mr. chairman , i rise in opposition to this legislation and in support of the markey/johnson amendment to protect the arctic national wildlife refuge . 
i am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the udall-eisenhower arctic wilderness act and am diametrically opposed to drilling in the refuge . 
i say this as an unabashed advocate for protecting the environment . 
as rep . 
markey recently stated , `` we must draw the line against drilling in our few remaining pristine habitats set aside specifically for preserving wildlife for future generations . 
if we allow drilling in the arctic national wildlife refuge , there will be no place in america so special that it can not be opened up for commercial exploitation. '' unfortunately , the environmental ethic holds no value with this white house or a majority of my colleagues in this chamber . 
they simply do n't care . 
so let me try another tract . 
it 's one that i fear is too real a scenario and one this energy bill falls seriously short of addressing . 
today , this year , this decade , it really does n't matter , but someday and someday soon we will cross the point where world demand for oil will outpace available supply . 
the disagreement is n't about if it will occur , it 's when . 
and , when it does occur it will be a time of reckoning . 
we will have to reorient our oil-dependent economy into something less consumptive of oil . 
if the shortfall in supply takes on crisis type dimensions , the transition will be much more disruptive economically and socially . 
the one reserve we possess to ease this transition , buy us time and mitigate a crisis , is the untapped reserve thought to exist under the national arctic wildlife refuge . 
i would hate to see this reserve extracted under any circumstance , but if one day it must , let it be for better reasons than those presented today . 
i doubt there will ever be sufficient safeguards to guarantee this serengeti of the arctic can be protected once drilling starts , but if there is credence to the argument that the technology and safeguards used today are better than yesterday 's , then tomorrow 's will still be more advanced than today 's improvements . 
let 's not drill now , squander our last reserve of oil and gain nothing in improved economic security . 
unless this bill places our nation on a path toward lower levels of oil consumption , greater use of alternative fuels , greater levels of fuel efficiency and conservation , why should we advance the calendar on the day of reckoning ? 
why should we consume next year 's seed corn , when we have n't experimented with alternative diets or eating less ? 
support the markey/johnson amendment ; oppose drilling in the refuge . 
mr. chairman , i rise in support of the boehlert/markey cafe standard amendment . 
when it comes to cheap energy and low gasoline prices , we have lived on borrowed time . 
as a whole our energy policies promote profligate consumption . 
the more you buy and consume the cheaper the unit price . 
the bill before us does little to wean our nation from its dependence on foreign and unstable sources of energy . 
according to doe , this nation consumes 24 percent of the world 's energy while comprising less than 7 percent of the world 's population . 
today , the world is racing to develop and catching up with our consumptive habits and standard of living . 
it 's a race that can not succeed and is unsustainable over the long term . 
i deeply regret that a majority in this congress for years blocked the department of transportation from raising the corporate average fuel efficiency standard for automobiles and trucks then , when the white house changed hands in 2001 , and perhaps confident that no real action to raise standards would occur , the restriction was no longer included as a rider in the appropriations bills . 
this short sighted policy has placed us squarely in the situation we are in today . 
had the current president 's father adopted tougher cafe standards , put us on a gradual path to 27 miles per gallon for light trucks and 34 gallons for cars , we would have displaced all oil we import from opec today . 
of course we would still be importing oil from the persian gulf , but our economy and our transportation sector and today 's auto manufacturers would not be reeling from the consequences of $ 50 barrels of oil and $ 2.35 per gallon of gasoline . 
mr. chairman , for the sake of the future of our country and our long term economic prosperity we need to wean ourselves from our dependency on oil . 
nothing is likely to have a greater impact in accomplishing this goal than making our transportation sector more fuel efficient . 
i urge my colleagues to support the boehlert-markey amendment . 
mr. chairman , i rise in vehement opposition to this legislation . 
two years have passed since the last time we debated a comprehensive energy bill on the house floor , but the majority appears to have learned nothing since that time . 
what we are considering today is practically the same , identical bill from last congress . 
it even has the same bill number ( h.r. 6 ) as last time , as if it were photocopied with complete indifference to the disturbing news and international developments that have come to pass in recent years . 
mr. chairman , why is oil more than $ 50 a barrel and gasoline prices averaging $ 2.28 per gallon ? 
the simple answer , demand is up and supply is limited . 
a more thorough investigation leaves one very troubled with the direction we are headed . 
while demand from the u.s. and other industrialized nations is growing on average 1.2 percent , the situation in developing nations has radically altered . 
demand for oil in these countries is now growing at an average of 2.7 percent annually . 
on its face that may not sound like a lot but it is not sustainable and is largely the cause behind the higher prices we 're encountering today . 
in china , demand for oil is growing at almost an exponential rate . 
india is n't far behind either . 
combined , these countries represent 35 percent of the world 's population . 
another sign of concern is that indonesia , a member of opec , became a net importer of oil in 2004 . 
these recent increases in worldwide oil demand are not a one-time phenomenon ; there 're here to stay and will continue to squeeze markets and push oil prices ever higher . 
the department of energy , on its own web site , even suggests that crude oil prices will continue to cost over $ 50 per barrel . 
( though they are silent on any long-term forecast. ) mr. chairman , we are an oil-based economy . 
while coal , uranium and some renewable sources such as wind comprise a majority of the fuel used to generate electricity , most of our economy is dependent or exclusively reliant on oil , from fertilizers for agriculture , plastics for manufacturing to gasoline and diesel for transportation . 
unfortunately , h.r. 6 does very little to prepare us for the day when this insatiable demand for oil outpaces world supplies . 
when that day comes , the prospect of $ 80 barrels of oil and $ 4.50 a gallon of gasoline are not unrealistic . 
some pessimistic forecasts even predict $ 200 barrels and $ 10 a gallon of gasoline . 
many experts believe that most of the world 's proven reserves have been found and that supplies will decline an average of 3 to 6 percent a year once the oil peak has been crossed . 
the oil shock caused by the arab oil embargo of 1973-74 cut supplies temporarily by 5 percent . 
the social and economic disruptions caused by this temporary disruption in supply were felt for more than a decade . 
gas prices shot up 400 percent , inflation ran rampant and was fought with double digit interest rates and unemployment climbed over 10 percent . 
are we prepared or are we preparing ourselves for some permanent downward decline in supply ? 
does this bill prepare us for this eventuality ? 
i think the answer is that it clearly does not . 
why are we rushing to exploit pristine wilderness areas like the arctic national wildlife refuge and bestowing more tax incentives on some of america 's most profitable companies and individuals to tap our last domestic sources of domestic oil and gas when these sources wo n't even make a dent in our oil and gas needs ? 
where are the incentives and subsidies to wean us from our dependency on foreign oil ? 
where are the incentives and subsidies to retool industry to alternative fuels and greater efficiency ? 
one part of our solution to the looming energy crisis is to require automobiles to be more fuel efficient . 
had we improved efficiency through higher cafe standards 27 miles for light trucks and 33 for cars back in the early 1990s , we could have displaced all the oil we imported from opec today . 
this bill is shamefully silent on that issue . 
we have been shortsighted in our energy policies , preferring to influence short-term prices , keeping them artificially low while ignoring the long-term consequences of programs and policies that promote greater consumption and profligate waste . 
when oil supplies begin their decline and prices spiral higher , our profligate waste may be our one silver bullet to respond . 
there are incredible opportunities to make industry , office buildings , homes and vehicles more fuel efficient . 
we can not sustain a situation where 6.7 percent of the world 's population continues to consume 24 percent of the world 's energy . 
( energy information administration 2002 figures : 405 quadrillion btus world -- 98 quadrillion btus u.s. ) mr. chairman , this bill is deficient and heads our country in the wrong direction . 
it rushes us closer to the day shortages occur and sets us backward on our ability to address it . 
i urge my colleagues to reject this bill . 
