Richard Pombo

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago today, America experienced an unimaginable act of terrorism that resulted in over 3,000 innocent people being taken from their families, including over 300 brave firefighters and 60 police officers from New York City, and over 40 military personnel at the Pentagon. The attacks of 9/11 changed America forever. While it renewed our sense of patriotism, it also challenged Americans to accept new limitations in their lives. While our Nation has certainly experienced tragedies in the past, the events of 9/11 affected the soul of this Nation and have transformed how millions of Americans live their lives. America has entered a new era following the events of September 11, 2001, an age where peace and personal security at home is no longer taken for granted. Americans, unfortunately, have been victims of terrorism in the past. These are just a few of a long list of examples: The assassination of Cleo Noel, U.S. Ambassador to Sudan in 1973; 63 Americans killed at the bombing of U.S. barracks in Lebanon in 1983; an American serviceman killed during the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 in Lebanon in 1985; wheelchair-bound Leo Klinghoffer was murdered aboard the Achille Lauro in 1985; 259 Americans were killed aboard Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland in 1988; six people killed in the bombing of the World Trade Center garage in 1993; 19 Americans killed in the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996; 247 people killed in the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, and 10 people killed in the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Dar es Salaam in Tanzania in 1998; 17 sailors killed in the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 911, the National Memorial to Victims of Terrorism Act, would authorize the creation of a living national memorial in our Nation's Capital to all of the victims, past, present and, unfortunately, future, killed in terrorist attacks against the United States or its people, including those killed in the horrific September 11 attacks. The bill would authorize the creation of an advisory board whose members would be appointed by the President, the Speaker of the House, and the majority leader. The board would be responsible for raising all necessary funds to design, construct, and maintain the memorial. Today, we have an opportunity to acknowledge the thousands of victims whose lives have been lost through acts of terrorism in our history by establishing this memorial in their honor. While we cannot completely repair the damage that has been done by terrorists that hate liberty and freedom, we can provide some assurance that their memories will not be lost. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 911, as amended. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. It is interesting to listen to this debate here tonight, and some of what my colleague was saying earlier I agree with; that in terms of the blackout that they had in the Northeast, it had very little to do, if anything, to do with the other parts of the bill, and I agree with him on that. But when we got into this process several years ago, the reason that we did was because we had so many challenges in terms of delivering a reliable source of energy for the people in this country that we had so many different things that we had to take on. We had a problem with reliability and ability to deliver natural gas at an affordable price to our constituents, and that is one part of the bill. We had problems with gaining access for power lines and gas lines across public lands, and that is one part of the bill. We have a problem with an overdependence on foreign sources for our energy in this country, and that is a part of the bill. All of the different parts of the energy bill, as they moved through the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Energy and Commerce, were all about trying to deal with all of these definite challenges and all of these problems and trying to come up with a way in a balanced approach to deal with those problems. Electricity is one problem and that is part of the bigger balanced energy package that passed this House for the second time this last April, and hopefully when going into conference it is something that we can gain bipartisan support on, as we had in the House, and move it quickly through and begin to address all of these different problems. It appears to me that because of the blackout we are now using that as an excuse not to do all of the other things. How else are we going to deal with the natural gas crisis that has developed in this country? The lack of an affordable, reliable supply of natural gas is a very real problem. And in a couple of months, when we hit the wintertime and everybody is using natural gas, the constituents are going to be screaming about that, and we have to address that. Now, this bill does not solve all the problems, but it does go a long way in terms of dealing with all of these challenges that have built up because this country has not had an energy policy for so many years. It is hard to do. It is difficult to put all this together in a package, but it is something that this country desperately needs. Electricity is part of it, natural gas is part of it, access and right-of-way issues are part of it, and production is part of it. Production has to be part of supplying for our future. So I do believe that this is an extremely important bill. Unfortunately, I will have to oppose the Dingell motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. One of the previous speakers came to the floor and gave a lengthy explanation of this amendment. One of the things that he said was this is not about snowmobiles, and I think it is probably the only thing that he said that I agreed with because I do not believe that this amendment is about snowmobiles. Over the last several years a number of concerns have been raised over snowmobiles in Yellowstone Park. They included visitor enjoyment, visitor and employee health, safety, air quality, the natural landscape, wildlife. I believe those were very legitimate concerns that were raised. I believe that in the management of this park, that that had gotten out of hand and there were legitimate concerns that had been raised. The administration responded to that. The industry responded to that. The industry developed quieter, safer, less noisy machines in order to meet the standards. The administration adopted policies which restrict where the snowmobiles can go. It was a balanced approach to managing one of our most important public assets. Striving to reach that balance is where we really should be in terms of policy here. Unfortunately, there are people who want to take the extreme and say we are just going do ban them altogether. Well, if you are going to ban 65,000 snowmobiles who stay on the public roads in Yellowstone, what about the one and a half million cars? Is that next? Because that is where we are going. When you come to our public assets, our public parks, especially the crown jewels like Yellowstone, it is important that we ensure that the public has access to those crown jewels and that we have the abilities as citizens of this country to enjoy our public lands. And in order to do that we have to reach a balance. No, we cannot pretend that allowing people into Yellowstone Park has no impact on the environment. It does. No matter how they get there they have an impact on the environment. If you were successful and you ban snowmobiles and ultimately ban cars from Yellowstone Park but you let people walk in, that would have an impact on the environment. So how do we ensure the greatest number of people have an opportunity to see this park and enjoy it both in the summer and the wintertime with having the least possible impact on the environment? The way that we do that is by adopting a balanced rule, a balanced approach. You can take snowmobiles in, but they have to be quieter, they have to be less polluting, and we are going to restrict you to the roads. And not only that, we will require that you have a guide with you when go into the park, trying to address all of the concerns that have been brought up. A lot of the debates that you have heard here was about the way it used to be, not about the new rules that were being adopted. This is a balanced approach between having the least possible impact we can on our environment and at the same time allowing public access. That is a reasonable, balanced approach. You cannot continue to defend the extreme. You cannot continue to defend those who want people off public lands. You cannot continue to do that. But that is what we have had over and over today. I oppose this amendment. I think that the administration has done a fantastic job of listening to people and trying to respond to their concerns. I think it is extremely important that we allow this rule to go forward and we allow the administration to go forward with what has proven to be a very balanced approach and oppose this amendment.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I know that our colleagues that are watching this debate who may not have invested as much time on these issues as those of us that are on the floor are probably really confused right now. Because I heard the gentleman from Washington give a very impassioned description of what we need in the process of doing forest planning and I believe an accurate description. If that is what the Udall amendment did, I would vote for it in a second; and I would get our guys to vote for it. Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with the amendment that is on the floor. The amendment on the floor is to take us back to an old, broken system and not move forward. What we are doing right now is what is wrong. It is the process that we currently have in place that has led us to an unmanaged forest that has resulted in catastrophic fire. It is the process that is in place right now that has led us into these endangered species fights. It is the process that is in place right now which has caused the problem. Why Members want to stay with that process instead of moving forward is beyond me. I would like to read from a letter that I received from the Secretary of Agriculture, Ann Veneman. In part it states, ``The Forest Service is required by law to revise land management plans for national forests and grasslands every 15 years. To satisfy this requirement, the agency needs to complete 92 plan revisions in the next 10 years. The Forest Service estimates that it spends over $100 million a year on plan revisions using regulations adopted in 1979 and slightly revised in 1982.'' $100 million a year. I do not think that I have to scream to get this across, but when we talk about using money for better purposes, spending $100 million a year is outrageous. It further says, ``In addition, an internal study by professional planners in the Forest Service concluded that the 2000 regulations were unimplementable, primarily because of the expansive and detailed process requirements in the regulations, the large amount of data needed to meet these requirements, and the lack of personnel with scarce and specialized skills.'' So not only do Members want to continue doing what we are doing now but also force the Forest Service to spend more money putting these plans together in order to meet the 11th hour regulations put in place by the previous administration. It continues, ``In short, the 2000 planning regulations would make the already unreasonable procedures and costs associated with the 1982 regulations worse instead of better.'' I would further like to read from a letter of the Society of American Foresters, ``The forest planning process is crucial to establishing the goals and objectives for each national forest unit. It involves extensive public involvement, analysis, and local decisionmaking. Without clear direction through regulations, the agency's time and resources will continue to be tied up in the planning process, instead of management activities such as hazardous fuels reduction and forest health restoration work.'' We have also heard a lot about wildlife. The wildlife organizations that oppose this amendment include the Boone & Crockett Club, Buckmasters American Deer Foundation, Campfire Club, the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Conservation Force, Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, International Hunter Education, National Trappers, National Wild Turkey Federation, Pheasants Forever, Quail Unlimited, and on and on. This is not about wildlife. This is not about science. This is not about public participation. This is about protecting the system that is in place right now. Many of the folks that have come to the floor today to support this amendment are the exact same people who opposed the healthy forests initiative. They are the exact same people who did not want to move forward in terms of protecting our forests from catastrophic fire. They are the same people who proposed putting these regulations in place at the end of the previous administration. What we currently have is a problem. It has led us to the point where we are now. The system is broken. We need to fix it. Vote against the Udall amendment.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I think what we are going through is more of the same, and that is to protect an effort that is being made to protect a broken system. What is in place right now is a bureaucratic system of red tape that makes it nearly impossible to move forward. Forest plans, which must by law be rewritten every 15 years, often take between 7 to 10 years to draft and implement. For example, the forest plan on the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota took over 7 years to complete. The Tongass forest plan in Alaska took 9 years to complete. That is right, 9 years to complete a 15-year forest plan. Both cost millions of dollars to go through the process. It is a broken system. It is what we are trying to fix. The 11th-hour regulations that were adopted by the previous administration do not work, and what the administration is trying to do is update those regulations so they represent what the reality is today, and that is the effort that is being made. I think that this amendment completely undermines the ability to do that. Charges that recent Forest Service-proposed regulations weaken essential wildlife protections are absurd. The proposed regulations offered two options for wildlife analysis on which the Forest Service conducted a national workshop to solicit the views of leading wildlife experts from around the country. The focus of this effort has been to make wildlife analysis more useful to the public and decision-makers. Charges that the 2002 draft weakens public involvement are also unfounded. The draft regulations provide for public involvement at every single step. They preserve appeal opportunities like those in the 2000 regulations and go well beyond the baseline requirements of NEPA. More timely planning will further facilitate effective public participation. The bottom line is that we do need this a lot faster. It is absolutely outrageous that we would spend 9 years going through the bureaucratic process, 9 years going through the bureaucratic process to adopt a 15-year plan. How outrageous is that? Only in Washington would somebody move to try to preserve that. If there are problems with the current system, participate in rewriting those regulations. Have your input put in that, but do not try to go back to a broken system. That is outrageous, and I have no idea why anyone would possibly want to do that. We need to streamline the system. We need to move a lot quicker. We need to make it more efficient and more responsive to the public and our constituents. Trying to go back to a broken system makes absolutely no sense. I oppose the amendment. I support the underlying bill, and I would ask my colleagues to oppose the Udall amendment.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce two bills promoting public- private partnerships in the interest of improving vocational education. Vocational education is an extremely important component of secondary education for millions of students. It is too often neglected at the state level and does not receive adequate funding or attention. Many students do not go onto an undergraduate university for their post-secondary education. Only about 40% of high school students who pursue post secondary education enroll in a baccalaureate (college) program. One third (over 5 million people) enroll in a vocational education (sub-baccalaureate) program. We should acknowledge that not everyone chooses to go to an academic four year university. For many of these students, our current educational system is failing them. There are many good paying jobs available to students interested in vocational training, but not enough students are being prepared for these types of jobs. However, we do have the ability to encourage more schools and their students to participate in vocational education. We can leverage the involvement of the private sector. We can get businesses involved with the education of the skilled workers of tomorrow by helping them train the students of today. To accomplish this I am introducing two vocational education bills today. The first bill, the Public Private Vocational Partnership Act, establishes a tax credit for companies that donate equipment and other resources that can be used for vocational training. It also establishes a tax credit for the hiring of full time students who want to work as interns in fields relating to vocational education. The second bill, the Excellence in Vocational Education Act, creates a new competitive grant program where schools can seek out federal funding to match private sector contributions for vocational education projects. The goal is to increase students' participation and achievement in vocational education. The money will also be used to strengthen teachers' understanding of, and competency in, vocational education and practical application of it. Both bills will encourage schools and the private sector to work together to give students practical training for quality jobs. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting these important proposals.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the ranking member brings up, I believe, a very important point. This is something that should go through the Committee on Resources. I will be more than happy and willing to sit down with the different Members who have these roads in their districts, in their States, and other Members from other parts of the country to try to work out a compromise that everyone could live with. This is not something that the gentleman should be dealing with on the appropriations bill every year. I would be more than happy to sit down with the Members and try to work out a rational, balanced compromise so that we are not back here next year with a similar amendment.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting for this amendment to come up for 2 days now that we have been working on this bill. We have talked a lot about environmental care, environmental laws, our joint desire to do what is right for our environment; but I think on this amendment my colleagues have the opportunity to see what one extreme example is of an effort to manage our public lands, and that extreme example is the philosophy or ideology that people should not be on our public lands. The way to solve that is to gradually begin to remove them, piece by piece, from our public lands. What this amendment does is go back to a failed policy of the previous administration. A lot has been said about the judge's ruling. I would like to read one quote from the judge. In its rush to give President Clinton lasting notoriety in the annals of environmentalism, the Forest Service's shortcuts, and bypassing the procedural requirements of NEPA, has done lasting damage to the very laws designed to protect the environment. The Forest Service's entire NEPA process was flawed and marred with arbitrary and capricious decisions that resulted from its unreasonably self-imposed, unreasonably short deadline for implementing the roadless rule. The facts are this country has nearly 750 million acres of Federal land. Almost half of that is currently under some kind of conservation status, national park, wilderness, wildlife refuges. It is protected forever for future generations. About half of it is for multiple use, and that is what they are going after here is whatever is left they want to take people out of it. They want to stop the ability for multiple use on those lands. They want to stop the ability of people to use them. A compromise has been worked out over the years. What the current administration is trying to do is to go back and fix what one Federal judge has already said was a marred policy, a severely flawed policy and trying to make it work in the roadless areas that we do still have. I think it is important that my colleagues take the time to actually understand what this amendment is truly all about and why the administration has so strongly opposed it and why so many of my colleagues are so excited about this passing. This is not a West versus East amendment. This is something that we all need to pay attention to, because the impact that this has on our public lands is immense and has, quite frankly, already been thrown out by a Federal judge. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. This has been quite an interesting day and now into the evening. First, we had an amendment to stop the Forest Service from issuing new forest plans. Then we had an amendment to keep 57 million acres roadless, and now we are going after an amendment that goes after areas that have roads in them. Some serious issues have been raised over many years about RS 2477 roads and what the impact is on these areas and what they should be used for and all of the different issues. But one thing that keeps coming up tonight is all of these wilderness areas and parks that should be off limits. I think that is a legitimate point, and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) responded to that by offering a perfected amendment to the underlying amendment which takes the national monuments, the wilderness study areas, the national parks, National Wildlife Refuge System, National Wilderness Preservation System, takes all of those lands out so that they are not part of this process just to assure everyone that the areas that they are so concerned about that they keep bringing up over and over here during this debate are not the areas that will be affected by the underlying rule. There is very little timber harvesting that still occurs on public lands. There is very little mining. Grazing has been pushed aside. There is some tourism left, and now it looks like we are going to go after the ability to have access to our public lands. It is a concerted effort, one amendment right after the other. Limit public access, limit their ability to get out there, shut down those roads, shut down those areas, do not let anybody into our public lands. It is a concerted effort, amendment after amendment. I, quite frankly, feel that the administration is trying to solve this particular problem in a balanced approach in working with the States and the counties, trying to figure out what is really a road and what is not and what should have access and what should not. It is a balanced approach. I believe that we should support the gentleman from North Carolina's (Mr. Taylor) amendment. If that amendment does not pass, I believe we should vote against the gentleman from Colorado's (Mr. Udall) amendment.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I have one additional speaker, and I reserve the right to close.

Mr. POMBO. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. Does not the Member defending the committee position have the right to close?

Mr. POMBO. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. If I yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, do we have the right to close?

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, does the committee position have the right to close?

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I listened to my friends from Oregon talk about this, and I substantially agree with everything that they are saying, but I do oppose the amendment. I believe it is extremely important that we continue on this process. Obviously, it is a very popular program that has some problems, and as the authorizing committee which both of the gentlemen from Oregon sit on, we are going to sit down in the next couple of months and reauthorize this program and fix the very problems that you are describing here today. I happen to believe that all of this money should go to increasing the enjoyment of the recreational experience on these lands. That was the intention of this program when it was adopted. The money should not be going to other things. That is the intention that I have going into authorizing this for all public lands, and I believe it is extremely important that we continue doing that. I think it is a mistake to limit this at this point in time to just Park Service. I do understand what the gentleman's argument is, but I think it is a mistake at this point to do that. I can tell my colleagues that I have had serious concerns over this program in the past and we have talked about that, but I do believe that we need to continue on with the program the way it is right now. The authorizing committee is going to sit down and work on this. Obviously the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is going to be a big part of that effort to move forward with reauthorizing or authorizing this program into the future, and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) will as well. But we are going to do that. I think it would be a mistake at this time to limit it just to the Park Service. It is an important source of revenue for local recreation in these areas, and I think that we need to continue doing that.

Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. POMBO. Yes, sir. The intention of myself and my committee is that this money will be going to enhancing the visitors to these recreational areas and national parks.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that. And we have had the opportunity to discuss this in the past. There is a lot of concern, as the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) has brought up, about how this money is being used and whether or not it is going to enhance the experience of the people that are paying for it as it should. That is something that we are going to change. There is going to be very strict guidelines that come out of an authorization that goes to these agencies so that this does not happen in the future. I will say I oppose doing the amendment at this point in time, but I will tell the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) that in the future, if we cannot authorize this program and change the way that it is being run, that I would join him in eliminating the program all together, because I think people that are paying to go into these Federal lands, these public lands should be getting something for their money, and I think there is a big question as to whether or not they are, the way the program is currently being run. So at this point in time, I oppose the gentleman's amendment. I will work with him and others that have concerns over this program so that in the future, we have a program that works and enhances the experience that people have.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 139 of the bill found on page 90, lines 4 through 9. This section clearly violates clause 2(b) of rule XXI as it constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill by changing existing law. Section 139 permanently establishes an unlimited U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ``slush fund'' for expenses related to encouraging public participation in Fish and Wildlife Service programs. The very first sentence waives existing law regarding any current limitations that the Service may have regarding these activities. For example, existing volunteer and public participation in the National Wildlife Refuge System is governed by the National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998. The Service's use of administrative funds from other programs, such as those authorized under the Pittman-Robertson Act, the African Elephant Conservation Act, the Neo-Tropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, the Great Ape Conservation Act, and the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act are also circumscribed in scope and funding levels. Section 139 waives these limits and expands the uses of these funds. Therefore, this language constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill. This fact was recognized by the Committee on Appropriations, which lists this section in the report accompanying this bill under ``Changes in Application of Existing Law'' on page 153. Therefore, I ask that the Chair sustain my point of order.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 137 of the bill, found at page 84, line 21, through page 89, line 24. This section clearly violates clause 2(b) of rule XXI, as it constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill. This six-page section establishes a separate legal mechanism for the determination and settlement of claims regarding individual Indian money accounts maintained by the Department of the Interior as part of the Secretary of the Interior's trust responsibilities for Native Americans. The section requires the Secretary to formulate a statistical sampling evaluation for individual Indian accounts opened during a certain time frame. This evaluation is to take place over 4 years, and the Secretary is then required to publish a notice in the Federal Register certifying the evaluation. The Secretary must then adjust certified accounts but only for increases as a result of the evaluation. The Secretary is also authorized to issue regulations to implement the section. Finally, the section provides a judicial review mechanism for the Secretary's actions taken under this section. These are all new substantial duties on the part of the Secretary of the Interior. The section mandates new expenditures to adjust individual Indian accounts upwards. In addition, the very first sentence of section 137 explicitly waives existing law and regulations regarding these accounts. Therefore, the section fails at least three tests for determining whether the language constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill. This fact was recognized by the Committee on Appropriations, which lists this section in the report accompanying this bill under ``Changes in Application of Existing Law'' on page 153. I ask that the Chair sustain my point of order.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The simple fact of the matter is the military tax fairness bill is held at the desk. We are ready to vote on it. It is being held up. I do not know why. Secondly, this bill, if we pass a motion to recommit, will get the families of these soldiers qualification for the child tax credit. Failure to take this action does not get them that relief.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, as someone who has visited rural Africa, I was fascinated by the testimony of Dr. John Christy at a recent hearing I chaired on the Kyoto Protocol. Dr. Christy, who is the Alabama State Climatologist, worked as a missionary to Kenya in the 1970's. He observed the great hardships faced by rural men and women living in villages without electricity. Dr. Christy noted that, ``With only three to five acres on the family shamba, every square inch was utilized for food production and living space, so the search for fuel was a daily chore for the women and young girls. I would see them daily set out to the edge of the nearest forest, usually several miles away, to cut down wet, green trees, chop the branches into suitable lengths, tie them into 80 pound bundles and load them on their backs for the trek home. Many of these women were either pregnant or carrying babies in blankets tied in front of them.'' He further observed, ``The typical home was a mud-walled, thatched- roof structure. Smoke from the cooking fire fueled by undried wood was especially irritating to breathe as one entered the home. The fine particles and toxic emissions from these in-house, open fires assured serious lung and eye diseases for a lifetime.'' Dr. Christy concludes by stating, ``Providing energy from sources other than biomass (wood and dung), such as coal-produced electricity, would bring longer and better lives to the people of the developing world and greater opportunity for the preservation of their natural ecosystems. Let me assure you, notwithstanding the views of extreme environmentalists, that Africans do indeed want a higher standard of living. They want to live longer and healthier with less burden bearing and with more opportunities to advance. New sources of affordable, accessible energy would set them down the road of achieving such aspirations.'' The Kyoto Protocol and other efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions have potential to substantially increase human pain and suffering in undeveloped countries while doing very little to stop the destruction of forests. I encourage climate policy makers from wealthy counties to carefully read the following letter from Dr. Christy and avoid the unintended consequences that cause pain and suffering to rural people in developing countries. The University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL, May 22, 2003. Hon. Richard Pombo, Chairman, House Committee on Resources, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Pombo: It was a pleasure participating in your 13 May 2003 hearing regarding the Kyoto Protocol. As you requested, I am happy to provide this letter to clarify and expand on your question during the hearing about how my experiences working and living in Africa affect my insights into the issue of global warming. After graduating from college in 1973 I applied for service as a missionary to Kenya. I was appointed to a position as ``Science Master'' at the Baptist High School in Nyeri, meaning I taught the physics and chemistry courses to African students from mostly rural areas. Baptist High was a boarding school, so many of our students came from homes several miles away. On weekends I would travel to the surrounding small villages to meet the students' families and speak in their churches. Nyeri was a small, upcountry town about 90 miles north of Nairobi. Most of the people in this area lived on small ``shambas'', 3 to 5 acre farms on which maize and other foods were grown. At 6000+ feet elevation, some days and most nights were quite cool, requiring energy for warmth as well as cooking and light. There was no electricity in these rural homes. With only 3 to 5 acres on the family shamba, every square inch was utilized for food production and living space, so the search for fuel was a daily chore for the women and young girls. I would see them daily set out to the edge of the nearest forest, usually several miles away, to cut down wet, green trees, chop the branches into suitable lengths, tie them into 80 pound bundles and load them on their backs for the trek home. Many of these women were either pregnant or carrying small babies in blankets tied in front of them. They would bend forward almost 90 degrees so as to balance the wood and maintain forward momentum without falling. Older women developed a characteristic sway-back from years of burden bearing as they hauled not only wood, but food to and from the markets and water from a creek to the home. The typical home was a mud-walled, thatched-roof structure. Smoke from the cooking fire fueled by undried wood was especially irritating to breathe as one entered the home. The fine particles and toxic emissions from these in-house, open fires assured serious lung and eye diseases for a lifetime. And, keeping such fires fueled and burning required a major amount of time, preventing the people from engaging in other less environmentally damaging pursuits. When the Arab Oil Embargo hit in October 1973, the price of fuel rose dramatically. Oil's scarcity caused petrol (gasoline) stations to close on weekends. What little advanced infrastructure already in place that depended on oil was rendered intermittent or ineffective. For example, taxi prices increased so that the typical African could not afford the desperately needed trip to the town hospital; rumors spread that driving with the headlights on wasted fuel, so night automobile accidents soared; electric power to the few essential institutions which needed it often failed. To people already living on the edge of existence, any perturbation in energy costs was enough to cause significant distress. The poorest people suffered the most with the rising energy costs as what little dependency they had was now out of reach. I've always believed that establishing a series of coal- fired power plants in countries such as Kenya (with simple electrification to the villages) would be the best advancement for the African people and the African environment. An electric light bulb, a microwave oven and a small heater in each home would make a dramatic difference in the overall standard of living. No longer would a major portion of time be spent on gathering inefficient and toxic fuel. The serious health problems of hauling heavy loads and lung poisoning would be much reduced. Women would be freed to engage in activities of greater productivity and advancement. Light on demand would allow for more learning to take place and other activities to be completed. Electricity would also foster a more efficient transfer of important information from radio or television. And finally, the preservation of some of the most beautiful and diverse habitats on the planet would be possible if wood were eliminated as a source of energy. Providing energy from sources other than biomass (wood and dung), such as coal-produced electricity, would bring longer and better lives to the people of the developing world and greater opportunity for the preservation of their natural ecosystems. Let me assure you, not withstanding the views of extreme environmentalists, that Africans do indeed want a higher standard of living. They want to live longer and healthier with less burden bearing and with more opportunities to advance. New sources of affordable, accessible energy would set them down the road of achieving such aspirations. These experiences made it clear to me that affordable, accessible energy was desperately needed in African countries. But the energy issue is relevant here too. My wife, Babs, is the President of the Board of Directors of the Madison County Christian Women's Job Corps. This privately- funded, voluntarily-directed organization seeks to train women to obtain the type of job skills needed today. Most of the women, often single parents, are in financial crisis. Increasing the cost of energy for these women would disproportionately restrict their ability to provide for themselves and their families. As in Africa, ideas for limiting energy use, as embodied in the Kyoto protocol, create the greatest hardships for the poorest among us. As I mentioned in the Hearing, enacting any of these noblesounding initiatives to deal with climate change through increased energy costs, might make a wealthy urbanite or politician feel good about themselves, but they would not improve the environment and would most certainly degrade the lives of those who need help now. I appreciate the opportunity to respond with further explanation of my experiences in Africa and my views on energy availability. Sincerely, John R. Christy, Director, Earth System Science Center, Professor, Atmospheric Science, Alabama State Climatologist.