John Doolittle

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to recognize the Reverend Philip Ronan Brennan, a remarkable man who has rendered fifty years of service to the people of my Northern California district. Born on August 23, 1926, in Duleek, County Meath, Ireland, Philip Brennan was ordained as a Roman Catholic priest on June 18, 1950, in Dublin. His first assignment in the priesthood brought him half way around the world to the beautiful Sierra Nevada Mountains of California, where he has made his home ever since. In fact, although born in Ireland, he is now a naturalized citizen of the United States. It is here that he has offered a lifetime of compassion and dedication to others. Beginning as an associate pastor at St. Joseph's Catholic Church in Auburn, in 1950, Reverend Brennan later went on to serve as an assistant at Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary parish in Truckee in 1952. In 1956, he began an eleven-year assignment as Chaplain at Folsom State Prison. In this capacity, he worked with some of those members of society who stand in the greatest need of comfort and guidance. Then, in 1967, Father Brennan advanced to the position of pastor at Corpus Christi parish in Tahoe City, California, which included the community of Squaw Valley. In 1972, Rev. Philip Brennan returned to where he began his ministry, serving as pastor at St. Joseph's Catholic Church in Auburn. During his years in Auburn, he negotiated the purchase of a 16-acre parcel of land in North Auburn, moving St. Joseph's school from the overcrowded and landlocked downtown location to the new site. He also sparked the building of a large parish center there. Recognizing his contributions to the community, in 1988 the City of Auburn named Father Brennan as one of the 100 most influential people in the city's first 100 years of history. After spending eight years at St. Joseph's, Father Brennan moved to the small town of Sutter Creek, serving for 12 years as pastor at the Immaculate Conception parish. Since retirement in 1992, he has again settled in Auburn, where he continues to sit on Diocesan committees and acts as supply pastor throughout the Sacramento Diocese. As he celebrates the Golden Jubilee of his ordination to the priesthood on June 18, I join with his many friends and admirers in honoring the Rev. Philip Ronan Brennan for his tireless efforts to meet the temporal and spiritual needs of those he has served so faithfully. No price can be placed on Father Brennan's contributions. His influence cannot be measured. His service cannot be gauged. His is a life well- lived, and I thank him for it.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I support the opening of the mainland Chinese market to American exports. It is in the best interests of the American people and the Chinese people. I feel strongly that the Communist government on mainland China is tyrannical, aggressive, and undesirable. I would like to see it go the way of its Marxist conrade, the Soviet Union. I am alarmed by its threatening statements toward the United States and its belligerence toward our friends on Taiwan. I am disgusted by Communist China's record on human rights, on religious freedom, and its brutal one-child policy that forces women to abort their unborn babies. If this were a vote on approval of the Communist regime in Beijing, I would strongly oppose it as would the vast majority of my colleagues. This is not such a vote. My record has been highly critical of Communist China. On national security, I strongly supported Representative Cox's investigation into Communist Chinese theft of American technologies. I cosponsored legislation to look into suspicious Chinese activity in the Panama Canal. On the question of Taiwan, I cosponsored the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act to strengthen the free nation's defense capability in case of attack from the mainland. On forced abortion, I enthusiastically voted in favor of cutting off money to the U.N.'s population control agency so long as it cooperated with China's brutal one-child policy. On religious freedom, I recently wrote a letter to President Jiang Zemin urging release of Pastor Xu Guoxing. My vote in favor of PNTR is not a departure. I remain solidly against anti-Communist China, which is why I support this agreement. I want to end the despicable behavior of the Chinese Government against the United States, against Taiwan, and against the people it rules. The question is, how do we get there from here? I think it is by exporting to China--not only American goods, but more importantly American ideas. While this agreement is ostensibly about exporting American goods to mainland China, its ultimate virtue is the export of American ideas to mainland China. How else are things going to change in China? Our ideas have triumphed time and again in the past. We Americans have every reason to be confident that they will again. Since we are inspired by our ideas, is there any reason to think the Chinese, who themselves are oppressed by their government, will not be inspired by American ideas of liberty? This agreement is part of the struggle against communism in China. It is war by other means. Look at who supports this agreement and who opposes it. Taiwan, who has refused to bow to the bullying tactics of the much-larger mainland, supports the agreement. The spiritual leader of Tibet, the Dalai Lama, who was forced into exile by the Communist Chinese Government supports the agreement. Within China's Communist establishment, the hard-liners are opposed to the PNTR agreement negotiated by the reformers. America's adoption of PNTR would be a victory for the reformers, and disapproval would be a victory for the hard-liners eager for confrontation with the United States. The Soviet Union was vanquished peacefully in a struggle between reformers and hardliners. Adopting this agreement strengthens the reformers within the Chinese Government not only in the internal power struggle, but throughout society. Increased contacts with Americans will expose the average Chinese citizen to our universally appealing ideas on liberty. Increased prosperity and access to communications technologies will increase the appetite of Chinese for American ways of life. And the expansion of a Chinese middle class that owes nothing to the communists is crucial. We are helping build the constituency for Chinese liberty. While it may be emotionally satisfying to proclaim that one would never cooperate with the murderous regime in Beijing, it ultimately achieves little else. Not a single citizen of China is more free or better fed. Our own security is no more enhanced, nor is that of our friends. It is more important to be effective than to obtain simple self-satisfaction in one's hardened stance. I too, am revolted by communism, including the version practiced in China. I want to defeat it, and this is the way to do it. The monstrosity of the crimes committed by Communist china have been so great that slaying the monster is more important than just calling it a monster. Mainland China will gain membership into the WTO with or without American support. So why not gain benefits for our American companies in exchange? China is expanding trade with the rest of the world. Agreeing to this pact would allow American companies to compete on an equal footing with everyone else doing business on the mainland. By rejecting the agreement, we would punish our own companies unnecessarily. Americans dominate the world in the agriculture and high-tech sectors. Lowering Chinese barriers to American goods will benefit Americans. High-tech pay the highest salaries, and increasing markets will produce more great jobs for Americans. I have voted against the annual renewal of NTR for mainland China in the past. This year, the vote is different. In the past, NTR was about Chinese goods flowing into the United States. This time, it is about access to the mainland Chinese market for American goods. Free Americans will continue to buy Chinese-made goods whichever way Congress votes on this agreement. But passage will allow mainland Chinese to buy goods from Americans at lower prices--made lower by the reduction in tarrifs. Granting permanent NTR leaves many other levers at our disposal to deal with mainland China. We must continue to protect ourselves and to speak out against the tyrannical Chinese Government. But we cannot be content with just words; we must back that up with action.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H. Res. 443.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 443), expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with regard to the centennial of the raising of the United States flag in American Samoa, as amended.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution offered by the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), which commemorates the centennial of the raising of the United States flag over our South Pacific territory. The resolution also memorializes the long-term United States-American Samoa relationship and reaffirms the United States support for improved self-governance and economic self- sufficiency. The people of American Samoa have been loyal to the United States for the past century. I believe this resolution is one way to recognize their consistent loyalty, and I urge all Members to approve the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time, and urge the Members to support the resolution.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 297, the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections and conforming changes to the bill, specifically on page 10, line 17, the contract number should read, ``14-06-200- 949IR3.''

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 297) to authorize the construction of the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System and to authorize assistance to the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, for the planning and construction of the water supply system, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) introduced H.R. 297, the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System at the beginning of this 106th Congress. The legislation is designed to provide replacement or supplemental water supplies in the Missouri River, the portions of South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota, serving in total about 180,000 people, of which approximately 150,000 people reside in Sioux Falls metropolitan area. The estimated cost of the project is $283 million in 1993 dollars with a 10 percent State share and 10 percent local cost share based on the willingness-to-pay analysis. We have been working with the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) on a number of the issues. As currently presented, the bill addresses several other issues of concern to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and me. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune), the author of the bill, to more fully explain his legislation.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 297, as amended.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I was distressed to read some recent articles showing that the repression of Christians in India continues. The RSS, the parent organization of the ruling BJP, has apparently published a booklet on how to besmirch Christians. According to an article in the May 5 issue of India Abroad, the RSS has published a booklet on how to implicate Christians and other minorities in false criminal cases. It cites a Hindustan Times report that says the booklet, entitled ``Save Hindus--Attacks and Laws,'' contains ``guidelines for framing charges, false as well as genuine, against minorities.'' The booklet has been in circulation for three months, according to the article. If India cannot learn religious tolerance, it is not deserving of the support of the free countries of the world. It is time to declare India a violator of religious liberty and other human rights until the situation improves. India should allow Amnesty International into Punjab and other troubled states to conduct an independent human-rights investigation. This has not happened since 1978. What is ``the world's largest democracy'' hiding? India should also hold a free and fair plebiscite on the question of independence for Khalistan, Kashmir, Nagaland, and the other states seeking their freedom from India. I would like to introduce the article from India Abroad that I mentioned earlier into the Record for the information of the House and the public. [From India Abroad, May 12, 2000] Attack on Christians New Delhi--A group of Christians who were distributing copies of the Bible and other evangelical literature in Vivekanandnagar, Ahmedabad, were reportedly attacked by activists of the right-wing Bajrang Dal on May 5. The Christians were attacked with lathis (canes) and sharp- edged weapons, the reports said, adding that three persons were injured in the incident. Samson C. Christian, executive member of the All India Christian Council, alleged that the attack was pre-planned as the Bajrang Dal was aware that members of the Operation Mobilization Association of Christians (OMAC) had been preaching in the area. In a related development, reports stated that the Sangh Parivar, comprising Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the ideological parent of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and its affiliate organizations, have brought out a booklet in Gujarat, containing guidelines on how to implicate minorities in court cases, The Hindustan Times reported. The 12-page booklet, titled ``Hinduno Bachao--akraman ane kayedo'' (Save Hindus--attacks and laws), contains guidelines for framing charges, false as well as genuine, against minorities under existing laws, the report said, adding that the booklet has been in circulation for the past three months.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the gentleman's amendment. If we are going to have this $2.8 billion annually, it seems to me that the focus ought to be on the in-holdings. Obviously, there are other funds available as was brought out in the earlier statements by the Members, but the Federal Government can still purchase land if it feels it needs to, but in-holdings are a big problem throughout our Nation with the national parks, and the wilderness areas and so forth. This bill, if it is going to provide this kind of funding, it would be well used to start there. I represent a mountainous and rural district in parts, and I can tell the Members that it would be helpful to focus on the in-holdings. I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) has made a very valid point. I think his point about getting full funding for PILT is key. We debated that issue and lost on it. We hope somehow we can get that addressed in the future, but the Peterson amendment is a good place to start. And I urge an aye vote.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I have profound regard for our chairman and for all the members of our Committee on Resources, but give me a break. We already have one-third of the entire land base in the country owned by the Federal government. Now they are asking us to appropriate $900 million or more annually to buy more of it. We are not good managers in the Federal government of the land we already have. There is a $12 billion backlog in maintenance already. I ask Members to visit their National Parks and check out the condition of some of the facilities. Whenever we raise this with the Park Service bureaucrats, the answer we get back is, oh, gee, we do not have enough money. Now we are going to give even more money to buy more land. This bill does put some money in for maintenance, that is true, but it puts nearly three times as much money into new land acquisition. Once that land is acquired, it has to be maintained. We are doing a terrible job of that as a Federal government. One illustration, the General Accounting Office said that there are 39 million acres of Forest Service land that are at extreme risk of catastrophic forest fire. That is because that land is not being managed properly. Now we are going to add to the general burden all of this new land that we are bringing into it. We used to talk about the idea that we ought to have no net gain in acquisition of land. If we are going to acquire some sensitive land, then we ought to divest ourselves of other lands of equal value. Instead, we are setting up a system that is biased in favor of more land acquisition, and instead of being one-third of the land mass, we are going to see this amount steadily creep up. I think we are going in the wrong direction. For that reason, I am going to have to oppose this bill, and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2647) to amend the Act entitled ``An Act relating to the water rights of the Ak-Chin Indian Community'' to clarify certain provisions concerning the leasing of such water rights, and for other purposes.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I urge support of the legislation, and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Congress passed the Ak-Chin water settlement in 1978. It was amended subsequently in 1984. And then in the 1992 amendment, off- reservation leasing of the Indian community's water entitlement was allowed, but the period of the lease was limited to 100 years. The amendment in 1992 did not allow for an extension of the lease after the 100-year period had been completed. This legislation would provide a legal avenue for the Ak-Chin tribe to extend or renew their existing lease with an Arizona development company that must obtain a State of Arizona Assured Water Supply certificate for municipal water use. The administration, I understand, has indicated that it is still opposed to the bill. However, it is my understanding that the minority does not object to this legislation, and I would urge Members to support the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) for his statement on the bill. (Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 137, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, tonight marks the third installment in a series of special orders begun last summer that Members of the House have held on the record and views of Vice President Al Gore. The Vice President is fond of attacking the work of the majority in the House. We conservatives believe it is important that Americans understand why Al Gore finds our record of cutting taxes, balancing the budget, eliminating wasteful spending, and restoring common sense environmental policies so contemptible. We believe it is important that the American people know what their Vice President actually stands for. Today, we will examine Vice President Gore's energy policy. American motorists and hard-working truck drivers in rural and urban areas, particularly those with lower incomes, are getting squeezed by soaring gas prices. Unfortunately, the Vice President is not there to help. In fact, he is cheering the prices on. It would distress the American people to learn that the Vice President is pleased with this turn of events. After all, he has long advocated policies expressly intended to raise the price and decrease the availability of gasoline to the American people. He thinks that we just plain use too much of it, the only way to get us to cut back is to raise the prices. Whether it happens through conservation or supply cutbacks, price controls, or tax increases, the end result is what matters. And not only gasoline but all sources of energy he thinks other people should not use are targeted. The Vice President has long advocated his disturbing energy policy, summed up as the less energy used the better. Tonight we will highlight excerpts from his apocalyptic book Earth in the Balance and other statements the Vice President has made in the past. Parenthetically, I note this book is being reissued. I am delighted to hear that. I recommend its reading by every informed American so that they will clearly understand what they are getting when they have Al Gore as the Vice President. Since taking office in 1993 with President Clinton, Vice President Gore was essentially seated in environmental policy for the administration. The administration wasted little time in pursuing an agenda of strict controls on energy. Indeed, it was not more than a couple of months after taking office that a Btu tax was first proposed in 1993 that would force people to feed big government in direct proportion to the amount of energy they consume. While even the Democrat-dominated Congress rejected that approach, a 4.3 cents per gallon surtax was successfully levied on gasoline. In fact, the Vice President cast the deciding tie-breaking vote in the upper body that allowed this commuter-punishing tax to be enacted. And it remains with us until this day. Vice President Gore advocated this tax hike not so much to increase revenues for the Federal Government but really to help increase the price of gas and help keep Americans out of their cars. But the price of gasoline has increased so much recently as to dwarf those 4.3 cents per gallon. It represents the best of all worlds for Vice President Gore. He has the higher gas prices, which he favors on policy grounds, but he did not have to pass such a massive tax increase in order to accomplish it. To those complaining of high gas prices, Mr. Gore would say, too bad. It is for your own good. Buck up, take your own medicine. If you do not like it, then invent a more efficient engine, ride a bicycle, or take the bus. Tonight we will talk about the foreign policy failure of this administration, which, by its own admission, was ``asleep at the wheel'' on this vital international issue. We will discuss how the administration deliberately increased our dependence on OPEC and other foreign sources of oil in the first place. The United States actually has the potential to become much less dependent on foreign powers for oil, but to do so would conflict with the Vice President's utopian new-age vision beautifully laid out in this book Earth in the Balance. Not only oil but other prominent energy sources have been attacked by the Clinton-Gore administration. The Vice President has urged Americans to find alternative energy sources as an answer to our current woes. Well, those have been tried before and they have failed despite heavy Federal subsidies. As my colleagues can see here in this chart, this thin red line represents the alternative energy sources, which is just about one percent or so of the total energy consumption in the United States. The Kyoto Emissions Treaty negotiated by the Vice President would have a devastating impact on American's lives. The upper body wisely refused to ratify it, but the Clinton-Gore administration is trying to implement it stealthily nonetheless. It would make the present situation with gasoline prices pale in comparison. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I could not agree more with the gentleman. I remember reading these figures. At the time of the Gulf War, we were only 36 percent dependent on foreign oil. Under the Clinton-Gore administration, we have now slipped over the line to the point where now we are 56 percent dependent on foreign oil, and the policies that they are providing to this country will make us even more dependent into the future. I think you just have to ask yourself, would a Teddy Roosevelt have let this happen? Would a great President or a great administration have put us at the mercy of these governments that control most of the world's oil supply? I think the answer is clearly no.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I thank the gentleman for his comments and participation this evening. I ran across an interesting quote here. This is by our President, very recently as a matter of fact, March 7, speaking at the White House. ``Americans should not want them,'' referring to oil prices, ``to drop to $12 or $10 a barrel again, because that takes our mind off our business, which should be alternative fuels, energy conservation, reducing the impact of all this on global warming.'' We talked about alternative fuels. It would be great if we could increase the size of this. But despite heavy Federal subsidies, we have not made much progress. Let me now observe that in his book I referred to, Earth in the Balance, the Vice President referred back to that book just about a year ago and is quoted in Time magazine on pages 65 through 67, April 26, 1999. If there were ever a doubt that maybe his views have changed somewhat in light of events that have transpired, that maybe he has reconsidered certain outlandish statements made in the book, well, it is apparent that that is not the case, because this is what he said: ``There's not a statement in that book that I don't endorse. The evidence has firmed up the positions I sketched there.'' I think there is some pretty interesting material in that book. Let me talk a little bit about the failure of the foreign policy of the Clinton-Gore administration, because indeed they have deliberately made us more beholden to the foreign oil-producing nations, particularly OPEC. As the Energy Secretary recently admitted, the administration was, quote-unquote, ``caught napping'' regarding the current crisis at the gas pump. OPEC should not have the unilateral power to dictate the price of gasoline that American motorists pay at the pump; but unfortunately this is exactly what is happening. This really is a national security issue. We have put ourselves at the mercy of many regimes hostile to the United States. The weak, vacillating foreign policy of the Clinton administration has a great deal to do with this as we continue to tolerate the excesses of Saddam Hussein. In case of hostilities with any one of these oil-producing nations, we could have our oil supplies cut drastically with little recourse. The Clinton-Gore administration response was to beg OPEC to increase production, and so we went hat in hand asking them, please increase production. We need an administration that will strongly advocate U.S. interests and will produce policies that will take care of the national security of all Americans. Let me just comment on this energy policy. Here are a few facts that have been assembled, alarming oil and gas facts. Since 1992, U.S. oil production is down 17 percent. Yet consumption is up 14 percent. In just 1 year under the Clinton-Gore administration, oil imports increased over 7 percent. As I mentioned, imports are now at 56 percent and growing rapidly. The Department of Energy predicts 65 percent foreign oil dependence by the year 2020. Indeed some project it will be higher than that. Sixty-five percent importing probably the most fundamental commodity to the interests of this Nation. At current prices, the United States spends $300 million per day on imported oil, over $100 billion per year on foreign oil, one-third of the total trade deficit. Iraq is the fastest growing source of U.S. oil imports. In 1990 we had 405,000 jobs in exploring and producing oil and gas. In 1999, that number of 405,000 had dwindled to 293,000, a 27 percent decline. In 1990 we had 657 working U.S. oil rigs. In the year 2000, 10 years later, we had 153 working oil rigs. Our fuel storage has shrunk. New York lost 20 percent of heating oil storage because of governmental mandates contributing to shortages and price hikes. This year's Department of Energy budget has $1.2 billion for climate change activities but only $92 million for oil and gas research and development. It is clear that the priorities of this administration are not on decreasing dependence on foreign oil, for indeed just the opposite has happened during the nearly 8 years now of this administration. The administration indeed is quite adamant about blocking our attempts to gain energy self-sufficiency. I will just read this quote from the Vice President. He said in October of 1995, ``If they,'' meaning the Republican majority, ``satisfy us on 100 percent of everything else we ask for and they open ANWR in Alaska to drilling, President Clinton will veto the whole thing.'' Mr. Gore is an absolutist in opposition to drilling for new sources of American oil. During his tenure in office, as I mentioned, our demand has grown by 14 percent while our domestic oil production declined by 17 percent. Yet Mr. Gore supports government policies that take many areas of the United States with the greatest oil potential off the table. ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, is a 1\1/2\ million-acre arctic coastal plain in Alaska. In 1998, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that up to 16 billion barrels lie underneath the soil in ANWR, enough to replace our oil imports from Saudi Arabia for 30 years. These reserves can be tapped into with essentially no environmental damage. The development area where the drilling would occur would be less than 1 percent of the whole Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, leaving almost no impact on the environment. Just to note, at the existing Prudhoe Bay site, the North Slope, which currently provides an enormous amount of oil to the domestic market, wildlife has thrived despite the outrageous and extreme claims of so-called self-styled environmentalists, people with whom apparently the Vice President identifies, that we would do grave harm to the wildlife there. I have been there personally to see it. You would be very impressed with what is going on at Prudhoe Bay and the pipeline. Very, very impressive operation. It has not damaged the environment. If anything, it is looked upon as an asset, and the wildlife has flourished with the facilities that have been placed there. The people of Alaska overwhelmingly support drilling in ANWR, but the Vice President does not; and as we can see made clear that he would recommend a veto and indeed that is exactly what happened. It was vetoed by the administration. The cost of oil and gas exploration in the U.S. is so expensive through our tax and environmental policies that our own companies would rather search for oil among armed terrorists in Colombia than here. Pushing industry outside the United States does not help the environment because what they do will occur in places where it is not as strictly regulated as in this country. Nevertheless, the production will occur. Transferring businesses to nations that lack our stringent production standards invites mishaps. Requiring that more oil be shipped overseas increases the risk of tanker accidents. By importing oil, we also are exporting our wealth and jobs overseas. As I observed, the domestic energy industry has lost 112,000 jobs during this administration. Let us talk about Kyoto. The Vice President wrote in his book, Earth in the Balance, something I think we should focus on for a minute. ``Minor shifts in policy, marginal adjustments in ongoing programs, moderate improvements in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change; these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public's desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle, and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.'' Focus on that for a minute. What he is really saying is, in his view, a wrenching transformation of society will be necessary, and that we are fools to think that it will not be. A wrenching transformation of society. Let us see. Could that mean something on the scale of the forcing out of the rural areas into the cities, the peasants in Russia, the so-called collectivization that resulted in the deaths of so many millions. That was a wrenching transformation of society. Or could the period under Mao in China when so many millions were tortured and murdered there, would that be a wrenching transformation of society? That is what I think of when those terms are used. I really think we ought to ponder this belief of the Vice President. Now, Kyoto, speaking of a wrenching transformation of society, because I believe this is on that magnitude. The disastrous Kyoto protocol was negotiated by the Clinton-Gore administration in 1997, and it would force just indeed such a wrenching transformation that the Vice President envisions in Earth in the Balance, his book written personally, he has reaffirmed by him. And he agrees even more now, or as much now, feels that the arguments have been strengthened in the intervening years since he first wrote it. The Kyoto protocol requires the United States by the year 2012 to reduce emissions to the levels they were at in the 1980s. The economic recession of the late 1970s caused the United States to cut emissions by 2 percent. Complying with Kyoto would require 3 times the cutbacks experienced during those economic downturns. Those were not good times. We all remember them well, those of us who are old enough to remember. They were very trying times for the United States. It is indeed tragic and frankly, amazing, that someone who has risen to the office of Vice President would propose these sorts of Draconian alterations in our policy. Happily, the upper body in the Congress voted unanimously to urge the President and the Vice President not to sign the U.S. on to any global warming treaty if it exempted developing countries or injured the American economy. Nevertheless, the resolution of the upper body was ignored and the treaty was negotiated and signed. This treaty basically allowed 132 out of the 168 countries attending the conference to opt out of the treaty on the grounds that they are still developing countries. Among these countries are some of the world's biggest polluters, including China, India, Brazil, and Mexico. So, out of the 168 countries that get to opt out, only 36, including the United States, are precluded by the provisions of the treaty from opting out. Perhaps the Draconian sacrifices in our standard of living required by Kyoto would qualify us as a developing country. Taken together, developing countries will emit a majority of the world's greenhouse gas emissions by 2015. Yet, under Mr. Gore's treaty, none of those countries would have any obligation to reduce emissions or to obey the rules that govern the United States under the treaty. With so few countries actually agreeing to this protocol, it is highly doubtful that global warming will be reduced. Happily, the upper body has refused to vote on and ratify the Kyoto treaty. But that has not stopped the Clinton-Gore administration from attempting to end-run the Constitution in implementing it anyway. This administration's 1999 budget included $6.3 billion, an increase to the EPA to draft strict new rules that would unilaterally enact portions of the Kyoto protocol. The cost to U.S. business workers and consumers of complying with the Vice President's Kyoto treaty could be staggering. In real terms, Al Gore committed Americans to reduce our fossil fuel emissions by 41 percent, compared to projections of what we need to maintain our economic growth. Now, just focus on this for a minute. A 41 percent reduction in fossil fuel emissions would result in huge job losses. Up to 1.5 million workers would lose their jobs in energy intensity manufacturing industries like petroleum, refining, pulp and paper making, cement, steel, chemicals and aluminum, as these jobs move to developing nations not bound by the Kyoto restrictions. What kind of a policy could that possibly be, to take these high- paying jobs and send them to some developing Nation and out of the United States to be replaced, no doubt, by more service sector, lower-paying jobs. Secondly, a 41 percent reduction in fossil fuel emissions would result in a huge increase in the cost of living. American families would pay 25 cents per gallon more due to this alone, this treaty, and $2,000 more annually, for necessary consumer goods, which will experience the trickle-down effect of having the fuel costs raised, and since all of these goods are moved in one way or another and the fuel is used, the average increase for Americans could be $2,000 a year. Thirdly, due to this 41 percent reduction brought about by the Kyoto treaty, reduction in the fossil fuel emissions, it would greatly diminish U.S. trade competitiveness. Now, we constantly hear out of this administration how they are concerned about trade and they want to increase competitiveness. Well, Kyoto really sets us back. Since 132 countries are not subject to the treaty, the Kyoto treaty will make it much harder for U.S. businesses to compete internationally. Now, let us get to this: what would it really take? Suppose somehow this were to become law, which the Vice President really wants it to become law and has done everything he could to try and bring that about. Well, it would require huge reductions in total U.S. consumption of fossil fuels: coal, oil, and natural gas. The only practical way to force these cuts would be through steep price increases. That is really what it is all about. That is why the Vice President is happy that the gas prices have gone up. It is long overdue. Economists, friends of the administration, we can read their quotes in the current news magazines, saying how our gasoline prices were way too low and this is a good thing to have them up there, that these economists, some of them, who obviously are very sympathetic to the unfriendly policies of the Clinton-Gore administration, they also decry the rise in SUVs. Americans love their sports utility vehicles. Well, this administration is not at all happy about that, and their friends are not at all happy about that, and they would like to see the price of gas rise so much that one cannot afford to drive those vehicles which they think are bad for the country. Let me just observe in reference to this point that gas price hikes really are what would be compelled by the Clinton-Gore Kyoto treaty. In other places, where the countries have signed the treaty and which have put the treaty into force, unlike the United States; in Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Japan, they have all decided that the only way to reach the Kyoto limits is to raise taxes on fossil fuels. These countries, not coincidentally, in my judgment, are the ones that have had much slower economic growth than the United States over the past decade. What would we expect when the price of gas in Europe for years has been between $2 and $3 a gallon because of the high excise taxes that they have imposed. Mr. Speaker, we do not want the Europeanization of our energy policy. Cheap energy has been a tremendous blessing, perhaps the single greatest blessing that we could name in terms of economics to the people of this great country. Now we have people in power that are determined to wreck that policy and to replace it with something that will really shrink our standard of living and will make it much more difficult to maintain the prosperity and rates of economic growth that we have had in the past. Well, we have spent a few minutes tonight talking about the role of the Vice President and his views on energy policy. I am glad that we have had this opportunity, and I would like now to recognize my colleague from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to observe that the gentleman is absolutely right. It is a funny thing. With the Clinton-Gore administration, the only time I have ever seen them interested in saving money is when it comes to cutting taxes. All of a sudden, they are the guardians of the Treasury. Every last dime they have to hang onto so none of it goes back to the taxpayer. The gentleman just mentioned a $6 billion increase they had gone along with. Their regulatory policies are costing us billions and billions of dollars, the consumer and the country itself. They are constantly pushing for increasing the amounts of money in these appropriations bills. They are vetoing our bills because they do not spend enough money, but if it comes to hanging onto the dollar and protecting the taxpayer against himself by not letting him have a tax cut, they are very good about being parsimonious.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, just before the gentleman got down, I was just saying the same thing about my trip to the North Slope, and the observations the gentleman made about ANWR and the pipeline are right on track. But the Vice President apparently does not want to open up ANWR because that will take us away from this which he seeks, a wrenching transformation of society. I guess in his vision we are all supposed to suffer a little. Somehow that is for the common good. That is not the policy that I endorse. Americans are suffering right now with the failed foreign policy and energy policy that has given us this bump-up in the gasoline prices. Long-term, Americans are going to suffer a lot more if we do not reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and opening up ANWR is the first and most vital step to do that; furthermore, in addition to that, reducing the ridiculously burdensome rules and regulations and restrictions that have been imposed on our people in the oil development industry that is forcing them to go to Colombia, where there are armed terrorists; to feel that that is a more favorable climate to do their drilling work than it is right here in the United States. So the gentleman is absolutely right, things have been out of hand and they need to be changed. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.