[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 3]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 4137]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 UPON THE INTRODUCTION OF THE MORRIS K. UDALL ARCTIC WILDERNESS ACT OF 
                                  2003

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 13, 2003

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, we are here to introduce legislation that 
would permanently protect the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge from 
development. The Morris K. Udall Wilderness Act of 2003 honors an 
extraordinary environmentalist by protecting, in his name, this 
extraordinary piece of America's wilderness. And we are proud of the 
fact that begin this battle in the 108th Congress with more original 
cosponsors than in any other previous Congress--133 upon introduction--
a testament to the growing national demand to keep the developers out 
of this precious wilderness and to preserve it in its current pristine, 
roadless condition for future generations of Americans.
  We have a bipartisan legacy to protect, and we take it very 
seriously. It is a legacy of Republican President Eisenhower, who set 
aside the core of the Refuge in 1960. It is a legacy of Democratic 
President Carter, who expanded it in 1980. It is the legacy of 
Republican Senator Bill Roth and Democratic Representative Bruce Vento 
and especially Morris Udall, who fought so hard to achieve what we 
propose today, and twice succeeded in shepherding this wilderness 
proposal through the House. Now is the time to finish the job they 
began now is the time to say ``Yes'' to setting aside the Coastal Plain 
as a fully protected unit of the Wilderness Preservation System.
  The coastal plain of the Refuge is the biological heart of the Refuge 
ecosystem and critical to the survival of caribou, polar bears and over 
160 species of birds. When you drill in the heart, every other part of 
the biological system suffers.
  This Valentine's Day, the oil industry is in a state of lobbying 
frenzy to give Cupid a bad name. It wants to pierce the heart of the 
Arctic Refuge with oil wells and drill bits, all the while calling this 
an act of environmental friendliness. The industry loves the Refuge so 
much that it wants to brand it with scars for a lifetime.
  Turning the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge into an industrial 
footprint would not only be bad environmental policy, it is totally 
unnecessary. According to EPA scientists, if cars, mini-vans, and SUV's 
improved their average fuel economy just 3 miles per gallon, we would 
save more oil within ten years than would ever be produced from the 
Refuge. Can we do that? We already did it once! In 1987, the fleetwide 
average fuel economy topped 26 miles per gallon, but in the last 13 
years, we have slipped back to 24 mpg on average, a level we first 
reached in 1981! Simply using existing technology will allow us to 
dramatically increase fuel economy, not just by 3 mpg, but by 15 mpg or 
more--five times the amount the industry wants to drill out of the 
Refuge.
  Our dependence on foreign oil is real, but we cannot escape it by 
drilling for oil in the United States. We consume 25 percent of the 
world's oil but control only 3 percent of the world's reserves. 76 
percent of those reserves are in OPEC, so we will continue to look to 
foreign suppliers as long as we continue to ignore the fuel economy of 
our cars and as long as we continue to fuel them with gasoline.
  The public senses that a drill-in-the-Refuge energy strategy is a 
loser. Why sacrifice something that can never be re-created this one-
of-a-kind wilderness simply to avoid something relatively painless--
sensible fuel economy?
  Is it any wonder its credibility with the American public has sunk to 
new lows? According to poll after poll after poll, preserving this 
public environmental treasure far outweighs the value of developing it. 
The latest poll, done by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake and 
Republican pollster Christine Matthews, shows a margin of 62-30 percent 
opposed to drilling for oil in the refuge. The public is making clear 
to Congress that other options should be pursued, not just because the 
Refuge is so special, but because the other options will succeed where 
continuing to put a polluting fuel in gas-guzzling automobiles is a 
recipe for failure.
  That's the kind of thinking that leads not just to this refuge, but 
to every other pristine wilderness area, in a desperate search for yet 
another drop of oil. And it perpetuates a head-in-the-haze attitude 
towards polluting our atmosphere with greenhouse gases and continuing 
our reliance on OPEC oil for the foreseeable future.
  If we allow drilling in the Arctic Refuge, we will have failed 
twice--we will remain just as dependent on oil for our energy future, 
and we will have hastened the demise of an irreplaceable wildlife 
habitat.
  We have many choices to make regarding our energy future, but we have 
very few choices when it comes to industrial pressures on incomparable 
natural wonders. Let us be clear with the American people that there 
are places that are so special for their environmental, wilderness or 
recreational value that we simply will not drill there as long as 
alternatives exist. The Arctic Refuge is federal land that was set 
aside for all the people of the United States. It does not belong to 
the oil companies, it does not belong to one state. It is a public 
wilderness treasure, we are the trustees.
  We do not dam Yosemite Valley for hydropower.
  We do not strip mine Yellowstone for coal.
  And we should not drill for oil and gas in the Arctic Refuge.
  We should preserve it, instead, as the magnificent wilderness it has 
always been, and must always be.

                          ____________________