everybody who wants to see spectacular scenery and uncrowded highways 
just to visit that great State.
  My colleagues all came together in Johannesburg about 2 weeks ago to 
address the global issues that exist at the intersection of economic 
development and environmental sustainability. I happen to be very 
keenly interested in the outcome of that because my district that my 
colleague just mentioned is the salad bowl center of the world and we 
cannot continue to produce fresh fruits and vegetables if we do not 
have a clean environment, clean water, clean air; and we know that from 
our interest in trying to develop small business economy through 
tourism and ecotourism that indeed the environment sells. Well, the 
environment cannot sell and cannot be there for small businesses if it 
is dirty.
  My colleagues all went to Johannesburg to declare along with other 
countries the commitment to making the Earth cleaner, a more healthy 
place for humans and all living creatures; and I, following the press 
article, I was struck by how many poor Nations, who could least afford 
to send representatives from their government and nongovernment 
organizations, but indeed did hope that they could persuade the richer 
countries to help them grow their economies in socially and 
environmentally sustainable ways.
  I think one of the most positive outcomes of the summit was the 
agreement by all nations to begin managing the marine resources with an 
ecosystem approach and to restore fish stocks to sustainable levels by 
the year 2015. I pledge to continue to work with the U.S. and all 
nations to make these goals and reverse the devastating trends in 
pollution and overfishing that we see in the oceans all over the world.
  I was shocked, as my colleague's comments pointed out, and I am sad 
to say that I believe that our administration remains blinded to these 
issues; and I think it remains blinded because they really have not 
listened beyond the short-term special interests, corporate interests 
in America.
  Let me tell my colleagues that I represent the State of California 
and chair the Democratic delegation in that State. Look at California. 
I mean, we have that comment here that sort of anything but California, 
but indeed, California is a nation-state. It is 33 million people. It 
is the fifth largest economy in the world. It is the most diversified 
in businesses, everything from Hollywood to Silicon Valley to 
agriculture. It was the leading agriculture State; and it goes on and 
on and on.
  Yet this State that is such an economic engine, which has more cars, 
more people to consume energy, more air conditioners, more houses, more 
buildings to heat and cool, more of everything, has created policies in 
that State, political policies, that are implemented and carried out. 
The bottom line is that California consumes the least energy per capita 
of any State in the United States.
  Why am I saying this? Because if the U.S. remains unwilling to truly 
come to the global negotiating table, strong commitments toward such 
efforts as reducing the emission of greenhouse gases and urging a 
change of the way from an unsustainable pattern of consumption and 
production, then California is going to suffer, the businesses of 
California. Why? Because in business there is a need to have fairness, 
and fairness essentially is a question of certainty.
  If one is going to take capital and put it into something at risk, 
they want enough certainty that they are going to be able to get a 
return for their investment. That is what California businesses do 
every single day. Only the balance of that certainty is shifted away 
because the Federal Government fails to take a lead in leveling the 
playing field, which means, really, upgrading the playing field so that 
California, which is doing things that are environmentally very 
sensitive, gets treated wrongly in this town. It hurts all the small 
businesses who are not able to compete on a level playing field, and it 
certainly hurts our big corporations.
  Are they going to the State legislature and asking the State to 
repeal all these tough environmental laws in California? Absolutely 
not. In fact, our national leadership should be championing the 
leadership of cleaning up the pollution. This administration should be 
acknowledging the leadership of California Governors. When we look at 
them, Republicans and Democrats alike, Republican Governor George 
Deukmejian; a Republican, Governor Pete Wilson; and now Governor Gray 
Davis, who just signed the toughest automobile car sequestration 
emission standards in the world.
  That is the kind of leadership that American people are asking for. 
Was it easy to do politically? Absolutely not. Everybody who was in the 
automobile industry opposed it; and yet California has the largest 
automobile sales, the largest consumption of automobiles in the United 
States.
  Why was it accomplished? Because it really was the right thing to do. 
California really wants to move towards sustaining itself internally on 
energy and making sure that energy is clean. We are the leader of wind 
energy; we are the leader of solar energy; we are the leader in 
geothermal energy; we are the leader in biomass production. All of 
these alternatives, which show that we can meet these really tough 
standards and still make a profit, I think ought to be recognized.
  Business really needs fairness at the national level, an equal 
playing field; and I ask this administration, I ask the President of 
the United States, to help bring up the rest of the Nation to 
California standards, to recognize, as the leaders in California, ought 
to be praising Governor Davis. But because it is an election year and 
people are sensitive about partisanship and the President is a 
Republican and the Governor is a Democrat, that instead of praising him 
for doing the right things, there is a criticism going on and that 
criticism is just unjustified when we look at the voices that were in 
Johannesburg and what they were saying.
  They want this Nation to join California, to be more like California, 
so that together we can lead the world, not drag the world down, which 
is the image that we had in Johannesburg.
  I am absolutely thrilled that members of the legislative branch, the 
checks and balance system that we have in our Constitution, were able 
to go to Johannesburg and to indicate to the delegates that not 
everybody in the United States was against setting some really tough 
global standards and to providing the money and capital and leadership 
to move the world in that way. I am thrilled that my colleagues and 
others, including, I see, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) is here, 
people that ought to be thanked by the American people for their 
commitment to making sure that the world understands that we in the 
United States are trying to, in Congress, invest moneys in developing 
appropriate technologies so that those technologies can be applied in 
the developing countries around the world so that they can indeed have 
a clean, healthy environment to raise their children in.
  I thank my colleagues for representing us at the world summit and 
thank them for having this colloquy tonight.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's attendance and his 
focusing on the leadership, for instance,

[[Page 16364]]

that has happened now in California dealing with more fuel-efficient 
cars. I think it is clear that the American public would have 
responded, if Congress and the administration, when we were dealing 
with an energy bill, would have stepped forward to produce similar 
standards on a national level to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, 
to protect the environment, to reduce greenhouse gases has ultimately 
saved the taxpayer money.
  The gentleman referenced our being joined this evening by our 
colleague, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen). Let me just say that 
one of the positive aspects of this conference, for me, was watching 
men and women from around the world who were policymakers and who 
understand the need to protect the environment come together. I had the 
privilege of watching our colleague from Maine participate in an 
organization called GLOBE, Global Legislators Organized for a Balanced 
Environment, and I am pleased to say that the United States Congress 
was well represented in a bipartisan fashion.
  I think the international president, or chair, is our colleague, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), who was eloquent on 
several occasions in pointing out that there is some bipartisan support 
for improving environmental standards. The national chair is the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), and the gentleman from Maine 
(Mr. Allen) chaired some interesting negotiations with representatives 
from a dozen different countries around the world dealing with 
renewable energy.
  I am pleased that the gentleman is here. I am pleased to have watched 
him in action provide some leadership in Johannesburg on behalf of not 
just the United States but parliamentarians from around the world, and 
I would be honored if the gentleman would join in this discussion at 
this point.
  Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and it certainly was 
true that being in Johannesburg for the time we were there was a very 
interesting experience. My colleague mentioned the meeting I chaired on 
renewable energy, and that in itself was an eye opener, I guess I would 
say, because we had around the table several representatives from 
Japan, two from Slovenia, two from Sweden, one from Thailand, one from 
the Philippines, one from Uruguay, and I am sure some others. It was a 
cross-section of nations large and small from really all around the 
globe. South Africa was included as well.
  The interesting thing, to me, is how much different countries are 
trying to make sure that these international goals that are being 
talked about more elsewhere than here in the United States somehow fit 
their own countries and their own experience. And that is basically 
what you would expect. But what is true, I think, from this experience 
and from others is that most other countries realize that the climate 
is changing fast; that it is due to human emissions, carbon emissions 
in particular, and that, and this is where the United States is not 
following, that we need to do something about it. We need to do 
something fairly serious quickly. It is clear that the Europeans are 
taking the lead in a number of renewable energy technologies, wind and 
solar and small hydro and others, and we are being left behind.
  I happened to go to an exhibit by BMW, where they were describing an 
engine that can run both on gasoline or alternatively on hydrogen, and 
they were arguing that this kind of internal combustion engine that can 
run on hydrogen is a transition to a hydrogen future. One of the 
problems is that, of course, if we are going to have cars that run on 
hydrogen, and in fact where the by-product is not carbon dioxide, 
carbon monoxide, or whatever, but water, where you could get to zero 
emissions quickly, we do not have a lot of hydrogen filling stations 
around this country or in Europe. And they were talking about this as a 
way to do a transition.
  Mr. FARR of California. If the gentleman would yield. I am very 
curious about the gentleman's discussions. We spend a lot of time here 
in the House of Representatives and on the floor arguing trade issues, 
and obviously issues come up about trade sanctions. When the gentleman 
looked at the commitment that people were making in South Africa, did 
he get any feeling that we may be isolating ourselves from future 
markets because our standards are not good enough, our automobiles are 
not clean enough; and, therefore, they are not going to allow them to 
be sold in those countries; that our other exports of our machinery 
does not meet high enough standards to be marketed in those countries, 
and that we are really shutting off our ability to do trade?
  Even though a lot of times the brainpower for that technology really 
rests in the United States, it is just that we have not had a 
commitment to investing that brainpower in the tools that can be 
incorporated in our polluting instruments.
  Mr. ALLEN. I have no doubt that the gentleman is right. A couple of 
things. It is clear that the EU legislature and individual European 
countries are setting higher standards. They are setting some 
standards. They are setting higher standards, obviously, than the 
Federal Government here for carbon emissions. And the result is that 
they are triggering the need to do a substantial amount of research and 
development in renewable fuels, in ways of converting to new fuels, and 
to having more renewable technologies.
  I think it is likely, based on what I heard in Johannesburg, that 
Europe is going to go roaring by the United States when it comes to 
developing new technologies of this kind. That is going to leave us, in 
the long run, at a disadvantage in the European market. And when carbon 
restrictions come in this country, as they surely will, it will leave 
U.S. automakers and others really behind the 8 ball.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Could I just interject for a moment? Because I 
enjoyed touring that exhibit with the gentleman from Maine by BMW, and 
it did strike several chords. One, to the point made by our colleague 
from California, we are already being foreclosed by certain market 
segments. Next year, there are three hybrid vehicles that consumers can 
choose from, all made in Japan. And they have a waiting list for them. 
People want them. They are in my colleague's district, in my district, 
and it is a little frustrating to see that.
  We have, however, American automakers who are meeting the standards, 
the higher standards in Europe. They are meeting the 40-mile-per-gallon 
fleet standard. They are having to contend with that. They are 
competing in the European market already. But they are somehow feeling 
that they cannot impose those higher standards here at home. And I find 
that a little frustrating.
  And I know that the gentleman's point is right. In the long run, to 
the extent to which we resist that, we are going to lose business, not 
just internationally but we are going to lose business here at home.
  Mr. FARR of California. Well, it is rather embarrassing, if not 
shameful, that our country that is always sort of championed as being 
in a leadership role of higher quality, of better standards, of caring 
for living things, protection of species, and so on, would be so 
negative about in this race for to clean up the planet; that we are not 
at the front of the parade.
  It is embarrassing for me from a State that is trying to be at the 
front of the parade but not having any cooperation from the Federal 
Government to keep us up there or to encourage us to go further by 
bringing the rest of the Nation up to those levels.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. If I could make one last point, then turn it back to 
my colleague from Maine. Just following up on that, in that session 
that the gentleman from Maine chaired, we were joined by a friend of 
ours from Great Britain, a member of parliament, Tony Coleman, who 
pointed out that in Great Britain in the 1990s, they made the 
transition from dirty coal-fired power plants to cleaner gas power 
plants to generate electricity.
  We in the United States, if we, instead of as the administration is 
suggesting, undercutting the new source

[[Page 16365]]

review and dealing with the requirement of our own Clean Air Act for 
these dirty power plants that are having a devastating effect on my 
colleague's State, amongst others, we would just deal with the spirit 
and the letter of the law, clean up those power plants, we would reduce 
our emissions to the level that we had in 1990 and be well on our way 
to meeting the Kyoto protocols.
  Mr. ALLEN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I do not think 
people realize that one-third of all carbon emissions in this country 
come from these old coal-fired and oil-fired power plants that are 
grandfathered under the Clean Air Act. If we just bring them up to new 
source review standards, we will do an enormous amount to improve the 
carbon emissions situation in this country. That is probably the 
easiest step to take. It is probably the first step that we will take 
at some point to deal with these old power plants, and it makes no 
sense to keep putting it off.
  I thought it was interesting, the meeting that GLOBE held. They had 
all sorts of meetings. In fact, GLOBE was a very active organization in 
Johannesburg. They did a terrific job. But the meeting I was chairing 
was all about the most controversial topic in Johannesburg, which is 
whether we should set targets and timetables for renewable energy.
  Right now, globally, renewable energy sources, as defined by the 
U.N., represent about 2 percent of all power generated in the world. 
And the question was should we move to a target of getting, as I 
recall, a 10 percent increase by 2020 over the 2 percent that was 
applicable today and in 2000. It was a major goal but an achievable 
goal. At least the rest of the world thought it was achievable.
  But it struck me that the problem the United States has, and 
particularly the Bush administration right now, is we cannot argue for 
a position to be adopted internationally if we are not willing to 
advocate for that position at home. And the fact is that the 
President's Clear Skies Initiative, so-called Clear Skies Initiative, 
basically would reduce carbon emissions in this country by about as 
much as if we did nothing at all.
  Carbon emissions are continuing to go up, but they are going up 
slightly less than they did in the past. Under the President's 
proposal, they will continue to go up at a significant rate but 
slightly less than they did in the past. The rest of Europe, the 
Japanese, and countries in Africa and in South America, are saying what 
good does that do? You have to first stabilize the emissions; stop them 
from growing. And that is really what we need to do.
  So that was a tremendous point of contention throughout Johannesburg. 
The U.S. never gave in. They never agreed to any targets or timetables. 
But I believe that the reason is clear: The President has basically 
said global warming is a problem. Adjust to it. And that is not the 
kind of response that the rest of the world believes is responsible.
  Mr. FARR of California. It certainly does not demonstrate leadership. 
There is no way anyone can take the United States position and argue 
that we are a leader in this field.
  I think we have been a leader in bringing about the consciousness of 
global pollution and admitting that we are, as tremendous consumers of 
our material goods, leading the world in pollution. And we have been a 
leader in recognizing that we have to do something about it, but that 
has always been initiated more by local communities and States. There 
has been sort of an attitude in America that you think globally and act 
locally. And certainly that has been the response coming out of the 
West, and I think out of my colleague's State of Maine as well.
  The frustration that I have experienced in my political life has been 
that without leadership we do not get commitment of research dollars, 
of essentially those key dollars or those lending programs through 
international banks.
  Attention was brought to me by a constituent who actually worked out 
the technology with a lot of firms, none of which were American 
companies, on how we could reduce all oil dependence on all the islands 
around the world. All of the islands do not produce oil, so they have 
to ship it in. It is very costly. Yet they are surrounded by two 
things; they are surrounded by sun and they are surrounded by 
saltwater. If we could use the sun to convert the saltwater, one, we 
get fresh water for the island, which, in addition, could be used for 
mariculture, so we could start growing fish products onshore that would 
have global markets as well as a domestic market; and, two, we reduce 
the independence of having to ship this oil. Hawaii is a good example 
in our country. And we have a by-product of clean water and an energy 
source.

                              {time}  2015

  That is very expensive to do; and the first time it is done, it is 
not cost effective. There is no profit. There needs to be a risk, and 
usually those kinds of risks are taken by government loans and 
subsidies, but we have to get it started.
  I wonder if there was any discussion in Johannesburg about how to get 
the money in place to do some of these absolutely essential things.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. We met with business people, governments, and with 
academicians from around the world; and it does not seem that this is 
something that should be beyond our capacity.
  First, the simple fact is that the future of energy in some way is 
going to deal with solar energy. In 1 hour, the sun radiates as much 
energy as the world consumes in a year with all of its fossil fuels. 
Being able to advance the technology, which is moving forward, to be 
able to harness virtually an unlimited supply of energy for the Earth's 
needs seems to be a top priority.
  We had advocated, all of us in the U.S. delegation, Members of 
Congress from both parties, suggested there be one simple step, that 
when we have all of these export credit agencies, OPEC, the World Bank, 
Ex-Im, that there be a commitment that 10 percent of the energy 
facilities be renewables. We could do that with the stroke of a pen. It 
would move forward, help jump-start this. Sadly, that was resisted.
  The goal of 15 percent by 2015 seems to be within our grasp if we use 
opportunities like this. But both gentlemen have been talking about 
United States leadership. I am frustrated that the United States steps 
back and uses excuses in lieu of leadership. In that session that the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) chaired, there was a minister from 
India, and we point out that the United States consumes 36 times the 
energy and has 36 times the greenhouse gas emissions than the average 
Indian. The average citizen of India emits one-sixth of the greenhouse 
gases of the world average, whereas the United States emits six times 
the world average, 25 percent for less than 5 percent of the world's 
population. Yet somehow the administration feels that this desperately 
poor country of India that is emitting less than one-thirtieth of the 
greenhouse gases than we are, somehow they should step up and assume 
leadership. I think it is an abrogation of our responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I appreciated the way the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) guided that forward to have a 
resolution that was approved by these parliamentarians unanimously.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, his 
point is an excellent one. One thing that we need to do more of with 
both China and India, they are going to be using some coal. Both have 
supplies of coal. They are developing their economies faster than other 
countries around the world, both are in different ways. But the best 
technology we have for clean coal use we ought to be making sure gets 
transferred to the Chinese and the Indians so they can do the best they 
can in holding down emissions.
  I want to say a couple of other things about the U.S. position. It 
struck me that the problem was not that the United States did nothing, 
but that our reach was so short. By rejecting any effort to set targets 
and timetables for getting to more renewable energy, we

[[Page 16366]]

were basically sitting back on the primary issue before the conference.
  I would say the administration took several positions. They said we 
want to establish partnerships, partnerships between governments and 
the private sector and the nonprofit sector. Many of them were rolled 
out, and many of them I think are going to make a contribution. There 
is nothing wrong with a proposal for partnerships that deal with some 
of these environmental issues. The administration was also saying that 
we need to insist on good governance because so often aid money has 
been wasted when it goes to governments that are corrupt or 
inefficient; and that, too, makes good sense. But, it fell so far short 
of what the expectations were around the world, and I think in many 
quarters here in the United States.
  It was only right near the end of the conference, probably a day 
before I left, which was the day before Colin Powell spoke, that we 
actually agreed to one target which had to do with sanitation, trying 
to move and I do not remember the exact number, but to cut in half the 
number of people living without sanitary and sewage facilities around 
the globe by 2020. But there was a case where at last, after a lot of 
negotiation, the U.S. finally came around to the position that the rest 
of the world had arrived at a long time before, and we were the 
lingering holdout.
  I just want to make one more point about the mood. At a number of 
different meetings, I got the sense that we do face a crisis. 
Sustainable development is more than the environment. In fact, it is 
more than the economy of a country plus its environment. It also 
involves how people are living and whether they have a standard of 
living that is appropriate and one that is reasonable for them to 
expect given the circumstances of that country. In other words, 
sustainable development to the rest of the world has an economic 
component, an environmental component, and a social component. Often 
here in the United States we kind of leave out that social component, 
perhaps because we are at least generally the wealthiest country in the 
world. But it did seem to me that there was a sense both in a meeting 
that I went to on Latin America and in some of the conversations on 
Africa that this globalizing system, this growing uniformity of 
financial structures in developing countries, was not working very well 
for ordinary people.
  In too many countries around the world which have been forced to open 
their markets both to goods and capital from other countries, they have 
found that the capital that comes rushing in can go rushing out just as 
fast; and they are concerned that their economies are not growing. They 
are stagnating. In Eastern Europe, after the breakup of the Soviet 
Union, in Africa, even Latin America, the rates of growth have been 
negative or so slow as to cause serious social problems.
  Mr. Speaker, that is a component of this debate that needs to be 
addressed; and I think it needs to be addressed by making sure that 
when we set policies, whether trade policies or aid policies, we are 
doing things that empower people at the grass roots in countries so 
they can go out and make a living and start a business and have the 
kind of economic growth that we have experienced so often in this 
country.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that concerned me was 
that we seem in the more developed countries to have a blind spot 
towards that equity, and there did seem to be a dual standard.
  There was a fascinating meeting which discussed the devastating 
impact that the more advanced countries' agricultural policies have on 
poor countries. All three of us had deep reservations about the 
agriculture bill that passed on this floor and was signed into law by 
the President just a couple of months ago.
  But the European Union, for example, is ignoring its own egregious 
agricultural practices, which are actually worse than ours. For 
instance, poor countries in Africa were denied access to the European 
sugar market where prices are kept artificially high, some three times 
the world price, to deal with the sugar beet industry in Europe. Poor 
countries cannot have access to that market; and the Europeans are 
producing so much that they are dumping that sugar on the world market, 
undercutting the poor sugar farmers in Africa, much like corn from the 
United States is going to Mexico and driving poor farmers out of 
business in Mexico. And our farmers are getting rich subsidies from our 
government. It costs them more to produce than they get from the 
market, and the surplus is dumped overseas.
  Yet we have aggressive policies to try to force some of the poor 
countries to open their markets to protect intellectual property I 
understand, to protect capital I understand, to protect drug patents; 
and sometimes it is less understandable why we do not do more to 
protect poor countries, and yet we hammer them with our inconsistent, 
and I would be prepared to argue, improper agricultural policies that 
are bad for the taxpayer, bad for the environment, and bad for most 
farmers and end up devastating poor farmers around the world.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I think what turns that around 
is leadership. Leadership needs to be provided to get us out of the 
broken modality.
  I think back to the years when I was a Peace Corps volunteer and had 
no resources except the people. They did not want to necessarily be 
American consumers and have all these goods, because they could not 
afford them; but they wanted a better life-style. What I think they 
wanted from the leadership was how can we have a better life-style 
without having to pay the price of pollution. They would say we live in 
pollution and streets that do not have sewers. We live in houses that 
do not have clean water, or any water at all. We live in houses that 
have no electricity, or if we have it, it is very weak because it is 
borrowed from what they call contraband electricity.
  They were not asking for more bad, more ugly, more evil; they were 
asking how do we use the smart technologies in the United States. And I 
think we have done that on a couple of examples. For example, cell 
phones, a great technology, have eliminated a need to wire everything. 
Those things are very, very costly; and we are using a technology where 
satellites can help us communicate all over the globe. That has a 
social impact. It allows people access to information, and we do not 
necessarily have to build poles. Look at how if we could tear down all 
of the power lines in the Unites States how much more attractive many 
communities would be if they did not have all of those wires hanging 
everywhere.
  My experience has been to lead us into the appropriate technology 
that is necessary for us to be in this world. The gentleman mentioned 
corn in Mexico. The one thing that the Mexican farmers are doing is 
they are starting to grow organic. Where is the organic market in the 
United States? They do not have to buy a lot of expensive fertilizers 
and get into the expensive infrastructure to compete with America. They 
have cheap labor. Organic farming is labor intensive. It takes more 
people to produce a crop than just doing it with chemicals.
  There were examples of where American technology, American ingenuity 
can help countries overcome some of their pollution problems. I think 
what we have not demonstrated in this country is the will, the 
political will, the leadership that it takes to move forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's recognizing the struggle 
that there was in Johannesburg with trying to defend America.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Does the gentleman from Maine have some concluding 
thoughts?
  Mr. ALLEN. Just a few. One of the interesting things I found in 
Johannesburg is people look at us the same way that we look at other 
countries. That is, we look at the policies set by the current 
administration, whether it is Britain or France or Germany, Russia, 
wherever, as being sort of the beginning and end of opinion on that 
subject in that country. And I think that one

[[Page 16367]]

function that the six of us served who were over there is that we had a 
different view from the current administration, and that seemed to be 
of great comfort to a lot of people, that we were having a debate in 
this country, that it was not simply the case that people in the United 
States were saying, ``No, we're putting our head in the sand. We're 
pretending that climate change isn't going on. We've decided to adapt 
somehow.''
  I do not know about you, but in my State, every summer is warmer than 
the last. We used to have snow all the time at Christmas. Now it is 
relatively rare. The changes are visible to most people even though 
they are hard to quantify. But when you look at them, when you look at 
the numbers, and I can take one State, Alaska. In the last 30 years the 
average temperature in Alaska has increased by 5.4 degrees. That is an 
enormous increase. In many places the permafrost is melting, the roads 
are sagging, trees are tipping over, buildings have less secure 
foundations. It is leading to dramatic changes.
  I just think that what we have got to do here at home, those of us 
who believe this is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with, is 
keep urging our friends and colleagues to take this issue seriously, 
because as soon as you take climate change seriously, a whole set of 
things follow. You have to have an increasing emphasis on renewable 
energy of all kinds, small hydro, wind, solar, fuel cells and all of 
those technologies. I suspect that all of the estimates of cost are a 
little out of whack, because what we are saying is, with the right 
commitment, we are going to stimulate new technologies, the development 
of new technologies, the implementation of new technologies that will 
give an additional boost to significant parts of our economy. The rest 
of the world understands that. That was evident at Johannesburg. It is 
time we caught up with the rest of the world.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I appreciate 
the leadership that he developed. I know it was not easy, having 
witnessed a little tiny bit of his Maine summer the week before, I do 
not know how hard it was for him to fly halfway around the world for a 
couple of days, but I think the conference was better for it and I 
deeply appreciate his willingness to do so. I must say that at the 
summit, I was encouraged by some other people that we encountered, 
where some of the hypocrisy of some of the richer countries, they were 
taken to task by well-organized and articulate poor people, by 
representatives of nongovernmental organizations, by a growing 
consensus of elected leaders like the gentleman helped guide dealing 
with renewable energy. We saw business step forward to embrace the 
challenge of the Kyoto Protocol.
  The gentleman from Maine and I went to Abutu village where there were 
spectacular exhibits, one that was managed in part by the Smithsonian, 
that had a number of United States agencies that told a lot about the 
environment. But if you looked at that exhibit, and we walked through 
the exhibit tent, including the Department of Energy and NOAA and EPA, 
the Department of the Interior, there was no information on global 
warming, on climate change. None. But if you went next door to the 
exhibit of BP, British Petroleum, there they had information. There you 
had an international corporation that has sometimes had its problems 
with the environmentalists, but they have a saying, ``BP stands for 
Beyond Petroleum.'' They have made a corporate commitment to meet the 
Kyoto protocols as a corporation. We found that the World Business 
Council for Sustainable Development joined in the fight for a real 
target for investment in renewable energy. We had citizen advocates and 
nongovernmental organizations that were effective in holding 
governments accountable. They were able to cut through the secrecy and 
the backroom deals. They provided us with the best information about 
what was actually occurring, who was doing what. I think it is 
important to note that their reactions were anything but knee jerk. I 
think they were very sophisticated in terms of their analysis of trade, 
environmental practices, the impact on our globe as well as proposing 
simple, commonsense solutions that are actually within our power to 
implement. I personally came away from that summit surprisingly 
encouraged.
  Yes, at times the problems seemed overwhelming: 325 million children 
not in school; 1.1 billion people without clean water; 2.4 billion 
without adequate sanitation. Yet amazingly progress is possible in 
sanitation, water supply, affordable housing and agriculture. The 
citizens from around the world and business leaders are moving in that 
direction. It is clear that we have the know-how, the skill to change 
current destructive practices and teach people how to help themselves. 
I was stunned by the potential resources that are within our grasp. For 
what Americans spend on cosmetics every year, we could largely meet the 
target for sanitation, saving millions of lives each year and promoting 
a more stable world. By reforming our costly, environmentally damaging 
farm programs, we could help poor farmers around the world while we 
protect the U.S. taxpayer, the environment and our family farmers, 
cleaning up, as we mentioned, the dirty coal plants as required by the 
Clean Air Act in this country, and I salute the gentleman from Maine's 
leadership to try to make sure the United States does something about 
it, would put us on track to meet the Kyoto goals. Simply by doing what 
we know how to do, spending money more wisely, following our own 
environmental laws and heeding the wishes of the public, we can save 
the planet.
  The world summit, I feel, was an important step in pulling these 
pieces together and making them a reality. The United States is the 
world's richest country. As its biggest polluter, it has a special 
obligation and responsibility to address these global environmental 
issues. I assure you that I am willing to work with you to make sure 
that we in Congress move in that direction.
  Did the gentleman from California have any concluding thoughts?
  Mr. FARR of California. I just want to thank the gentleman. I would 
love to see the leadership, the political leadership, elected 
leadership and the administration, would it not be wonderful if the 
electricity on the President of the United States' ranch was totally 
generated by solar power and that the vehicles that were driven on that 
ranch or were used were these hybrid vehicles as other countries have 
had. That is the kind of leadership. We need to demonstrate by our own 
actions as I have at home by using solar power to generate energy in my 
piece of property down on the Big Sur coast. That is the kind of 
leadership I think that the people are asking for, is demonstrate by 
your own use. My wife wants to get for our next car a hybrid car. I 
think each one of us can do our part. But at the same time we have to 
look and commend those areas, as I said, like California that has 
really moved on a huge scale to convert 33 million people into being 
energy-conscious, and to being environmentally sensitive.
  I want to thank the gentleman for representing our Nation's viewpoint 
in the global conference in South Africa. I appreciate him and our 
other colleagues in this House attending that.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman from California. When we talk 
about leading by example in energy efficiency, does the gentleman from 
Maine have any experience?
  Mr. ALLEN. I have done the same thing with a vacation property I have 
in Maine, which is convert to solar power. It is absolutely wonderful. 
We all need to take whatever steps we can. The gentleman from Oregon 
referred to the hybrid cars that exist. I do understand that Ford next 
year is going to come out with a hybrid. I have not seen it yet, but I 
understand they are working on one. It may be out next year. So there 
are going to be opportunities for the American public to save energy, 
save money and contribute to making this a cleaner planet.
  I thank the gentleman very much for organizing this special order.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman for joining me.

[[Page 16368]]



                          ____________________