Floor Statements

Offered By Mr. Udall of Colorado

Amendment No. 1: Page 2, after line 3, insert the

following:

Offered By Mr. Udall of Colorado

Amendment No. 2: Page 2, after line 3, insert the

following:

Offered by: Mr. Udall of Colorado

Amendment No. 3: Page 2, after line 3, insert the

following:

Mr. Speaker, I cannot vote for this bill. The bill does include some features that I support--but, overall, it does too little to address the real needs of the economy and the country, and it does too much to make our budgetary problems worse. The bill's supporters, reading from a script written by the White House, say that the bill will create jobs. That sounds like good salesmanship, because in fact there is a desperate need for an increase in employment to begin to make up for the millions of jobs that have disappeared over the last two years. But as any salesman knows, a good slogan can't disguise a product that won't perform--and when it comes to creating jobs, I am convinced this bill won't perform as advertised.

No analysis I have seen--whether by the Congressional Budget Office, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, or any other expert--supports the claim that enacting this bill will help put very many people back to work anytime soon. Of course, the bill's supporters--like the pitchman in the old TV ad--say we have their word on it. Excuse my doubts, but I don't think that's proof enough.

On the other hand, while its claimed benefits are doubtful, there is no doubt about how the bill will affect the federal budget--it will throw it further out of balance and lead to much deeper deficits. I think this is well summarized by the analyses of the Tax Policy Center and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which show that the bill's effect on revenues is much greater than claimed.

In fact, according to those experts, the bill ``fit[s] within the $550 billion allotted to the Ways and Means Committee only by using gimmicks that cloak its true cost. If the provisions scheduled to terminate before 2013 are extended--as Chairman Thomas envisions and as Congress would be likely to do--the total cost of the plan would be between $865 billion and $1.1 trillion through 2013. In other words . . . the plan could be twice as costly as advertised. [It] . . . thus manages both to be more tilted to the very well-off and more expensive than the original Bush proposal, which would cost $726 billion through 2013.''

This concerns me because I think we need to take deficits seriously, for reasons well stated in recent testimony by The Concord Coalition's President, Peter G. Peterson to the Committee on Financial Services.

I was struck by Mr. Peterson's statement that ``A future of mounting deficits is a cause for grave concern. Mounting deficits can slow and even halt the steady growth in material living standards that has always nourished the American Dream. When such deficits are incurred in order to fund a rising transfer from young to old, they also constitute an injustice against future generations . . . This policy, after all, constitutes an explicit decision by today's adults to collectively shift the current cost of government from themselves to their children and grandchildren.''

In other words, because it would lead to deeper deficits, this bill would do just what

President Bush, in his State of the Union address, said we should not do--instead of meeting today's challenges, it would simply create new problems for our children.

I don't think that is sound policy--especially when a better alternative is available. And that is why I voted for the motion to recommit offered by Representative Rangel. If that motion had been approved, that alternative would have come to the floor.

That alternative included very meaningful tax cuts. It included an increase in the child tax credit to $800 per child, an immediate expansion of the 10-percent tax-rate bracket to levels that under the 2001 tax bill would be reached in 2008, and immediate elimination of the ``marriage penalty'' aspect of the income tax. It also included investment tax credits for small businesses, such as business expensing up to $75,000 and bonus depreciation.

Those cuts would immediately put money into the pockets of middle- income Americans, who are the people most likely to spend it promptly, boosting consumer demand and thus helping set the stage for an increase business investment needed to meet that demand.

The alternative also had other important provisions to respond to the immediate needs of our country and the American people.

It provided for extending and expanding unemployment insurance, whose benefits go to the families most affected by the economic downturn--the ones who need real help now. And it included a provision to create a permanent, revenue-neutral corporate tax deduction to encourage American manufacturing companies to expand their operations, as well as a new tax incentive to provide a tax credit of up to $2,400 to businesses that hire people who now are unemployed.

And, while the administration and our Republican colleagues seem ready to forget the states, which are experiencing their worst fiscal crisis since World War II, the alternative did not. It would have provided $44 billion over 10 years in direct aid to states for homeland security, education, health care for senior citizens, and highway and other infrastructure improvements.

And, just as important as everything else, the alternative was fiscally responsible--fully paid for over 10 years. So, it would have added as many as a million new jobs without adding anything to the deficit.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the Republican leadership refused to let the House even consider that alternative--but maybe those salesmen didn't want us to have that choice. For me, the choice would have been clear. I would have voted for the alternative--but I cannot vote for the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw Members' attention to the dangers of 15passenger vans. These vans have been associated with more than 500 traffic fatalities since 1990. In 2001, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that when these vans are fully loaded they have a rollover risk that is six times higher than when there are only five people in the van. I have become alarmingly aware of the danger of these vans when a church group from my district rolled over 2\1/2\ times while driving to a religious retreat. Four passengers died in this tragic accident. Only later did I find out that these vans are infamous for getting out of the control of the driver and rolling over.

My colleagues can see firsthand what can happen when these vehicles lose control. This happened again last year when a van carrying firefighters who were on their way to fight a wildfire raging in Colorado lost control and rolled over more than four times, killing four of the firefighters.

These vans were initially designed to carry freight, not people, but now they are widely used by airports, hotels, and other organizations to transport customers and schoolchildren. I have introduced H.R. 1641, the Passenger Van Safety Act, along with Senator Snowe, to make sure that these needless tragedies end and that the most precious cargo, our children, get home safe and sound.

I encourage my colleagues to join me and Senator Snowe in cosponsoring this important safety bill.

Mr. Speaker, some of the most far-reaching provisions of the ``USA PATRIOT'' Act will expire at the end of 2005 unless Congress acts to extend them. That is nearly three years from now. But reports persist that some think the time has already come for an indefinite extension of those temporary provisions.

I disagree. I think the Denver Post got it just right in a recent editorial: ``Not so fast.''

For the information of our colleagues, here is the full text of that editorial:

Keep Patriot Act Temporary

When Congress passed the Patriot Act in October 2001, it

wisely included a ``sunset'' provision that would cause the

sweeping legislation to expire on Dec. 31, 2005, unless

lawmakers vote to extend it.

Now, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah is leading Republicans in a

push to make the legislation permanent.

Not so fast.

The legislation, passed in the emotional aftermath of the

Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center

and Pentagon, gives the government unprecedented (civil

libertarians would say excessive) powers to snoop on

Americans, including eavesdropping on communications,

surveillance, access to financial and computer records, and

other constitutionally deleterious practices.

The U.S. Department of Justice claims the Patriot Act has

given the FBI the ability to respond more quickly to stop

terrorists before they can act, and given the still-potent

threat posed by al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations

bent on doing harm to the United States, that might be a good

thing. According to The New York Times, though, Justice wants

the expiration date on the Patriot Act excised. And that may

not be a good thing, especially considering that the Patriot

Act was passed only because Democrats and moderate

Republicans insisted on a sunset date.

From our perspective, the Patriot Act is an extreme measure

meant to deal with a crisis--much in the same way that

martial law can be proclaimed by a state's governor in time

of emergency. Once the danger has passed, martial law is

revoked. No one wants troops and tanks in their streets

forever.

Another argument against extending the Patriot Act

indefinitely is that we still don't know how its application

ultimately will shake out. Will it be used to harass and

intimidate unpopular groups expressing unpopular opinions?

Will it be used against political enemies of this or future

administrations?

Fact is, the feds have been playing their cards very close

to the vest on how they've used the Patriot Act. And Congress

still doesn't have a handle on how the FBI and other

government agencies have used this extreme legislation that

treads so heavily on the Bill of Rights.

Even if, in the final analysis, it's shown that the

government hasn't abused the act, it should never become

permanent. We repeat: Never.

American liberty is too precious a commodity bought at a

too high price in blood and treasure to be tossed aside in a

panic. What does it profit us to bring freedom to Iraq while

throwing our own away?

Mr. Speaker, many things have changed since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on our country.

But one thing that has not changed is the importance of respecting the Constitution and its limits on the powers of the national government.

That is the point of a recent editorial in the Rocky Mountain News concerning the Attorney General's assertion of authority to indefinitely detain people seeking asylum in America, regardless of the rulings of the courts.

I am also troubled by the Attorney General's actions, and I share the editorial's view that ``The government has every right to deport illegal immigrants, but if it's going to detain them for any lengthy period, it has to accord them certain rights.

For the benefit of our colleagues, here is the full text of the editorial:

[From the Rocky Mountain News, April 29, 2003]

U.S. Can't Just Throw Away The Key

Attorney General John Ashcroft has given himself the power

to lock up indefinitely, without hearings, whole classes of

illegal immigrants even if he does not deem them individually

to be a threat to national security.

The decisions about which illegal aliens should be locked

up properly belong to the immigration courts, and certainly

should not be made on a wholesale basis.

In asserting this new power, Ashcroft overrode an appeals

panel of immigration judges that had upheld a lower court

decision granting bond to an 18-year-old Haitian who entered

the country illegally last fall. Ashcroft said he wasn't

trying to block the right to seek asylum, only to deter

``unlawful and dangerous mass migrations by sea.'' While the

intent may be laudable, it's a

stretch to label it a matter of national security--even if

Ashcroft is right in describing Haiti as a staging ground for

some Muslim immigrants from the Mideast who are trying to get

into the United States.

The Constitution says no person shall be deprived of life,

liberty or property without due process of law. It doesn't

make exceptions for noncitizens or people without the proper

paperwork. Our protections for civil liberties are one of the

reasons refugees are drawn to this country.

Some argue that the Founding Fathers never anticipated the

war on terrorism and such issues as illegal immigration.

Maybe so, but they had a lot of experience with arbitrary use

of government authority. The government has every right to

deport illegal immigrants, but if it's going to detain them

for any lengthy period, it has to accord them certain rights.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a firm supporter of providing a free and quality education to students with and without disabilities, but also in opposition to H.R. 1350, the Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA).

When IDEA was initially enacted into law, Congress determined that the cost of educating a student with a disability was, on average, twice the cost of educating a student without a disability. In the original legislation, the Federal Government required States to provide an education to students with disabilities, but also agreed to help states fund the ``extra cost'' of educating disabled children by 40 percent of the total cost. It has been 28 years since the original implementation of IDEA, and Congress has yet to appropriate the full 40 percent to states for their special education programs. For 28 years, State and local governments have struggled to fulfill their obligation to disabled students with less than half of the funding that is necessary for the task.

This year, Congress again had the opportunity to fulfill the Federal Government's obligation. Members on both sides of the isle and education organizations representing not only administrators and teachers, but students and their parents have voiced their support of appropriating full funding. H.R. 1350 allocates the highest percentage ever to IDEA, yet the funding level is barely over half of that that is required, at 21 percent.

Even at a time when full funding for IDEA is almost unanimously supported, and education is touted as a priority by almost every Member of Congress, H.R. 1350 does not come close to backing IDEA's 28 year old promise. It is clear that in order to ensure substantial funding to the nation's disabled children, funding for IDEA must become a mandatory program

that requires the Federal Government to appropriate the full 40 percent every appropriations cycle. It is past time for us to fulfill our obligation to this Nation's disabled children. H.R. 1350 does not appropriate full funding, and does not make full funding of IDEA mandatory, and so I feel it is my duty to oppose the bill.

I also have serious concerns with the discipline provisions of this bill. Under the ``manifestation determination'' previously required in IDEA, when students with disabilities are disciplined the potential that their disability was a fundamental reason for the problem must be considered. H.R. 1350 would no longer require schools to determine whether a student's action was the result of the disability. Under the bill a child with cerebral palsy could be expelled for accidentally making contact with his teacher or a developmentally disabled child could be expelled for ``inappropriate public affection''. While the majority of schools and administrators would not expel a student for minor infractions, the original intent of IDEA was to protect students with disabilities. If every school was enthusiastic and dedicated to the education of disabled students there would have never been any need for IDEA in the first place.

I understand the concerns voiced by national teachers and administrators regarding their need to have the authority to discipline students with and without disabilities. However, in order to protect the students from punishment for their disability, the law must include a requirement for the disability always to be taken into account before deciding on consequences. I have received many calls from parents in my district voicing anxiety over what will happen to their disabled children next time he or she makes a mistake related to their disability in school. I believe it is necessary to discipline disabled children, just as it is necessary to discipline children without disabilities, but we must ensure that the disabilities are always taken into account. H.R. 1350 would omit this requirement, and this was another reason that I cannot vote for the bill.

Madam Speaker, as we prepare for the debate on taxes and spending, I want to call attention to an article in Sunday's Denver Post on the threat of shoulder-fired missiles to our airliners.

The article quotes security experts as saying this threat is ``nearly impossible to defend against,'' and points out that equipping the U.S. commercial airline fleet with jammers or decoys could cost up to $10 billion.

There are other threats, as well. We need to do much more to prevent ship containers that would be used to smuggle in weapons of mass destruction.

Of course, we cannot prevent every conceivable threat to our homeland security. We have to set priorities and we have to fund those priorities.

One thing is for sure: when the President proposed and this Congress passed a budget resolution that includes more than $1 trillion in tax cuts, we cannot, in good conscience, tell the American people we are funding these priorities.

Madam Speaker, our States need help in beefing up security. When our homeland security alert system goes to orange, our State budgets go into the red. I fear this President and this Republican Congress are sacrificing homeland security and other needs in favor of deep tax cuts that will have little positive effect on our economy.

We need to do better.

Mr. Speaker, recent news reports indicate that some are proposing that Congress make permanent some or all of the provisions of the ``USA PATRIOT Act'' now scheduled to expire at the end of 2005. I find that a matter of concern.

Terrorist attacks must not go unanswered, and our law enforcement authorities need adequate tools to fight terrorists. However, I think that need must be carefully balanced with the need to preserve our civil liberties. In that context, I have had serious reservations about the additional authorities provided by the ``Patriot Act.''

My concerns have been somewhat allayed by the fact that many provisions of the Act are not permanent. So, I share the view expressed by an editorial in today's Rocky Mountain News: ``The jury is still very much out on whether the Patriot Act and its administration are consistent with constitutional safeguards and basic civil liberties. The sunset provisions should stay and the law should be subjected to a strong dose of sunshine. ``

For the information of our colleagues, I am attaching the full text of the editorial:

[From the Rocky Mountain News, Apr. 11, 2003]

Don't Drop Sunset of Patriot Act

As a precautionary measure to ensure that legislation works

as planned, Congress often adds a ``sunset'' date, meaning

that the targeted provisions of the law will expire after a

certain period unless Congress reauthorizes them.

The idea is to ensure Congress returns to the law for a

thorough re-examination.

Congress wisely added sunset provisions to the USA Patriot

Act, the anti-terrorism bill it passed one month after Sept.

11, 2001.

That 342-page act gave federal law enforcement sweeping new

search-surveillance powers, including covert access to

computers and financial records--even the right to take a

secret peek at what's being checked out of the local library.

Congress has still not thoroughly examined how the act is

being used--or abused. But the sunset provisions don't kick

in until Dec. 31, 2005, so there's still plenty of time--

except that congressional Republicans want to lift those

provisions now, making those broad new powers permanent.

Why there's a sudden rush to make the Patriot Act permanent

is something of a puzzle. The old axiom ``act in haste,

repent at leisure'' comes to mind.

The jury is still very much out on whether the Patriot Act

and its administration are consistent with constitutional

safeguards and basic civil liberties. The sunset provisions

should stay and the law should be subjected to a strong dose

of sunshine.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot support this legislation.

I am glad we have had the opportunity to debate these issues--for the second time in nearly as many years--and I am glad that legislation I've initiated is being considered as part of this bill.

We all know that this country is overly dependent on a single energy source--fossil fuels--to the detriment of our environment, our national security, and our economy. To lessen this dependence and to protect our environment, we must pass a bill that helps us balance our energy portfolio and increase the contributions of alternative energy sources to our energy mix.

Unfortunately, this bill doesn't provide that balance.

I am pleased with most of what was included in the Science Committee part of this bill, and I commend Chairman Boehlert for his bipartisan approach.

In particular, I'm pleased that the Science Committee bill included generous authorization levels for renewable energy and energy efficiency R&D. As Co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, this funding is very important to me.

I am also pleased that this bill includes the Clean Green School Bus Act, a bill that Chairman Boehlert and I drafted that authorizes grants to help school districts replace aging diesel vehicles with clean, alternative fuel buses.

H.R. 6 also includes provisions from my bill, the Distributed Power Hybrid Energy Act, which would direct the Secretary of Energy to develop and implement a strategy for research, development, and demonstration of distributed power hybrid energy systems. It makes sense to focus our R&D priorities on distributed power hybrid systems that can both help improve power reliability and affordability and bring more efficiency and cleaner energy resources into the mix.

The bill also includes the Federal Laboratory Educational Partners Act of 2003, a bill I introduced with my colleague Representative Beauprez that would permit the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and other Department of Energy laboratories to use revenue from their inventions to support science education activities.

Unfortunately, though, this bill--like the one we debated two years ago--is very reminiscent of that old Western movie--``The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.'' And, regrettably, some of the worst provisions are in the part of the bill developed by the Resources Committee--which is why I voted against them in that Committee.

Worst of all, of course, is the provision that would open to drilling the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

On that question, Congress is being asked to gamble on finding oil there. So, we first must decide what stakes we are willing to risk, and then weigh the odds. The stakes are the coastal plain. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says it ``is critically important to the ecological integrity of the whole Arctic Refuge'' which is ``America's finest example of an intact, naturally functioning community of arctic/ subarctic ecosystems.''

What are the odds? Well, the best estimate is by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). In 1998 they estimated that if the price of oil drops to less than $16 per barrel (as it did a few years ago) there would be no economically recoverable oil in the coastal plain. At $24 per barrel, USGS estimated there is a 95 percent chance of finding 1.9 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil in the refuge's coastal plain and a 50 percent chance of finding 5.3 billion barrels. But Americans use 19 million barrels of oil each day, or 7 billion barrels of oil per year. So, USGS is saying that at $24 per barrel, there is a 50 percent chance of finding several months' supply of oil in the coastal plain.

There is one 100 percent sure bet--drilling will change everything on the coastal plain forever. It will never be wilderness again. We do not need to take that bet. There are less-sensitive places to drill--and even better alternatives, including conserving energy and more use of renewable resources.

But the idea of opening the refuge is only one example of misplaced priorities or flawed policies concerning energy.

I tried to improve the Resources Committee's provisions with two amendments--one dealing with the biomass provisions and the other with something just as important as energy--water.

I am a supporter of biomass, and I think the biomass provision is one of the better parts of the Resources Committee's work. But I think it should be more tightly focused--and that is what my amendment would have done.

That part of the bill authorizes cash grants to people who own or operate biomass plants, and says they can use the money to buy material removed from the forests in order to reduce the risk of forest fires. My amendment would have narrowed that by providing that the grants could only be used to buy material taken from the areas of highest priority--the so-called ``wildland-urban interface,'' or as we say in Colorado, the ``red zones.'' These are the parts of the forests that are nearest to communities, the places where people's lives and property are most at risk. That means they should have the very highest priority for thinning out brush and little trees, so that smaller fires are less likely to become big, runaway fires. In Colorado alone, the ``red zones'' cover some 6 million acres--and there are millions of acres more in other states. There is lots of thinning work to be done in those areas--and lots of material that may be useful for biomass. So, my amendment would not have been an obstacle to biomass development. But it would focus the program where it ought to be focused.

And, to make things clear, my amendment used a definition of the term ``wildland-urban interface'' that was essentially the same as the one that was in H.R. 5319, Chairman McInnis's bill, as reported by the Resources Committee last year.

One of the reasons I supported that bill was because of the priority it put on thinning projects in these ``red zone'' areas. I thought the House should follow that example by adopting my amendment, and regret that the Rules Committee did not allow it to be offered.

My second amendment dealt with water. In Colorado, we are blessed with rich mineral resources--we have lots of coal, oil, and gas. but in Colorado, and in the other states in the arid west, water is scarce and very precious. So, as we work to develop our energy resources, it is vital that we make sure that we protect our water. And this is just what this amendment would have done.

The amendment would have required people who develop federal oil or gas--including coalbed methane--to do what is necessary to make sure their activities do not harm water resources. The amendment said that if oil or gas drilling damages a water source by contaminating it, by reducing it, or by interrupting

it--the energy developer would have to provide replacement water.

Sometimes water that is produced in connection with oil or gas drilling is injected back into the ground. The amendment said that has to be done in a way that will not reduce the quality of any aquifer. It also said that if that water is not reinjected, it has to be dealt with in ways that comply with all Federal and State requirements.

And, because water is so important, it said that developers need to make protecting water part of their plans from the very beginning. It would have done that by requiring applications for oil or gas leases to include details of the way the developer will protect water quality and quantity and also protect the rights of water users.

These are not onerous requirements, but they are very important-- particularly with the great increase in drilling for coalbed methane and other energy resources in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, and other western states. When the amendment was considered in the Committee, it was suggested that it might interfere with State laws relating to water. That was not my intent, and I am confident that the amendment I offered in the committee would not have had that effect. However, to remove any doubt, I modified the amendment to specifically say that it would not affect any state's authority over water or affect any interstate compact related to water.

We do need to develop our energy resources--especially relatively clean-burning ones like natural gas and coalbed methane. But we need to do it in the right way, with balance. And that's what this amendment was all about. Again, I regret that the Rules Committee did not permit the House to consider it.

Without my amendments, and without other amendments that were rejected by the Committee, the Resources Committee's part of this bill puts too much emphasis on unnecessary subsidies to industry and not enough on anything else.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we need a plan in place to increase our energy security. Thirteen percent of the twenty million barrels of oil we consume each day comes from the Persian Gulf. In fact, fully 30 percent of the world's oil supply comes from this same volatile and politically unstable region of the world. Yet with only 3 percent of the world's known oil reserves, we are not in a position to solve our energy vulnerability by drilling at home.

This bill does nothing to tackle this fundamental problem. For every step it takes to move us away from our oil/carbon-based economy, it takes two in the opposite direction. I only wish my colleagues in the House could understand that a vision of a clean energy future is not radical science fiction but is instead based on science and technology that exists today.

In much the same way that America set about unlocking the secrets of the atom with the ``Manhattan Project'' or placing a man on the moon with the Apollo program, we can surely put more public investment behind new energy sources that will free us from our dependence on oil.

But this bill would merely continue our addiction to finite and politically unstable energy resources. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I cannot support it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this very sensible amendment and I commend my colleagues Mr. Boehlert and Mr. Markey for their persistence in pushing this issue forward year after year.

It shouldn't have to take years for Congress to act on improving fuel economy. With the average fuel economy of all new passenger vehicles at its lowest point since 1980 and with fuel consumption at its highest, there shouldn't be disagreement about the wisdom of improving CAFE standards.

Yet there is disagreement, and clearly we can't count on the Administration to make the right choice. The President's recent CAFE proposal for light trucks is actually less ambitious than voluntary measures announced earlier by General Motors and Ford.

And as much as I believe in the Administration's vision of a hydrogen future, I don't believe we should forgo making smart short-term choices. A recent study tells us that significantly increasing fuel economy standards now could save 25 times more oil than would be saved by waiting for fuel cell vehicles to become commercially available.

So Mr. Chairman, I believe we must abandon energy inefficiency and instead work to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, cut back on air and carbon dioxide pollution, and save consumers money at the gas pump. The American people can benefit from improved CAFE standards.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and in doing so, I would like to take a moment of personal privilege and speak about my father, Morris Udall, who served in this body for 30 years with many of us here today. And there have been suggestions in the Committee on Resources that Mo Udall, were he alive today, would vote against the Markey amendment. I would tell you that I believe he would vote for the amendment today.

In 1980, my father opposed drilling in the refuge. I believe he would oppose drilling today, but he would say the real issue is not the past. It is the future. He lived by the credo that we do not inherit the Earth from our parents, but we borrow it from our children. And he would say we are gambling with our children's inheritance.

The odds are not good and the stakes are too high. We should not gamble with the heart of the refuge for a few months of oil. We have better alternatives and we should leave our children with some choices about how they use their inheritance. That is why I urge a ``yes'' vote on Markey-Johnson.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment.

On the question of whether to open the coastal plain, Congress is being asked to gamble on finding oil there. So, we first must decide what stakes we are willing to risk, and then weigh the odds.

The stakes are the coastal plain. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says it ``is critically important to the ecological integrity of the whole Arctic Refuge'' which is ``America's finest example of an intact, naturally functioning community of arctic/subarctic ecosystems.''

What are the odds? Well, the best estimate is by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). in 1998 they estimated that if the price of oil drops to less than $16 per barrel (as it did a few years ago) there would be no economically recoverable oil in the coastal plain. At $24 per barrel, USGS estimated there is a 95 percent chance of finding 1.9 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil in the refuge's coastal plain and a 50 percent chance of finding 5.3 billion barrels.

But Americans use 19 million barrels of oil each day, or 7 billion barrels of oil per year. So, USGS is saying that at $24 per barrel, there is a 50 percent chance of finding several months' supply of oil in the coastal plain.

There is one 100 percent sure bet--drilling will change everything on the coastal plain forever. It will never be wilderness again. We do not need to take that bet. There are less-sensitive places to drill--and even better alternatives, including conserving energy and more use of renewable resources.

For example, fuel-efficiency standards for new cars and light trucks could feasibly be raised to more than 40 miles per gallon by 2010. Experts estimate that alone would save 10 times as much oil as would likely be extracted from the Arctic refuge over the next 30 years.

In short, when it comes to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, I think that the stakes are too high and the odds are too long--especially since we have better options. So I do not support it.

For the benefit of our colleagues, I am attaching excerpts from an article in Foreign Affairs by two Coloradans--Amory R. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins.

Founders and leaders of the Rocky Mountain Institute, they are recognized experts on energy issues.

The article, entitled ``Fool's Gold in Alaska,'' clearly shows that drilling for oil on the coastal plain does not make sense in terms of economics, national security, or environmental protection. As they put it, ``Drilling for refuge oil is a risk the nation should consider taking

only if no other choice is possible. But other choices abound.''

We should opt for those other choices by adopting this amendment.

Here are key excerpts from the article I mentioned:

[From Foreign Affairs, July/August 2001]

Fool's Gold in Alaska

(By Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins)

the bottom of the barrel?

Oil prices have fluctuated randomly for well over a

century. Heedless of this fact, oil's promoters are always

offering opportunities that could make money--but on the

flawed assumption that high prices will prevail.

Leading the field of these optimists are Alaskan

politicians. Eager to keep funding their state's de facto

negative income tax--oil provides 80 percent of the state's

unrestricted general revenue--they have used every major rise

in oil prices since 1973 to advocate drilling beneath federal

lands on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife

Refuge. Just as predictably, environmentalists counter that

the refuge is the crown jewel of the American wilderness and

home to the threatened indigenous Gwich'in people. As some

see it, drilling could raise human rights issues under

international law. Canada, which shares threatened wildlife,

also opposes drilling.

Both sides of this debate have largely overlooked the

central question: Does drilling for oil in the refuge's

coastal plain make sense for economic and security reasons?

After all, three imperatives should shape a national energy

policy: economic vitality, secure supplies, and environmental

quality. To merit serious consideration, a proposal must meet

at least one of these goals.

Drilling proponents claim that prospecting for refuge oil

will enhance the first two while not unduly harming the

third. In fact, not only does refuge oil fail to meet any of

the three goals, it could even compromise the first two.

First, the refuge is unlikely to hold economically

recoverable oil. And even if it did, exploitation would only

briefly reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil by just a few

percentage points, starting in about a decade. Nor would the

refuge yield significant natural gas. Despite some recent

statements by the Bush administration, the North Slope's

important natural-gas deposits are almost entirely outside

the refuge. The gas-rich areas are already open to industry,

and environmentalists would likely support a gas pipeline

there, but its high cost--an estimated $10 billion--would

make it seem uneconomical.

Furthermore, those who suppose that any domestic oil is

more secure than imported oil should remember that oil

reserves almost anywhere else on earth are more accessible

and more reliably deliverable than those above the Arctic

Circle. Importing oil in tankers from the highly diversified

world market is arguably better for energy security than

delivering refuge oil to other U.S. states through one

vulnerable conduit, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System.

* * * * *

Increase energy productivity now delivers two-fifths of all

U.S. energy services and is also the fastest-growing

``source.'' (Abroad, renewable energy supply is growing even

faster; it is expected to generate 22 percent of the European

Union's electricity by 2010.) Efficient energy use often

yields after-tax returns of 100 to 200 percent on investment.

Its frequent fringe benefits are even more valuable . . .

* * * * *

Efficiency also has major policy advantages. It is here and

now, not a decade away. It improves the environment and

protects the earth's climate. It is fully secure, already

delivered to customers, and immune to foreign potentates and

volatile markets. It is rapidly an equitably deployable in

the market. It supports jobs all over the United States

rather than few firms in one state.

* * * * *

a barrel saved, a barrel earned

If oil were found and profitably extracted from the refuge,

its expected peak output would equal for a few years about

one percent of the world oil market. Senator Frank Murkowski

(R-Alaska) has claimed that merely announcing refuge leasing

would bring down world oil prices. Yet even a giant Alaskan

discovery several times larger than the refuge would not

stabilize world oil markets. Oil prices reached their all-

time high, for example, just as such a huge field, in

Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, neared its maximum output. Only energy

efficiency can stabilize oil prices--as well as sink them.

And only a tiny fraction of the vast untapped efficiency

gains is needed to do so.

What could the refuge actually produce under optimal

conditions? Starting about ten years from now, if oil prices

did stay around $22 per barrel, if Congress approved the

project, and if the refuge yielded the USGS's mean estimate

of about 3.2 billion barrels of profitable oil, the 30-year

output would average a modest 292,000 barrels of crude oil a

day. (This estimate also assumes that such oil would feed

U.S. refineries rather than go to Asian markets, as some

Alaskan oil did in 1996-2000.) Once refined, that amount

would yield 156,000 barrels of gasoline per day--enough to

run 2 percent of American cars and light trucks. That much

gasoline could be saved if light vehicles became 0.4 mpg more

efficient. Compare that feat to the one achieved in 1979-85,

when new light vehicles on average gained 0.4 mpg every 5

months.

Equipping cars with replacement tires as efficient as the

original ones would save consumers several ``refuges'' full

of crude oil. Installing superinsulating windows could save

even more oil and natural gas while making buildings more

comfortable and cheaper to construct. A combination of all

the main efficiency options available in 1989 could save

today the equivalent of 54 ``refuges''--but at a sixth of the

cost. New technologies for saving energy are being found

faster than the old ones are being used up--just like new

technologies for finding and extracting oil, only faster. As

gains in energy efficiency continue to outpace oil depletion,

oil will probably become uncompetitive even at low prices

before it becomes unavailable even at high prices. This is

especially likely because the latest efficiency revolution

squarely targets oil's main users and its dominant growth

market--cars and light trucks--where gasoline savings magnify

crude-oil savings by 85 percent.

* * * * *

As long as the world runs largely on oil, economics

dictates a logical priority for displacing it. Efficient use

of oil wins hands down on cost, risk, and speed. Costlier

options thus incur an opportunity cost. Buying costly refuge

oil instead of cheap oil productivity is not simply a bad

business decision; it worsens the oil-import problem. Each

dollar spent on the costly option of refuge oil could have

bought more of the cheap option of efficient use instead.

Choosing the expensive option causes more oil to be used and

imported than if consumers had bought the efficiency option

first. The United States made exactly this mistake when it

spent $200 billion on unneeded (but officially encouraged)

nuclear and coal plants in the 1970s and 1980s. The United

States now imports oil, produces nuclear waste, and risks

global climate instability partly because it bought those

assets instead of buying far cheaper energy efficiency.

Drilling for refuge oil is a risk the nation should

consider taking only if no other choice is possible. But

other choices abound. If three or four percent of all U.S.

cars were as efficient at today's popular hybrid models, they

would save the equivalent of all the refuge's oil. In all,

many tens of times more oil is available--sooner, more

surely, and more cheaply--from proven energy efficiency. The

cheaper, faster energy alternatives now succeeding in the

marketplace are safe, clean, climate-friendly, and

overwhelmingly supported by the public. Equally important,

they remain profitable at any oil price. They offer economic,

security, and environmental benefits rather than costs. If

any oil is beneath the refuge, its greatest value just might

be in holding up the ground beneath the people and animals

that live there.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for yielding time to me.

This is about the future, but I think the past is instructive; and I ran across the following from a report in 1978.

The subcommittee, it says, has noted the eloquent statements of a number of prominent Alaskans about the idea of building a pipeline across the coastal plain, and the report quotes the senior Senator from Alaska who told the Council on Environmental Quality, some have appropriately compared the idea with slicing a razor blade across the face of the Mona Lisa.

I am not saying the Senator from Alaska would support this amendment. I am sure he would not, but in the spirit of what Teddy Roosevelt said when he saw the Grand Canyon, ``This is God's handiwork; we cannot improve on it,'' let us let the wildlife refuge be. We cannot improve on it. Support the Markey-Johnson amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I will vote against this bill, because I do not see why it is necessary or desirable for Congress to act now to restrict just one kind of lawsuit, against just one kind of manufacturer.

My reluctance to support such legislation is increased when it not just prospective, but would require the immediate dismissal of cases that are now being considered by the courts.

I am not a lawyer, and it seems to me that the courts are in a much better position than I am to decide whether the people bringing these lawsuits have valid claims or whether the complaints are frivolous.

It happens that this bill deals with lawsuits against firearms manufacturers. But my concerns would be the same if the bill dealt with similar lawsuits against the makers of other consumer products--for example, automobiles, electronic appliances, or toys.

During the debate, some of the bill's supporters have argued that firearms manufacturers are different because there is a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But the freedom of the press is also protected by the Constitution--yet I have not heard anyone say that Congress has to cut off lawsuits against the makers of printing presses or television cameras in order to sustain that right.

And, if the lawsuits covered by the bill are contrary to the Constitution, I am confident that the judges--who are sworn to uphold the Constitution--will dismiss them.

There is no doubt lawsuits can be costly, and I am not in favor of frivolous lawsuits. But, based on what I know now, I think we in the Congress should leave it to the courts to decide which of the lawsuits covered by this bill are frivolous and which are not.

Therefore, I cannot support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this week the House will be debating major legislation to revise our national policies regarding energy.

There are many aspects to that debate. One that must not be overlooked is the need to balance energy development on Federal lands with the other resources, values, and uses of those lands. Colorado and the other Rocky Mountain states have a great stake in that part of the debate--something that was well illustrated by a recent article by one of our neighbors, Ted Kerasote, entitled ``Wyoming Lives Uneasily with Big Game and Big Equipment.''

For the benefit of our colleagues, I am attaching that article:

[From the Writers on the Range]

Wyoming Lives Uneasily With Big Game and Big Equipment

(By Ted Kerasote)

As meat lockers go, this corner of northwestern Wyoming is

one of the prettiest on earth. Behind me, as I sit on this

sage-covered bluff, is a great horseshoe of snow-dusted

peaks: the Wind Rivers, the Gros Ventres, the Wyoming Range.

Ahead lies the Upper Green River Valley: empty, vast and

skeined with moving lines of pronghorn antelope.

Twice each year, these herds move south to their winter

range and return north to summer forage. Some of these

antelope routinely trek 200 miles to Grand Teton National

Park, making their particular migration the longest

undertaken by any mammal in the Lower 48.

In addition to the 32,000 pronghorn out here, there's also

48,000 mule deer, some of them moving upwards of a hundred

miles to reach the surrounding national forests and their

summer haunts. Now and then I see some of the 8,000 elk that

seep down from the high country, and there's rarely a morning

when, walking across these hills and draws, I don't flush a

covey of sage grouse.

The size of small turkeys, the birds stop my heart when

they burst directly from beneath my feet.

With the quarters of one antelope already on ice, I'm

sitting up here and looking for another; in fact, two. Like

many people in Wyoming, I haven't eaten farm-raised meat in

decades. Three antelope, one elk and a variety of grouse,

ducks, and geese feed my family and me, and the friends who

help with the packing, from fall to fall. It's one of the

blessings of living amid lots of publicly owned land: Food is

inexpensive, healthy and fills the soul while it's gathered.

Or so it's been until recently.

Today, when I look south, I can see several pickup trucks

leaving dust plumes, here and there an ATV skittering through

the sage, men erecting aerials on hilltops, and a line of

enormous ``thumper trucks,'' big as tanks, rumbling their

slow way across the landscape. Overhead, helicopters flash as

they tend seismic equipment that read what lies below. The

antelope, trying to negotiate this gantlet, rush helter-

skelter from thumper truck to hovering helicopter and back.

Natural gas happens to be one of the other blessings of

these public lands. The Bureau of Land Management has already

permitted 3,090 wells in what's called the Pinedale Resource

Area, with many more on the way. In fact, with the Bush

administration's push to fast-track the production of

domestic energy resources, the BLM has exceeded the number of

wells permitted by its 1988 Resource Management Plan. It's

now in the midst of writing a new one, which will decide the

fate of the Upper Green's wildlife for next 15 to 20 years.

I suspect that many hunters in the basin (2,600 go after

antelope, 7,300 after mule deer, and 7,600 after elk) feel

about the way I do: We all use natural gas, but we're not

willing to extract it at the expense of the region's

wildlife. So what I've been saying to the BLM is this:

Protect the land critical to these animals in winter; make it

off-limits to anything that might disturb it.

The animals' transitional habitat needs to be protected as

well. That's all the country antelope and deer use for food

and rest while on their migrations to and from their summer

and winter ranges. Anyone who has spent some time in this

basin has probably noticed the passages through which deer

and antelope have migrated for millennia, some of them only a

half-mile wide. These bottlenecks need to be safeguarded.

The Bureau of Land Management also needs to recognize that

more than energy development is taking place out here.

Private lands are being subdivided even as some livestock

grazing continues, and an ever-increasing number of

recreationists--from hunters and anglers to snowmobilers and

ATVers--use roads and trails and everything in between.

What I'm describing, of course, are cumulative impacts--

something the federal agency has done a poor job of adding

up. The current resource plan, in fact, lacks such an

analysis. Most of all, what I keep asking of our federal land

managers is caution: Let's find out what's happening to

wildlife before we permit more gas well development.

Today, though, I have nothing left to say. Thumper trucks

shaking the ground approach my bluff, and I head back to the

car, looking for some undisturbed bit of country. These days

in the Upper Green, it is getting harder and harder to find.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution.

The world has condemned Cuba's recent crackdown on human rights and democracy activists. What is most troubling is that this is nothing new. The recent crackdown is merely a continuation of the systematic human rights violations in Cuba committed by the Castro regime.

Today I was most discouraged to learn of the prison sentences that have been handed down to dozens of these dissidents, who have been charged with ``subversion'' and collaborating with American diplomats, among other charges. Hector Palacious is but one I'll mention. Along with Oswaldo Paya Sardinas, Mr. Palacios has been a key organizer of the Varela Project, an effort to win Cuban popular support for a referendum on open elections, freedom of speech, freedom for political prisoners, and free enterprise. Yesterday he was sentenced to 25 years in prison for advocating democratic reforms.

Today I join my colleagues in condemning Cuba's crackdown on democracy, in calling for the release of all Cuba's political prisoners, in supporting the right of the Cuban people to exercise their political and civil liberties, and in calling on the world to insist in the strongest terms that the Government of Cuba adhere to international human rights standards.

I enclose for the record a letter to me from former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, now Chairman of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs. NDI has worked with organizers of the Varela Project to promote the movement internationally, and last year NDI honored Oswaldo Paya Sardinas for his courageous efforts to promote democracy. Enclosed also is a statement from him calling for the immediate release of the activists. Mr. Paya calls this moment the ``Spring of Cuba'' because for the first time, a peaceful movement is flourishing there. We must do all we can to help it take root.