FDA announces proposal and draft guidance for food developed through biotechnology
	NOAA predicts serious coastal impacts from Climate Change
	U.N. Report Cites Evidence for Rapid Global Warming
	Vives critiques manifestées à la Journée de la Terre contre les mesures anti-environnement de Bush. La plus connue est le rejet du Protocole de Tokyo. Au plan interne, critiques sur les autorisations d'extraction pétrolière  dans la zone protégée de l'Alaska     *** Bush's statement on Earth Day, click here     *** Also: Dems criticize Bush on environment, click here     *** And: Officials defend Bush on Earth Day, click here

ENVIRONMENT 1 / 02 - FEBRUARY 15, 2001 United States Information Service   Embassy of the United States

2, rue Saint Florentin, 75382 Paris Cedex 08 For further information, Sylvie VACHERET Tel: 01 43 12 48 97 E-Mail: vacheret@amb-usa.fr

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES

Bush Announces Climate Change, Clean Air Initiatives

(Plans aim to reduce greenhouse gases, and other pollutants)

White House Unveils Two Environmental Initiatives

(Plans reduce power plant emissions, and greenhouse gases)

EPA Launches Online System to Reduce Air Pollution

(Will permit Internet trading in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide)

GLOBAL WARMING

Study Reports Slowdown in Growth of Greenhouse Emissions

(Says limiting methane, soot could quickly curb global warming)

U.S. Weather Agency Sees Pacific Warming Trend

(Trends may signal development of El Niño)

Antarctica Shows Little Sign of Global Warming, Study Shows

(Scientists' findings viewed as puzzling in light of global trend)

U.S.-Italy Joint Statement on Climate Change Research Meeting

(Issued after bilateral meeting in Rome January 22-23)

NOAA Predicts El Nino Developing in Tropical Pacific

(Could lead to flooding, drought in different parts of world)

ENERGY

Energy Secretary Abraham on Benefits of Deregulation

(Op-ed column from The Washington Post 01/14/02)

Congressman Gephardt Urges U.S. Energy Independence

(Wants tax incentives for "environmentally smart" energy)

U.S. Energy Official Cites Need for Hydrogen-Powered Vehicles

(Garman says Freedom CAR would build on successes of hybrid cars)

WASTE SITES

U.S. Pushes for Cleanup of Abandoned Industrial Sites

(EPA hails law to restore "brownfields" to productive use)

Bush Signs Law to Encourage Cleanup of Abandoned Industrial Sites

(Cites importance of new environmental legislation)

Brownfields Legislation to Restore Old Industrial Sites

(New law encourages reuse of abandoned manufacturing locations)

Abraham to Recommend Use of Nevada Nuclear Waste Site

(Calls controversial site scientifically sound for development)

U.S. LAND PRESERVATION

NAFTA Group Releases Study on Protected Land in North America

(Cites significant biodiversity loss across continent)

World Wetlands Day Celebrated February 2

(Marks 31st anniversary of Ramsar Convention)

EPA Announces Watershed Protection Program

(Program will support local community efforts to protect waterways)

Bush Takes Action to Restore Florida Everglades

(Agreement ensures adequate water supply for South Florida ecosystem)

INTERNATIONAL ISSUES

White House Announces International Wildlife Refuge

(Habitat on U.S.-Canadian border will protect waterfowl and fish)

White House Statement on Species Preservation Laws

(Laws help conserve elephants, rhinos, tigers)

Study Cites Accelerating Deforestation in Brazilian Amazon

(Findings based on detailed satellite imagery)

Large Amounts of Amazon Rainforest Being Lost to Illegal Drug Production

(State Department official describes widespread deforestation)

MISCELLANEOUS

Bush Names Members to Bioethics Council

(Council tackles human cloning as its first task)

02/14/2002

Bush Announces Climate Change, Clean Air Initiatives

(Plans aim to reduce greenhouse gases, and other pollutants)

President Bush announced two new environmental policies February 14, one to reduce pollutants emitted by power plants and a second to reduce emission of greenhouse gases.

Speaking to an audience at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., Bush said both policies are based on what he called a common sense idea. "Economic growth is key to environmental progress, because it is growth that provides the resources for investment in clean technologies," he said.

The Clean Skies Initiative aims to reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury emitted by power plants. These pollutants contribute to urban smog, acid rain, and health problems such as asthma and other respiratory illnesses.

On climate change regulation, Bush reaffirmed the broad goal of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change which entered into force in 1994, and sets out international goals for reducing greenhouse gases. As international negotiations have progressed since that time, many nations have worked to develop another agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, to outline specific strategies and targets for achieving actual reductions. The Bush administration opted out of the Kyoto Protocol, stating that its provisions would inhibit productivity, and, in turn, do serious damage to the U.S. economy.

Instead, Bush said his approach will cut greenhouse gases relative to economic output. He set a goal to reduce greenhouse gas intensity -- emissions per unit of economic activity -- by 18 percent by the year 2012, preventing the emission of 500 million metric tons of pollutants.

The administration will work to achieve that goal with various approaches, Bush said, such as the development of more energy conservation technologies, greater conservation efforts and development of more renewable energy.

Bush said he intends to discuss this approach to climate change reduction with Asian leaders in a trip that begins next week. "The United States will not interfere with the plans of any nation that chooses to ratify the Kyoto protocol," Bush said "But I will intend to work with nations, especially the poor and developing nations, to show the world that there is a better approach."

Following is the transcript of the President's remarks:

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

February 14, 2002

Remarks by the President on Climate Change and Clean Air

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Silver Spring, Maryland

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much for that warm welcome. It's an honor to join you all today to talk about our environment and about the prospect of dramatic progress to improve it.

Today, I'm announcing a new environmental approach that will clean our skies, bring greater health to our citizens and encourage environmentally responsible development in America and around the world.

Particularly, it's an honor to address this topic at NOAA, whose research is providing us with the answers to critical questions about our environment. And so I want to thank Connie for his hospitality and I want to thank you for yours, as well. Connie said he felt kind of like Sasha Cohen -- I thought for a minute he was going to ask me to talk to his mother on his cell phone. (Laughter.)

I also want to tell you one of my favorite moments was to go down to Crawford and turn on my NOAA radio to get the weather. (Applause.) I don't know whether my guy is a computer or a person. (Laughter.) But the forecast is always accurate, and I appreciate that. I also want to thank you for your hard work, on behalf of the American people.

I appreciate my friend, Don Evans's leadership. I've known him for a long time. You're working for a good fellow, if you're working at the Commerce Department, or at NOAA. And I want to thank Spence Abraham and Christie Todd Whitman for their service to the country, as well. I've assembled a fabulous Cabinet, people who love their country and work hard. And these are three of some of the finest Cabinet officials I've got. (Applause.)

I want to thank Jim Connaughton, who is the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality. He's done a fabulous job of putting this policy together, a policy that I'm about to explain. But before I do, I also want to thank some members of Congress who have worked with us on this initiative. I want to thank Bob Smith and George Voinovich, two United States senators, for their leadership in pursuing multi-pollutant legislation; as well as Congressmen Billy Tauzin and Joe Barton. And I want to thank Senator Chuck Hagel and Larry Craig for their work on climate issues. These members of Congress have had an impact on the policies I am just about to announce.

America and the world share this common goal: we must foster economic growth in ways that protect our environment. We must encourage growth that will provide a better life for citizens, while protecting the land, the water, and the air that sustain life.

In pursuit of this goal, my government has set two priorities: we must clean our air, and we must address the issue of global climate change. We must also act in a serious and responsible way, given the scientific uncertainties. While these uncertainties remain, we can begin now to address the human factors that contribute to climate change. Wise action now is an insurance policy against future risks.

I have been working with my Cabinet to meet these challenges with forward and creative thinking. I said, if need be, let's challenge the status quo. But let's always remember, let's do what is in the interest of the American people.

Today, I'm confident that the environmental path that I announce will benefit the entire world. This new approach is based on this common-sense idea: that economic growth is key to environmental progress, because it is growth that provides the resources for investment in clean technologies.

This new approach will harness the power of markets, the creativity of entrepreneurs, and draw upon the best scientific research. And it will make possible a new partnership with the developing world to meet our common environmental and economic goals.

We will apply this approach first to the challenge of cleaning the air that Americans breathe. Today, I call for new Clean Skies legislation that sets tough new standards to dramatically reduce the three most significant forms of pollution from power plants, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury.

We will cut sulfur dioxide emissions by 73 percent from current levels. We will cut nitrogen oxide emissions by 67 percent. And, for the first time ever, we will cap emissions of mercury, cutting them by 69 percent. These cuts will be completed over two measured phases, with one set of emission limits for 2010 and for the other for 2018.

This legislation will constitute the most significant step America has ever taken -- has ever taken -- to cut power plant emissions that contribute to urban smog, acid rain and numerous health problems for our citizens.

Clean Skies legislation will not only protect our environment, it will prolong the lives of thousands of Americans with asthma and other respiratory illnesses, as well as with those with heart disease. And it will reduce the risk to children exposed to mercury during a mother's pregnancy.

The Clean Skies legislation will reach our ambitious air quality goals through a market-based cap-and-trade approach that rewards innovation, reduces cost and guarantees results. Instead of the government telling utilities where and how to cut pollution, we will tell them when and how much to cut. We will give them a firm deadline and let them find the most innovative ways to meet it.

We will do this by requiring each facility to have a permit for each ton of pollution it emits. By making the permits tradeable, this system makes it financially worthwhile for companies to pollute less, giving them an incentive to make early and cost effective reductions.

This approach enjoys widespread support, with both Democrats and Republicans, because we know it works. You see, since 1995 we have used a cap-and-trade program for sulfur dioxide pollution. It has cut more air pollution, this system has reduced more air pollution in the last decade than all other programs under the 1990 Clean Air Act combined. And by even more than the law required. Compliance has been virtually 100 percent. It takes only a handful of employees to administer this program. And no one had to enter a courtroom to make sure the reductions happened.

Because the system gives businesses an incentive to create and install innovative technologies, these reductions have cost about 80 percent less than expected. It helps to keep energy prices affordable for our consumers. And we made this progress during a decade when our economy, and our demand for energy, was growing.

The Clean Skies legislation I propose is structured on this approach because it works. It will replace a confusing, ineffective maze of regulations for power plants that has created an endless cycle of litigation. Today, hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on lawyers, rather than on environmental protection. The result is painfully slow, uncertain and expensive programs on clean air.

Instead, Clean Skies legislation will put less money into paying lawyers and regulators, and money directly into programs to reduce pollution, to meet our national goal. This approach, I'm absolutely confident, will bring better and faster results in cleaning up our air.

Now, global climate change presents a different set of challenges and requires a different strategy. The science is more complex, the answers are less certain, and the technology is less developed. So we need a flexible approach that can adjust to new information and new technology.

I reaffirm America's commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention and it's central goal, to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate. Our immediate goal is to reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions relative to the size of our economy.

My administration is committed to cutting our nation's greenhouse gas intensity -- how much we emit per unit of economic activity -- by 18 percent over the next 10 years. This will set America on a path to slow the growth of our greenhouse gas emissions and, as science justifies, to stop and then reverse the growth of emissions.

This is the common sense way to measure progress. Our nation must have economic growth -- growth to create opportunity; growth to create a higher quality of life for our citizens. Growth is also what pays for investments in clean technologies, increased conservation, and energy efficiency. Meeting our commitment to reduce our greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent by the year 2012 will prevent over 500 million metric tons of greenhouse gases from going into the atmosphere over the course of the decade. And that is the equivalent of taking 70 million cars off the road.

To achieve this goal, our nation must move forward on many fronts, looking at every sector of our economy. We will challenge American businesses to further reduce emissions. Already, agreements with the semiconductor and aluminum industries and others have dramatically cut emissions of some of the most potent greenhouse gases. We will build on these successes with new agreements and greater reductions.

Our government will also move forward immediately to create world-class standards for measuring and registering emission reductions. And we will give transferable credits to companies that can show real emission reductions.

We will promote renewable energy production and clean coal technology, as well as nuclear power, which produces no greenhouse gas emissions. And we will work to safely improve fuel economy for our cars and our trucks.

Overall, my budget devotes $4.5 billion to addressing climate change -- more than any other nation's commitment in the entire world. This is an increase of more than $700 million over last year's budget. Our nation will continue to lead the world in basic climate and science research to address gaps in our knowledge that are important to decision makers.

When we make decisions, we want to make sure we do so on sound science; not what sounds good, but what is real. And the United States leads the world in providing that kind of research. We'll devote $588 million towards the research and development of energy conservation technologies. We must and we will conserve more in the United States. And we will spend $408 million toward research and development on renewables, on renewable energy.

This funding includes $150 million for an initiative that Spence Abraham laid out the other day, $150 million for the Freedom Car Initiative, which will advance the prospect of breakthrough zero-emission fuel cell technologies.

My comprehensive energy plan, the first energy plan that any administration has put out in a long period of time, provides $4.6 billion over the next five years in clean energy tax incentives to encourage purchases of hybrid and fuel cell vehicles, to promote residential solar energy, and to reward investments in wind, solar and biomass energy production. And we will look for ways to increase the amount of carbon stored by America's farms and forests through a strong conservation title in the farm bill. I have asked Secretary Veneman to recommend new targeted incentives for landowners to increase carbon storage.

By doing all these things, by giving companies incentives to cut emissions, by diversifying our energy supply to include cleaner fuels, by increasing conservation, by increasing research and development and tax incentives for energy efficiency and clean technologies, and by increasing carbon storage, I am absolutely confident that America will reach the goal that I have set.

If, however, by 2012, our progress is not sufficient and sound science justifies further action, the United States will respond with additional measures that may include broad-based market programs as well as additional incentives and voluntary measures designed to accelerate technology development and deployment.

Addressing global climate change will require a sustained effort over many generations. My approach recognizes that economic growth is the solution, not the problem. Because a nation that grows its economy is a nation that can afford investments and new technologies.

The approach taken under the Kyoto protocol would have required the United States to make deep and immediate cuts in our economy to meet an arbitrary target. It would have cost our economy up to $400 billion and we would have lost 4.9 million jobs.

As President of the United States, charged with safeguarding the welfare of the American people and American workers, I will not commit our nation to an unsound international treaty that will throw millions of our citizens out of work. Yet, we recognize our international responsibilities. So in addition to acting here at home, the United States will actively help developing nations grow along a more efficient, more environmentally responsible path.

The hope of growth and opportunity and prosperity is universal. It's the dream and right of every society on our globe. The United States wants to foster economic growth in the developing world, including the world's poorest nations. We want to help them realize their potential, and bring the benefits of growth to their peoples, including better health, and better schools and a cleaner environment.

It would be unfair -- indeed, counterproductive -- to condemn developing nations to slow growth or no growth by insisting that they take on impractical and unrealistic greenhouse gas targets. Yet, developing nations such as China and India already account for a majority of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, and it would be irresponsible to absolve them from shouldering some of the shared obligations.

The greenhouse gas intensity approach I put forward today gives developing countries a yardstick for progress on climate change that recognizes their right to economic development. I look forward to discussing this new approach next week, when I go to China and Japan and South Korea. The United States will not interfere with the plans of any nation that chooses to ratify the Kyoto protocol. But I will intend to work with nations, especially the poor and developing nations, to show the world that there is a better approach, that we can build our future prosperity along a cleaner and better path.

My budget includes over $220 million for the U.S. Agency for International Development and a global environmental facility to help developing countries better measure, reduce emissions, and to help them invest in clean and renewable energy technologies. Many of these technologies, which we take for granted in our own country, are not being used in the developing world. We can help ensure that the benefits of these technologies are more broadly shared. Such efforts have helped bring solar energy to Bangladesh, hydroelectric energy to the Philippines, geothermal electricity to Kenya. These projects are bringing jobs and environmental benefits to these nations, and we will build on these successes.

The new budget also provides $40 million under the Tropical Forest Conservation Act to help countries redirect debt payments towards protecting tropical forests, forests that store millions of tons of carbon. And I've also ordered the Secretary of State to develop a new initiative to help developing countries stop illegal logging, a practice that destroys biodiversity and releases millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

And, finally, my government is following through on our commitment to provide $25 million for climate observation systems in developing countries that will help scientists understand the dynamics of climate change.

To clean the air, and to address climate change, we need to recognize that economic growth and environmental protection go hand in hand. Affluent societies are the ones that demand, and can therefore afford, the most environmental protection. Prosperity is what allows us to commit more and more resources to environmental protection. And in the coming decades, the world needs to develop and deploy billions of dollars of technologies that generate energy in cleaner ways. And we need strong economic growth to make that possible.

Americans are among the most creative people in our history. We have used radio waves to peer into the deepest reaches of space. We cracked life's genetic code. We have made our air and land and water significantly cleaner, even as we have built the world's strongest economy.

When I see what Americans have done, I know what we can do. We can tap the power of economic growth to further protect our environment for generations that follow. And tha's what we're going to do.

Thank you. (Applause.)

02/14/2002

White House Unveils Two Environmental Initiatives

(Plans reduce power plant emissions, and greenhouse gases)

President Bush announced two environmental initiatives February 14. One is designed to reduce the pollutants emitted by power plants. The other will work to reduce greenhouse gases, which are believed to cause global warming.

Following is the text of the White House fact sheet:

(begin fact sheet)

PRESIDENT BUSH ANNOUNCES CLEAR SKIES & GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE INITIATIVES

TODAY'S PRESIDENTIAL ACTION

Today the President will unveil the most aggressive initiative in American history to cut power plant emissions, as well as a bold new strategy for addressing global climate change.

-- The Clear Skies Initiative. Cuts power plant emissions of the three worst air pollutants - nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury - by 70 percent. The initiative will improve air quality using a proven, market-based approach.

-- Global Climate Change. Commits America to an aggressive strategy to cut greenhouse gas intensity by 18% over the next 10 years. The initiative also supports vital climate change research and ensures that America's workers and citizens of the developing world are not unfairly penalized.

THE CLEAR SKIES INITIATIVE

Dramatically & Steadily Cuts Power Plant Emissions of Three of the Worst Air Pollutants:

-- Cuts sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions by 73 percent, from current emissions of 11 million tons to a cap of 4.5 million tons in 2010, and 3 million tons in 2018.

-- Cuts emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) by 67 percent, from current emissions of 5 million tons to a cap of 2.1 million tons in 2008, and to 1.7 million tons in 2018.

-- Cuts mercury emissions by 69 percent - the first-ever national cap on mercury emissions. Emissions will be cut from current emissions of 48 tons to a cap of 26 tons in 2010, and 15 tons in 2018.

Uses a Proven Market-Based Approach:

-- Protects Americans from respiratory and cardiovascular diseases by dramatically reducing smog, acid rain, fine particles, regional haze, nitrogen and mercury deposition.

-- Protects our wildlife, habitats and ecosystem health.

-- Cuts pollution further, faster, cheaper, and with more certainty, using a "cap-and trade" program, replacing a cycle of endless litigation with rapid and certain improvements in air quality.

-- Saves as much as $1 billion annually in compliance costs that are passed along to American consumers, and improves air quality and protects the reliability and affordability of electricity.

-- Uses the model of our most successful clean air law - the 1990 Clean Air Act's acid rain program - and encourages use of new and cleaner pollution control technologies.

A NEW APPROACH ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

The President has committed America to an aggressive new strategy to cut greenhouse gas intensity by 18% over the next 10 years. The initiative also supports vital climate change research and ensures that America's workers and citizens of the developing world are not unfairly penalized. The President's initiative puts America on a path to slow the growth of greenhouse gas emissions, and - as the science justifies - to stop, and then reverse that growth.

-- Cutting Greenhouse Gas Intensity by 18 Percent Over the Next 10 Years. Greenhouse gas intensity is the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic output. The President's goal seeks to lower our rate of emissions from an estimated 183 metric tons per million dollars of GDP in 2002, to 151 metric tons per million dollars of GDP in 2012. By significantly slowing the growth of greenhouse gases, this policy will put America on a path toward stabilizing GHG concentration in the atmosphere in the long run, while sustaining the economic growth needed to finance our investments in a new, cleaner energy structure. America is already improving its GHG intensity; new policies and programs will accelerate that progress, avoiding more than 500 million metric tons of GHG emissions over the next ten years - the equivalent of taking nearly one out of every three cars off the road. This goal is comparable to the average progress that nations participating in the Kyoto Protocol are required to achieve.

-- A New Tool to Measure and Credit Emissions Reductions. The U.S. will improve its GHG registry to enhance measurement accuracy, reliability and verifiability, working with and taking into account emerging domestic and international approaches. These improvements will give businesses incentives to invest in new, cleaner technology and voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

-- Protect and Provide Transferable Credit for Emission Reductions. The President will direct the Secretary of Energy to recommend reforms to: (1) ensure that businesses that register voluntary reductions are not penalized under a future climate policy, and (2) give credit to companies that can show real emissions reductions.

-- Reviewing Progress on Climate Change and Taking Additional Action if Necessary in 2012, which may include a broad, market-based program, as well as additional initiatives to accelerate technology. If, in 2012, we find that we are not on track toward meeting our goal, and sound science justifies further policy action, the United States will respond with additional measures that may include a broad, market-based program as well as additional incentives and voluntary measures designed to accelerate technology development and deployment.

-- Unprecedented Funding for Climate Change-Related Programs: The President's budget in FY 2003 provides $4.5 billion for global climate change-related activities - a $700 million increase. This includes the first year of funding for a five-year, $4.6 billion commitment to tax credits for renewable energy sources.

-- A Comprehensive Range of New and Expanded Domestic and International Policies, including:

-- Expanded research and development of climate-related science and technology --- Expanded use of renewable energy

-- Business sector challenges

-

- Improvements in the transportation sector

-- Incentives for sequestration

-- Enhanced support for climate observation and mitigation in the developing world.

-- A Better Alternative to the Kyoto Protocol. Rather than making drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that would put millions of Americans out of work and undermine our ability to make long-term investments in clean energy - as the Kyoto Protocol would have required - the President's growth-based approach will accelerate the development of new technologies and encourage partnership on climate change issues with the developing world.

12/26/2001

EPA Launches Online System to Reduce Air Pollution

(Will permit Internet trading in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide)

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has begun an online system for faster and more efficient trading in allowances for emissions of two major air pollutants, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide.

The concept of using market forces to allow trading in air emissions under an overall ceiling has already proven highly successful in reducing air pollution and improving air quality in the United States.

Under the new system, called the Online Allowance Transfer System (OATS), industrial participants can record trades to EPA through the Internet instead of submitting time-consuming paper forms.

These so-called "emissions cap-and-trade programs," which permit companies to trade allowances of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, ensure that environmental goals are met while providing companies with an alternative to the installation of costly pollution control devices to comply with the law. (A trading unit is called an allowance and is equivalent to one ton of air emissions.)

"EPA expects this online system will streamline and accelerate emission trading, saving industry and government time and money," said EPA Administrator Christie Whitman. "The cap-and-trade approach has already proven to be extremely successful in air pollution control, and today's online breakthrough will make it even better."

A number of countries are considering implementing similar cap-and-trade programs to improve air quality.

Following is the text of the EPA press release:

December 3, 2001

$20 BILLION EMISSION TRADING MARKET GOES ONLINE

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the latest innovation in air emissions trading, the Online Allowance Transfer System (OATS). This time saving, online system will enable participants in the sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) markets to record trades directly on the Internet instead of submitting paper forms to EPA for processing.

A trading unit is called an allowance and is equivalent to one ton of air emissions. EPA's tracking systems, which currently hold allowances with a combined current value over $20 billion, record official SO2 and NOx allowance transfers under existing emission cap and trade programs. Anyone anywhere in the world can participate in the market, and hundreds of companies, brokers and individuals are already engaged in trading.

"EPA expects this online system will streamline and accelerate emission trading, saving industry and government time and money," said EPA Administrator Christie Whitman. "The cap-and-trade approach has already proven to be extremely successful in air pollution control, and today's online breakthrough will make it even better."

Emissions cap and trade programs ensure that environmental goals are met, while providing companies an alternative to the installation of costly pollution control technologies in complying with the law. It was first used nationally by EPA in its acid-rain program to reduce SO2 and then utilized by the Northeastern states to reduce NOx, by Southern California to reduce SO2 and NOx, and by Chicago, Illinois, to reduce volatile organic compounds, the prime ingredient in the formation of ground-level ozone (smog). These cap-and-trade programs effectively reduce air pollution by setting a permanent cap on emissions, then allowing trading within that cap.

As a prerequisite to trading, however, EPA requires rigorous monitoring and reporting standards, and mandates that companies pay automatic fees to the government for any emissions above the legal limit. Rigorous monitoring is essential to ensuring certainty and consistency in the program, making sure that each allowance traded represents one ton of emissions, regardless of where it is generated. It is this certainty and consistency that enables creation of a robust market for allowances, free from the need for government review and approval of transactions. EPA emphasizes, however, that no matter how many allowances a utility holds, it will not be allowed to emit emission levels that would violate the national or state atmospheric (ambient) health-protection standards.

Both EPA's acid-rain program and the Northeastern NOx Budget Program have reduced emissions faster than would have occurred with more conventional approaches. The acid rain program has reduced SO2 emissions by six million tons per year from 1980 levels, and the cost has been 75 percent below original projections by industry. EPA expects that by the program's full implementation date of 2010, emissions from power plants will be half of their 1980 levels, improving lakes and streams damaged by acid rain and delivering more than $50 billion per year in health benefits to Americans. The Northeastern Program has reduced NOx emissions by more than 50 percent from 1990 levels. Under an EPA rule, this type of NOx control program may expand to as many as 19 states in 2004.

Additional cap and trade programs have been proposed by Congress to reduce electricity industry emissions in the United States, and dozens of countries around the world are considering implementing such programs.

For information on registering for access to online trading, visit: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/transfer/index.html

01/17/2002

Study Reports Slowdown in Growth of Greenhouse Emissions

(Says limiting methane, soot could quickly curb global warming)

U.S. scientists report that the rate of growth of greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming has slowed since its peak in 1980, due in part to international efforts to reduce releases of ozone-depleting chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and a slower growth of methane.

According to a January 14 press release, researchers at the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, a division of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), have shown that global warming in recent decades has probably been caused by carbon dioxide emitted by the burning of fossil fuels, and by other greenhouse gases including CFCs, methane, black carbon soot particles, and tropospheric ozone or smog.

James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute and a co-author of the study, said the phase out of CFCs is the most important factor accounting for the slower growth of greenhouse gas emissions over the past 20 years.

"But it is also due to slower growth of methane and carbon dioxide, for reasons that aren't well understood and need more study," he said.

The 1987 Montreal Protocol, ratified by 176 countries, calls for the elimination of ozone-depleting substances like CFCs through the development of chemical substitutes. Damage of the Earth's ozone layer by CFC's and other substances allow higher amounts of ultraviolet radiation to reach the Earth's surface, causing skin cancers and other health problems.

The Goddard study also suggests that further reductions of methane emissions and soot could yield a major near-term success story in the battle against global warming, providing time to work on technologies to reduce future carbon dioxide emissions.

Sources of methane, a naturally occurring gas that enters the atmosphere as a byproduct of decomposition, include rice cultivation, industrial production and garbage disposal. Diesel powered trucks and buses are primary sources of airborne soot.

Further information on the findings of the Goddard study, which appeared in the December 18 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, can be found at http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020103greenhouse.html#press

Following is the text of the press release:

(begin text)

The Goddard Institute of Space Studies

January 14, 2002

GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS GROWTH SLOWED OVER PAST DECADE

A new NASA-funded study shows that the rate of growth of greenhouse gas emissions has slowed since its peak in 1980, due in part to international cooperation that led to reduced chlorofluorocarbon use, slower growth of methane, and a steady rate of carbon dioxide emissions.

Researchers have shown that global warming in recent decades has probably been caused by carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases including chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), methane, tropospheric ozone, and black carbon (soot) particles.

Overall, growth of emissions has slowed over the past 20 years, with the CFC phase-out being the most important factor, according to the study.

"The decrease is due in large part to cooperative international actions of the Montreal Protocol for the phase-out of ozone depleting gases," said Dr. James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York. "But it is also due in part to slower growth of methane and carbon dioxide, for reasons that aren't well understood and need more study."

The findings appeared in the December 18 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Hansen co-authored the paper with Makiko Sato of Columbia University, New York.

The warming effect of methane is about half as large as that of CO2, and when methane increases it also causes a rise in tropospheric ozone levels. Tropospheric ozone is a principal ingredient in "smog," which is harmful to human health and reduces agricultural productivity. The rate of methane growth has slowed during the past decade, and it may be possible to halt its growth entirely and eventually reduce atmospheric amounts, Hansen and Sato suggest.

Another warming agent deserving special attention, according to the authors, is soot. Soot is a product of incomplete combustion. Diesel powered trucks and buses are primary sources of airborne soot in the United States. Even larger amounts of soot occur in developing countries.

The study also suggests that reduction of methane emissions and soot could yield a major near term success story in the battle against global warming, thus providing time to work on technologies to reduce future carbon dioxide emissions. Currently, technologies are within reach to reduce other global air pollutants, like methane, in ways that are cheaper and faster than reducing CO2.

Though reducing these climate-forcing agents is important, scientists caution that limiting CO2 will still be needed to slow global warming over the next 50 years.

Hansen emphasizes that CO2 emissions are the single largest climate forcing, and warns that they need to be slowed soon and eventually curtailed more strongly to stabilize atmospheric conditions and stop global warming. Over the next few decades, Hansen said, it is important to limit emissions of forcing agents other than CO2, to buy time until CO2 emissions can be better managed.

If fossil fuel use continues at today's rates for the next 50 years, and if growth of methane and air pollution is halted, the warming in 50 years will be about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit (0.7 Celsius). That amount of warming is significant, according to Hansen, but it is less than half the warming in the "business-as-usual scenarios that yield the specter of imminent disaster."

The climate warming projected in the Institute scenario is about half as large as in the typical scenario from the report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is because the IPCC considers a large range of forcings and models. The warming in the GISS model is similar to the lowest of the IPCC results, despite the fact that the GISS model has a relatively high sensitivity to forcings.

01/10/2002

U.S. Weather Agency Sees Pacific Warming Trend

(Trends may signal development of El Niño)

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has observed warming in the Pacific that could lead to the development of an El Niño weather system over the next few months. NOAA announced the findings January 9, cautioning that it is too early to predict how significant the weather pattern may become.

The first signs of a developing El Niño are likely to be spotted in the tropical Pacific, according to a NOAA news release, where Indonesia may experience seasonal rains less severe than normal. NOAA will be closely monitoring the changes in the Pacific weather patterns, and updating the public regularly.

The last El Niño took place in 1997-98, causing severe flooding rains and significant damage in California and along the Gulf Coast.

Further details are available from NOAA's Climate Prediction Center at http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/

Following is the text of the news release:

(begin text)

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

U.S. Department of Commerce

IS El NIÑO COMING BACK?

January 10, 2002 -- NOAA's Climate Prediction Center officially announced today that warming is being observed over the tropical Pacific, which could lead to an El Niño by early Spring. The U.S. is not expected to see its potential impacts until late summer, through the fall and into next winter.

NOAA cautions the public that it is too early to predict the magnitude of the potential 2002 El Niño, or how long it would last. "The magnitude of an El Niño determines the severity of its impacts," said Vernon Kousky, NOAA climate specialist. "At this point, it is too early to predict if this El Niño might develop along the same lines as the 1997-98 episode, or be weaker," said Kousky.

Today's announcement is strongly supported by enhanced cloudiness and precipitation occurring over the equatorial central Pacific for the first time since the 1997-98 El Niño episode. Indications for a warm episode, or El Niño, in the tropical Pacific was first noted in August 2001. "Considering the observed oceanic and atmospheric circulation patterns and their recent evolution, it seems most likely that warm-episode conditions will develop in the tropical Pacific over the next 3-6 months," said Kousky.

"The first region on the globe to experience El Niño's impacts would be in the tropical Pacific," said Kousky. "Indonesia is likely to realize some relief from torrential rains. If El Niño develops as is presently indicated, the Pacific northwest will experience wetter than normal conditions in the fall. In the winter, Louisiana eastward to Florida, and possibly southern California, could also experience wetter than normal conditions, and the northern Great Plains will experience warmer than normal conditions."

The last El Niño took place in 1997-1998 and was extremely severe. In the U.S. it was marked by such conditions as flooding rains in California and along the Gulf Coast. NOAA's long range prediction of this El Niño led California to conduct major mitigation efforts leading to the reduction in losses of about $1 billion.

Historically, El Niño episodes have occurred every two to seven years and can last up to 12 months. NOAA will continue to carefully monitor its evolution and provide monthly updates to the public. The next scheduled update will be in early February 2002.

NOAA's National Weather Service is the primary source of weather data, forecasts, and warnings for the United States and its territories. NWS operates the most advanced weather and flood warnings and forecast system in the world, helping to protect lives and property and enhance the national economy.

Relevant Web Sites:

NOAA's Climate Prediction Center: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/

El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Diagnostic Discussion: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/

NOAA's El Niño Theme Page: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/nino-home.html

NOAA's El Niño Home Page: http://www.elnino.noaa.gov/

CLIMATE FACTORS HELPING TO SHAPE WINTER 2001-2002: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s794b.htm

01/14/2002

Antarctica Shows Little Sign of Global Warming, Study Shows

(Scientists' findings viewed as puzzling in light of global trend)

Scientists report that temperatures on the Antarctic continent have fallen steadily for more than two decades despite an average increase in air temperature experienced by the rest of the planet.

According to a January 13 press release, researchers with the National Science Foundation's Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) site in Antarctica's Dry Valleys adjacent to McMurdo Sound have found that the seasonally averaged surface air temperature has dropped by 0.7 degrees Celsius per decade since the 1980s. They have observed similar downward trends across the rest of the continent since 1978, confirming a continental cooling trend.

Their paper, published January 13 in the online version of the journal Nature, says the cooling trend occurred despite a global average increase in air temperature of 0.06 degrees Celsius during the 20th century, making Antarctica unique among the Earth's continental landmasses.

The scientists report that the latest findings are puzzling because many climate models indicate that the Polar Regions should serve as bellwethers for any global warming trend, responding first and most rapidly to an increase in temperatures.

Researcher Peter Doran, lead author of the paper, said the findings of continental cooling across Antarctica present a challenge to climate modelers. "Although some do predict areas of cooling, widespread cooling is a bit of a conundrum that the models need to start to account for," he said.

More information about the Dry Valleys LTER project can be found at http://huey.colorado.edu/LTER/

Following is the text of the press release:

National Science Foundation

January 13, 2002

Pondering a Climate Conundrum in Antarctica

Unique, distinct cooling trend discovered on Earth's southernmost continent

Antarctica overall has cooled measurably during the last 35 years - despite a global average increase in air temperature of 0.06 degrees Celsius during the 20th century - making it unique among the Earth's continental landmasses, according to a paper published today in the online version of Nature.

Researchers with the National Science Foundation (NSF) Long-term Ecological Research (LTER) site in Antarctica's Dry Valleys - a perpetually snow-free, mountainous area adjacent to McMurdo Sound - argue in the paper that long-term data from weather stations across the continent, coupled with a separate set of measurements from the Dry Valleys, confirm each other and corroborate the continental cooling trend.

"Our 14-year continuous weather station record from the shore of Lake Hoare reveals that seasonally averaged surface air temperature has decreased by 0.7 degrees Celsius per decade," they write. "The temperature decrease is most pronounced in summer and autumn. Continental cooling, especially the seasonality of cooling, poses challenges to models of climate and ecosystem change."

The findings are puzzling because many climate models indicate that the Polar Regions should serve as bellwethers for any global warming trend, responding first and most rapidly to an increase in temperatures. An ice sheet many kilometers thick in places perpetually covers almost all of Antarctica.

Temperature anomalies also exist in Greenland, the largest ice sheet in the Northern Hemisphere, with cooling in the interior concurrent with warming at the coast.

Peter Doran of the University of Illinois at Chicago, the lead author of the paper, and his co-authors, acknowledge that other studies conducted in Antarctica have deduced a warming trend elsewhere in the continent. But they note that the data indicate that the warming occurred between 1958 and 1978. They also note that the previous claims that Antarctic is warming may have been skewed because the measurements were taken largely on the Antarctic Peninsula, which extends northwards toward South America. The Peninsula itself is warming dramatically, the authors' note, and there are many more weather stations on the Peninsula than elsewhere on the continent.

Averaging the temperature readings from the more numerous stations on the Peninsula has led to the misleading conclusion that there is a net warming continent-wide. "Our approach shows that if you remove the Peninsula from the dataset, and look at the spatial trend, the majority of the continent is cooling," said Doran.

He added that documentation of the continental cooling presents a challenge to climate modelers. "Although some do predict areas of cooling, widespread cooling is a bit of a conundrum that the models need to start to account for," he said.

The Dry Valleys are the largest ice-free area in Antarctica, a desert region that encompasses perennially ice-covered lakes, ephemeral streams, arid soils, exposed bedrock and alpine glaciers. All life there is microscopic.

The team argues that the cooling trend could adversely affect the unique ecosystems in the region, which live in a niche where a delicate balance between freezing and warmer temperatures allows them to survive and where liquid water is only available during the very brief summer. They argue that a net cooling of the continent could drastically upset that balance.

"We present data from the Dry Valleys representing the first evidence of rapid terrestrial ecosystem response to climate cooling in Antarctica, including decreased lake primary productivity and declining soil invertebrates," they write.

Their data, they argue, are "the first to highlight the cascade of ecological consequences that result from the recent summer cooling."

For more information about the Dry Valleys LTER, see: http://huey.colorado.edu/LTER/

For more information about NSF's network of LTER sites, see: http://lternet.edu/

NSF is an independent federal agency that supports fundamental research and education across all fields of science and engineering, with an annual budget of about $4.8 billion. NSF funds reach all 50 states, through grants to about 1,800 universities and institutions nationwide. Each year, NSF receives about 30,000 competitive requests for funding, and makes about 10,000 new funding awards. NSF also awards over $200 million in professional and service contracts yearly.

01/23/2002

U.S.-Italy Joint Statement on Climate Change Research Meeting

(Issued after bilateral meeting in Rome January 22-23)

A joint statement was released by the United States and Italy at the conclusion of a bilateral "Joint Climate Change Research Meeting" in Rome January 22-23.

The two countries identified over 20 joint climate change research activities for immediate implementation as well as topics for further development in such areas as global and regional climate modeling, atmospheric studies related to climate, carbon cycle research, and low-carbon technologies, and other related areas. They also agreed to each designate coordinators for the development of specific research projects.

Following is the joint statement:

(begin text)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Office of the Spokesman

January 23, 2002

Statement by Richard Boucher, Spokesman

U.S.-ITALY BILATERAL "JOINT CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH MEETING"

Following is the text of a joint statement released today by the United States and Italy.

"The United States and Italy convened a bilateral "Joint Climate Change Research Meeting" in Rome on January 22-23, 2002, following upon the July 19, 2001 pledge of President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to undertake joint research on climate change. This pledge recognized the need to draw on sound science and the power of technology to reduce the uncertainty associated with future global climate and environmental change.

The respective delegations were led by Dr. Harlan Watson of the U.S. Department of State and Dr. Paul Anastas of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy for the American side, and by Dr. Corrado Clini of the Ministry of Environment and Territory and Dr. Luciano Criscuoli of the Ministry of Education and Research for the Italian side.

The two sides identified more than 20 joint climate change research activities for immediate implementation and more topics for further development in the critical areas of global and regional climate modeling, atmospheric studies related to climate, carbon cycle research, low-carbon technologies, and other related areas. The climate science research activities for immediate implementation will improve the capability to understand, monitor and predict climatic variations and their impacts. In addition, the technology research activities for immediate implementation will contribute to the development of advanced low carbon technologies to limit net emissions of greenhouse gases.

The United States and Italy also agreed to each designate coordinators under the auspices of the Agreement Between the Governments of the United States of America and Italy for Scientific and Technological Cooperation to coordinate the development of specific research projects and to monitor the progress of these projects. The coordinators will provide a status report at the Seventh Biennial Review of the Agreement to be held in Washington, DC later this year."

02/06/2002

NOAA Predicts El Nino Developing in Tropical Pacific

(Could lead to flooding, drought in different parts of world)

Scientists of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), using climate monitoring data from polar orbiting satellites and a network of ocean buoys, predict that it is likely an El Nino weather system will develop in the tropical Pacific in the next three months.

According to a February 5 press release, the scientists also predict a localized warming of sea surface temperatures off the coasts of Ecuador and Peru over the next few weeks as part of the steady evolution toward El Nino conditions.

"This warming represents an early stage of El Nino's onset . . . . The impacts will depend on the strength of the event, which we can't determine at this time," said NOAA Administrator Vice Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher.

During an El Nino event, the normally cold water off the west coast of South America becomes much warmer, exceeding the normal temperatures by several degrees, while the waters in the western Pacific cool.

El Ninos can affect weather conditions around the world. Among the consequences, for example, are increased rain storms across the southern tier of the United States and Peru, which have caused destructive flooding; and drought in the West Pacific, sometimes associated with devastating brush fires in Australia.

El Nino episodes occur roughly every four-to-five years and can last up to 12-to-18 months. It has been nearly four years since the end of the 1997-1998 El Nino, which was followed by three years of La Nina. In many locations, especially in the tropics, La Nina produces the opposite kinds of climate variations from El Nino.

Further information is available at http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ and http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/

Following is the text of the press release:

(begin text)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

February 5, 2002

NOAA PREDICTS SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES WILL RISE IN EASTERN TROPICAL PACIFIC

Forecasters' Confidence Increases That El Niño Will Develop

February 5, 2002 - NOAA scientists are observing a steady evolution toward El Niño conditions and predict a localized warming of sea surface temperatures off the coasts of Ecuador and Peru over the next few weeks.

Based on the latest observed oceanic and atmospheric circulation patterns, sea-surface temperature predictions and the time of year, NOAA scientists say it seems likely an El Niño will develop in the tropical Pacific in the next three months.

"This warming represents an early stage of El Niño's onset. If the warming persists, it will be several more months before mature El Niño conditions develop. The impacts will depend on the strength of the event, which we can't determine at this time," said NOAA Administrator Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr.

Confidence in this forecast is based on improvements in NOAA's ability to monitor the equatorial Pacific in real-time, research advancements and improvements in NOAA National Centers for Environmental Prediction statistical and dynamical forecast models.

"Our ability to predict El Niño is dependent upon a robust suite of operational observatories such as the Tropical Ocean-Global Atmosphere (TOGA) array in the equatorial pacific and satellites overhead. These ocean and atmospheric observing systems hold great potential for predicting climate fluctuations on all scales around the globe that have enormous economic impacts in the U.S. and abroad," said Lautenbacher.

Over the past year, NOAA scientists have observed a slow trend toward El Niño, as below-normal sea surface temperatures (-1°C) in the central equatorial Pacific gave way to above-normal sea surface temperatures (+1° C) in the central Pacific.

NOAA's definition of El Niño includes persistent (two-to-three months) enhanced precipitation along the equator near the International Date Line and warmer-than-normal sea-surface temperatures (exceeding +0.5° C) extending from the international date line to the South American coast.

El Niño episodes occur roughly every four-to-five years and can last up to 12-to-18 months. It has been nearly four years since the end of the 1997-1998 El Niño, which was followed by three years of La Niña.

Critical to NOAA's advanced global climate monitoring capabilities is the NOAA polar orbiting satellite and the TAO/TRITON (Tropical Atmospheric-Ocean) Buoy Array, consisting of approximately 70 moored buoys, spanning the Equatorial Pacific Ocean and relaying atmospheric and oceanographic data in real-time to shore-based computers via the NOAA Argo array system. The array is a major component of NOAA's El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Observing System.

NOAA will continue to monitor for developments and provide monthly updates. The next scheduled El Niño discussion will be published by early March. The ENSO Diagnostic Discussion is a team effort of NOAA and its funded institutions. The team consists of the Climate Prediction Center (lead), Climate Diagnostics Center, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, National Climatic Data Center, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, and the International Research Institute for Climate Prediction.

NOAA's National Weather Service (NWS) is the primary source of weather data, forecasts and warnings for the United States and its territories. NWS operates the most advanced weather and flood warning and forecast system in the world, helping to protect lives and property and enhance the national economy.

01/14/2002

Energy Secretary Abraham on Benefits of Deregulation

(Op-ed column from The Washington Post 01/14/02)

(This column by U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham first appeared in The Washington Post January 14 and is in the public domain. No republication restrictions.)

Deregulation Is Working

by Spencer Abraham

In 2001 the nation's largest power trader, Enron, declared bankruptcy. The largest electricity distribution company, PG & E, went bankrupt. The largest independent power producer, Calpine, lost $2 billion in market capitalization in the space of a month. And the nation's largest state, California, went through a series of rolling blackouts.

These events have many people calling for a return to centrally controlled regulation in the electricity markets and for new regulations in the energy-derivative markets. But like the scientist who cut off all the legs of a frog, yelled at it to jump and, when it remained motionless, recorded in his lab book, "A frog with no legs goes deaf," we should be careful about the lessons drawn from these events.

Consider what did not happen in 2001. Gasoline prices did not surge; they dropped. Electricity prices did not continue climbing; they dropped. Natural gas prices did not increase; they dropped. In the face of Enron's collapse, the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history, there were no price spikes, no trading panics, no electricity outages and no gas shortages. On the contrary, we've added some 51,000 megawatts of electricity this year and some 99,000 are scheduled to come on line in 2002. That's more power added to our economy than at any time in history.

The lesson California can draw from the events of 2001 is not the one I've heard recently: "Deregulation is to blame." The lesson is simpler and more classic: Prices respond to scarcity. The state averted electricity outages this summer largely by reducing demand, much of that associated with a declining economy, passing on price increases to consumers and mild weather. But we can't count on the weather, and we need California's economy to grow. What's more, the state still faces a problem: Not enough new power generation has been built, and new generation still is not being encouraged.

Those who see an answer to today's challenges in re-regulation seem to have forgotten the abuses of the past: utilities that engaged in massive building programs unrelated to customer needs; billions of dollars of "stranded" costs (investments that served no useful purpose) imposed on rate payers; bloated budgets and inaction in the face of need.

State planning is no substitute for transparent and competitive markets; just ask Californians who will be paying long-term above-market prices for energy that the state bought at the height of the crisis.

There seems to be an unseemly amount of glee in some circles over Enron's collapse. This is a disservice to the human dimension of Enron's failure. Thousands have lost their jobs, and longtime employees have seen their retirement savings evaporate.

So far, there is no indication that the energy side of Enron's business was the cause of its collapse. The trading functions that Enron performed played a central role in providing market liquidity and risk allocation. Enron was a pioneer in this market, a market that has grown from almost nothing in 1994 to nearly 900 billion kilowatt hours now. Part of the reason the markets adjusted so smoothly to the Enron collapse was the liquidity and risk allocation provided by the wholesale markets Enron had helped create.

None of this is to excuse the actions of Enron management that caused the collapse. There will and should be comprehensive investigations of Enron. We need to send a message to the market that abuses will not be tolerated. But we need to send an equally clear message that we are moving forward with open and competitive electricity markets.

Reacting to the uncertainty created by this year's events, the power generation sector has been hit hard by the markets. Investors are wondering if we are going to continue on the path to open markets or are going to turn back the clock.

Electricity is too important to our economy to suffer through a return to central planning or extended indecision. We need more power plants; we need to upgrade our transmission systems; we need to invest in the new technologies that will move us toward a future of even more clean and efficient generation capacity, with diverse fuels from coal to natural gas to renewables.

The President's National Energy Plan proposes these steps and more. There exists significant bipartisan support for reform. Congress now has the opportunity to ensure we benefit the American consumer and our economy by fostering a more competitive and reliable electricity market.

(The writer is U.S. secretary of energy.)

01/24/2002

Congressman Gephardt Urges U.S. Energy Independence

(Wants tax incentives for "environmentally smart" energy)

The Democratic party leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, Representative Dick Gephardt of Missouri, is calling for tax breaks and other government incentives to develop clean new energy sources and make the United States independent of foreign energy suppliers by the end of the decade.

"Every time there is a crisis in the Middle East, or overseas oil producers decide to fix output, our nation feels it at the pump and in our pocketbooks," Gephardt said in remarks prepared for delivery January 24 before the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). "How many more cycles do we need to live through to convince us that America needs a new energy policy?"

The bulk of Gephardt's remarks centered on the need to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign energy, which he said has grown from 36 percent of supplies in 1973 to 56 percent today.

Gephardt also expressed support for trade pacts that include labor and environmental protections and cited the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement as an appropriate model.

Following is the text of his remarks as prepared for delivery:

House Democratic Leader Richard A. Gephardt

Economic Address

The Long Look Ahead"

Washington, DC

January 24, 2002

Thanks, Al. You know, Al From has been telling that same joke for 20 years now. And the sad part is, the punch line still applies.

When we were in college, the one thing most of us couldn't understand is how a guy who grew up in South Bend, Indiana, could wind up rooting for the Wildcats.

One of the things people don't know about the founding of the DLC is that Al spent most of that first year completely distracted because the Bears were making their run to the Super Bowl. I remember asking him at one point if he thought that the DLC would make 'Al From' a household name. And he said, "Dick, Al From will be a household name when St. Louis wins the Super Bowl."

Well, at least half of that equation came true. I'm not sure if "Al From" is a household name yet, but I do know one thing for sure: the ideas championed by this organization the past decade have made a difference for every single household in America, and are being felt around the world.

Speaking of the Rams, I don't know how many of you saw that game last weekend. If you watched it, you know the Rams defense scored three touchdowns against one of the best quarterbacks in the league. It led one sportswriter to say that the final score should have been listed as: Rams offense 24, Rams defense 21, Packers 17.

If Will Rogers were here today, he would say that from time to time, you could apply the same scoring method to debates that involve the Democratic Party. Some Democrats argue one thing, other Democrats argue another, and Republicans argue something else. But when you add up the final score, I think our ideas do more good for more people than practically anything you hear from the other side.

Even though we have had our differences in the past -- and will again in the future -- there can be no doubt that we have all strived toward a common goal: to make America a place of opportunity for all. I want to take a moment today to thank one person who has worked harder than any other to remind us that our greatest resources in this changing world are the working men and women of America. Thank you, John Sweeney.

We have all fought in our own way to keep government working for people. Today, I want to talk about how our nation can work together to find a new consensus about how we move America forward.

Less than one week from today, the elected representatives of the American people will meet in Joint Session to hear the President of the United States report on the State of the Union.

For most Americans, that question has already been answered.

From the firefighters who ran up the steps when everybody else was running down; to the young men and women in uniform who are making us proud in Afghanistan; from the Americans who still work around the clock to bring a final peace to friends and family at ground zero; to the postal workers who have refused to let the threat of terrorism keep them from doing their jobs -- there can be no doubt: the state of our union is strong.

For me, the question before us today is not just what is the state of our union, but what is the state of our vision? Where do we want to go as a nation, and what are we doing to make that vision come true -- not just in our own time, but in our children's time?

It was the same question our nation asked a century ago. In a nation torn by national tragedy, at a time of great change, Teddy Roosevelt looked out at the dawn of a new century and said: "the one characteristic more essential than any other is foresight. It should be the growing nation with a future which takes the long look ahead."

In this city, it's sometimes hard to take the long look ahead. It's so easy to get bogged down in the day-to-day details of the current debate that we never lift our eyes and look ahead to the next decade -- about how we want our country to look, not just in one year, but in ten years.

I'm afraid we are in danger of embarking on one of those very same kind of debates right now, about the economic future of our country. President Bush has been on the stump across America, asserting that he will never budge on the issue of tax cuts. Many members of our own party have responded with thoughtful proposals of their own.

Like many of you, I believe in tax cuts, but I have always thought that we should evaluate them on the basis of what promotes growth and prosperity for all Americans. If it were up to me, we would have a different set of tax cuts -- focused on those who truly need it and pro-growth tax cuts, some of which I will outline today. Unfortunately, as we predicted last spring, the economic plan that was passed did not consider our long-term economic needs. But we simply have to deal with reality, both in the short and the long-term.

It's my view that we shouldn't be reconsidering tax cuts in the middle of a recession. And in any case, the president has taken it off the table. I think we would be wise not to spend all of our time and energy this year debating an issue that we know will end in gridlock, particularly when we have so many other long-term issues that need to be urgently addressed.

But we will also need to prepare for the time after the recession when we will be back in deficit and taking dollars out of the Social Security trust fund. We will then need a clear plan to get us out of deficit in a way that will allow America to meet its greatest obligations, and we will need long-range goals about where we want to be a decade from now. I hope that we can look for ways to promote growth, honor America's obligations, and promote fiscal responsibility. And I hope President Bush presents a plan for how we will get out of these deficits.

Common sense dictates that as America's elected leaders, we would come together to address these future challenges. But instead of talking to each other, we are spending too much time talking past each other. From the name-calling that greeted Senator Daschle's principled address a few weeks ago -- to the misguided remarks last week that Republicans should use the war to their advantage -- it's clear that while everything in our world has changed, when it comes to domestic issues, the same old partisan games are alive and well.

We shouldn't be so willing to accept one standard for our conduct of the war and another standard for our conduct of the economy, because both affect the long-term success of our nation in equal proportions. The day after September 11th, I went to the Oval Office with other congressional leaders for a meeting with the President. I said, "Mr. President, we have to find a way to work together." I said, "Mr. President, we have to trust you -- and you have to trust us." Since that day, we have met almost every week, and built a bipartisan consensus that is helping America win this war.

But I don't accept that while we stand shoulder to shoulder on the war, we have to stand toe to toe on the economy. We're not going to make any progress on the deficit and America's long-term goals if our only conversation comes from podiums and press conferences. We need to find a way to respect each other, and trust each other, and work together on the economy just as we have on the war.

That's why I am proposing that next month, a group of leaders from both sides of the aisle come together at the White House for an economic growth summit to take the long look ahead -- to figure out how we are going to restore fiscal discipline to our nation; eliminate the deficit; simplify the tax code; grow the economy; and set long-term goals that will provide our people and businesses the tools they need to compete and win in the decade ahead.

There has rarely been a time in our history when the decisions we make today will more profoundly affect the shape and character of our country a decade from now. To paraphrase something Yogi Berra once said, if we as a country don't know where we are going, we might not get there.

I wanted to come here today to talk about some of the values and principles that I believe should guide these decisions, and to set some goals I believe our nation must achieve if our children are going to inherit a prosperous America in the years ahead.

A little more than a decade ago -- in 1991 -- I spoke to the DLC in Cleveland to take a long look ahead at the brave new world of the 1990s.

In that speech, I told the story of a friend of mine who had appeared on a call-in show with a former Prime Minister from Europe. The Prime Minister was asked, "what will the world's economy look like in the year 2000?" He said, "quick answer -- it will be a giant fight between two great powers. On the one hand Japan -- prosperous, wealthy, and productive -- fighting it out for number two against a unified Europe." My friend leaned over and asked, "what about America in the year 2000?" He replied: "By the year 2000, America will not be a factor."

But the question remains: how did we go -- in ten years time -- from being perceived as a shrinking presence in the global economy to the strongest economic, military, and political power this world has ever known?

The answer is simple: our nation was poised to take advantage of the sweeping impact of globalization and the fundamental challenges it posed long before anybody else. For all the things that have changed since September 11th, one thing that hasn't changed are the organizing principles of the global economy. If we are going to be as successful at the end of the decade as we were at the beginning, we can't afford to throw the rule book out now.

What are the rules? Namely, that at a time when more goods move around the world than at any other point in history, the new economy is not just a global economy, it is an engine of growth for all Americans.

We know that in a world in which information technology has driven a third of all of our economic growth, that innovation, shaped by strong research and development -- both public and private -- is vital to creating jobs and new industries.

We know that in an economy where a college education means you earn three times more, where sixty percent of all jobs will be IT [Information Technology]-driven, that the best investments we can make are investments in people -- in their education and training, in lifelong learning and technology.

We know that with just four percent of the world's population, we need to sell our products to the other 96 percent of the world if we're going to continue to be prosperous. Trade must be an engine of expanding opportunity. And we need to work hard to forge a new consensus on how we trade. I am confident that we can negotiate agreements -- like the one we completed with Jordan -- that make trade more free, and protects both the environment and workers at home and abroad. The notion that this is an unbridgeable gap is wrong. I urge the Bush Administration to bring back free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore with meaningful labor and environmental provisions based on the Jordan model.

And finally, we know that in order to achieve these things, in order to grow the economy and raise living standards, America must keep its fiscal house in order -- because money that isn't borrowed by the government is money that can be used to grow businesses, buy houses, and create jobs.

It's no accident that our economy in the 1990s generated 22 million new jobs, dropped unemployment to its lowest level in 30 years, and cut inflation to its lowest levels since the early 1960s. It's because we followed the same common sense formula most families do: we honored our obligations, we saved more, and we invested in the future. And the formula worked.

We were reminded in the past 10 years that government doesn't create jobs, the private sector creates jobs -- and the best strategy that government can follow is the Hippocratic Oath: the first rule is do no harm.

We also know that the government can create opportunity -- by keeping interest rates low; by investing in research; by making schools better; by creating incentives to bring investment to underserved areas; and by acting as a catalyst for new ideas by helping to create the conditions people need to succeed.

Opportunity, responsibility, and community isn't just a slogan -- it defines who we are as a party.

Too often in the past 12 months, we have been forced to advance those goals on our own. Nearly every effort we have made to find solutions has been met by a Republican leadership in the House that has no interest in reaching across

party lines to find moderate solutions. Given the choice between doing the right thing and listening to their right wing on domestic issues, too often, the White House has given in to pressure from the right-wing zealots in the Congress. Too often the party has been dragged so far right it's wrong.

I think most Americans believe it was a national disgrace that our airport security bill was held up because of the misguided fear of a few ideological zealots in the House of placing more well-trained law enforcement officials in our airports.

I'm certain that I wasn't the only American shocked that shortly after the attacks, members of their Congressional leadership suggested the elimination of a provision in the tax code that requires profitable corporations to pay taxes. And by the way, this proposal would have required the federal government to send a check to Enron for over $250 million.

Two weeks ago, when the President signed the bipartisan education bill, he said that we have to fight the fringes in our own parties. We need to hold him to his word. I believe that until the President takes steps to rein in the right wing of his own party, the American people are not going to get the solutions that they want and need.

As we head toward this economic summit, if we can't agree on a set of policies, we should all be able to at least agree on a set of principles that guide this debate as we go forward -- three principles based on the experiences of the past eight years.

First, we need to promote prosperity for all Americans. One of the problems I have with the tax debate as it has evolved is that we are spending all of our time arguing over how to divide the economic pie, when we should really be focused on how we can grow it. It's no accident that the past decade saw incomes increase across the board for the first time in a generation. It's because we worked to expand opportunity -- through things like making education available to more people, raising the minimum wage, and increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Second, we should be forward-looking, use innovative ideas, and choose priorities that pay long-term dividends in our people, our businesses, and our communities.

Third, we should honor our commitments -- particularly to our parents and grandparents. While we all agree that it's acceptable to run a deficit during a war, we have to remember that every dollar we go deeper into deficit is another dollar taken from Social Security and Medicare.

These three principles are not new -- they have long animated the way Americans have looked at our government, and informed our most closely held values about how we, as a nation, widen the circle of opportunity, deepen the meaning of freedom and security, and strengthen the bonds of community. The more we are able to use these principles as a guide to address the long-cherished values of the American people, I believe the answers in this debate will become much clearer to us.

As we look ahead to the possibility of an economic summit next month, there are dozens of goals we could set, as this organization has already done. While I am not here today to list every single thing I believe we need to do to grow our economy and keep America prosperous, I want to suggest four goals that I believe America should strive for by the end of the decade.

First, America should launch an "Apollo Project" to develop environmentally smart, renewable energy solutions to make our nation energy independent by the end of the decade.

Every time there is a crisis in the Middle East, or overseas oil producers decide to fix output, our nation feels it at the pump and in our pocketbooks -- in 1973, 1979, 1990, 1991, and again in 2000, the story was the same: prices spiked in a matter of days sending gas prices off the charts and making hard times for families on tight budgets. In Missouri, prices doubled to over $2 a gallon within just a few months in early 2000, and have swung wildly ever since.

Why do we want to continue to subject Americans to this instability? How many more cycles do we need to live through to convince us that America needs a new energy policy? America's dependence on foreign oil has grown from 36 percent of supplies in 1973 to 56 percent today. At this rate of growth, by the year 2020, we could be importing nearly two out of every three barrels of oil. Even if we allowed drilling off every coastline and in every wildlife refuge in America, our economy -- and our security -- would still be dependent on foreign oil.

We need to begin today to reach the goal of making America energy self-sufficient, using clean and safe sources of energy. I believe that with strong leadership -- and a real energy policy -- we can meet this goal within a decade.

Our primary goals of this policy should be independence -- we should substantially reduce national dependence on foreign oil and keep reducing it every year; stability -- we should ensure that our energy supplies and prices are dependable; affordability -- we should lower the cost of energy in our economy every year; efficiency -- we should use the newest technology to get more work done with less energy, and find new ways to make renewable energy at the lowest possible cost; and clean -- we should increase energy production while also cutting air pollution and protecting the environment.

At the same time, our policy should create new jobs for Americans. It should help American businesses comply with this policy; reduce our dependence on non-renewable fossil fuels, and assist state and local governments in meeting federal clean air guidelines.

In the short term, we need to use the resources and leverage of government to spur the adoption of hybrid cars that show so much promise. Our decade-long partnership with American automakers has already led to development of hybrid cars that can get twice the fuel efficiency of traditional vehicles. It's possible to buy a hybrid car today. We need to make these cars as affordable as we can by giving a tax credit to everyone who buys them.

We can also commit to buying them to meet the needs of the federal government. We should have a goal of one million hybrid cars by 2010, and by 2020, a majority of cars for sale in American showrooms should be hybrids.

Congress should also set a goal of ultimately converting America's passenger transportation to fuel cell vehicles running on hydrogen, the ultimate "green" energy resource, whose only byproduct is water.

By 2010, our goal should be to produce 100,000 fuel cell vehicles -- expanded to reach 2.5 million by 2020. To get there, we need a comprehensive policy that promotes developing and building the technology and encourages the marketplace to buy the new products.

We begin by expanding already successful research programs -- including the Small Business Innovation Research Program and the Advanced Technology Program -- to provide business incentives to step up research.

We need to increase -- not cut -- funding for federal and university research labs.

We need to expand and modify tax incentives for investment in renewable energy to fully support building and buying fuel cells.

We should use tax incentives and transportation funds to help create the infrastructure to support a critical mass of fuel cell vehicles.

And we should provide a tax credit to every family and business who buys fuel cell technology.

We need to find incentives for automakers to direct the efficiency improvement that they regularly make in their traditional engines and cars, to maximize fuel efficiency of every vehicle they sell.

This is not just a road to greater energy independence -- the development of alternative energy has the potential to be America's largest growth market and job producer in the next ten years. Some studies have shown that there is up to a $1 trillion market in the world today for energy conservation technologies and alternative energy sources. We are just on the cusp of discoveries that will be made in these areas that can be just as rapid and breathtaking as a lot of the information technology developments of the last decade. By the year 2020, I believe that 20 percent of our energy production can be achieved through alternative and renewable fuels -- and that's a goal worth reaching.

We can bolster America's competitiveness right away by offering a menu of financial mechanisms, such as tax incentives, loans, grants, and bonds to those power generators and industries that come forward with projects that reduce energy use or increase the use of renewable power.

This approach has not been endorsed by the other side. In fact, the bill proposed by House Republicans last summer would have provided tax breaks for energy -- 80 percent of which went to traditional energy interests. Like most Americans, I am disappointed that their only strategy for reducing our dependence on foreign oil is the same old tired call to ruin one of America's pristine wildlife areas and drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

But we have seen what is possible. A few months ago, I visited with representatives of United Technologies -- which is sinking huge amounts of private capital into developing fuel cell technology that was first developed as part of the space program -- because they believe they can make it profitable and user-friendly by the end of the decade.

I believe that American business should be leading the world in lowering costs through increased efficiency, conservation, and use of renewable energy. I am proposing up to a 30 percent tax credit for business investment in renewable energy generation; new deductions to increase energy efficiency in new buildings, and an investment tax credit for purchase of cars, light trucks, minivans or SUVs with fuel-saving new technology.

We've had too many stops and starts since the 1970s when the need for American energy independence became so obvious. We need government -- on a bipartisan basis -- to make a long-term commitment in the interest of our security, our environment, and our economy.

Second, we should continue to lead the new economy by making sure America has the best-trained, best-educated workforce in the world.

The information age is first and foremost an education age, in which education starts at birth and lasts a lifetime. Nothing is more important to the long-term growth of our economy than the education and training of our workforce.

Today, not only are there more kids in college than ever before, the number of children entering our public schools just surpassed the baby boomers and is now the largest generation in American history.

When Al and I went to Northwestern, I think our tuition was around $1,200 a year. The only reason I got to go is because my parents worked hard, and I worked hard, and we got a loan from our Baptist church. Today, it costs over $35,000 a year to attend Northwestern. We need to do all we can to help families pay for college, and to start saving for college now.

I think we should start by passing legislation that says if you want to go to college or go back to school to update your skills, the first $10,000 of your education costs -- per student -- should be tax deductible.

While we make college more affordable, we also need to make sure that all of our children get off to the right start. We just passed a bill to bring more accountability to our schools, our teachers, and our students. And we need to continue that effort. But we all know that if our schools are going to meet the high standards we are setting for them, they need the resources to get the job done.

There is no group of people in our country today more important than the men and women who teach our children. Yet, by the year 2009, the National Education Association has estimated that we will have to hire between 2.2 and 2.7 million teachers to keep up with retirements and larger school populations. To put that in perspective, there were just 2.7 million teachers -- total -- in our nation's public schools last year. We need to make sure we have smart, well-trained teachers in the decade ahead who will hold our students to high standards, and give them the quality instruction they deserve. I believe we should launch a Teacher Corps, with the goal of recruiting two and a half million new teachers by the end of the decade.

My youngest child, Kate, is an early childhood teacher, and when she was being educated to be a teacher, her classmates laughed at her because she wasn't going to make any money. We need to change that. We can start by offering some scholarship help for kids who want to be teachers in return for a commitment to teach for a number of years plus being held to high standards.

At the same time, more and more workers want to rearm themselves for the new economy and the likelihood that they're going to change jobs several times over in their lifetimes. As a nation, we should allow every citizen to live up to their full potential by providing credits and resources so workers can retrain themselves when industries have modernized and they have lost their jobs. As a nation, we need to honor the contributions of our mechanics and machine workers just as much as our doctors and engineers.

A big part of the reason our growth has been so strong the past eight years while keeping inflation low, is because we made it a priority to give people the tools they need to make the most of their own lives, while giving small businesses the help they need to invest in our economy. This has combined to produce record gains in productivity.

By the end of this decade, we should build on this progress by doubling America's investment in the information technology that is revolutionizing our economy. And we should help train workers for jobs in large and small businesses who are in need of highly trained employees -- by expanding training for dislocated workers, and making lifelong learning more affordable.

If America can increase its productivity by 30 percent over the next decade, not only will we expand the prosperity, but family incomes would more than double over the next generation. Few things will be more important to the long-term prosperity of our country.

Third, we must protect the pensions and retirement savings of all Americans with a universal pension system that is always available and moves with them as they move through life.

By now, everybody in America is wondering: how did Enron happen? As we meet here today, the Senate is beginning hearings to address that very question. The formula seems pretty clear: a corporate system with too little accountability and too many conflicts of interest took America's workers to the cleaners.

If nothing else, if the world's biggest bankruptcy joined at the hip with the administration's biggest contributors isn't a prime case for campaign finance reform, I don't know what is. The real scandal here may not be what the Administration did to help Enron, but what it avoided doing because it was concerned that the campaign contributions created the appearance of conflict.

Perhaps the only good thing to come from the Enron debacle is that it helped expose a little-remarked sea change in America's retirement system.

Twenty years ago most workers were in 'defined benefit' plans -- that is, their employers promised them a fixed pension. Today most workers have 'defined contribution' plans: they invest money for their retirement, and accept the risk that those investments might go bad. Such plans expand an employee's choices; they can choose how much to save, and how to invest their money.

But the Enron downfall helped expose two giant gaps in the system. Most Enron workers and retirees found that their 401(k) accounts were worthless as a result of the precipitous drop in the value of Enron stock. The SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] reported that 62 percent of the holdings of Enron's 401(k) accounts were in company stock, primarily because the company required that its contributions be invested in Enron. When the stock dropped from $82 a share to less than a dollar, Enron prevented employees from accessing their 401(k) accounts -- even while executives of the company transferred nearly $150 million worth of their own stock options and pension plans to other accounts.

I think we need to make changes to this system. We need to give employees more choice and control over their accounts to make sure this never happens again. We also need tougher rules to prevent executive bad behavior.

I propose that we start by enacting stronger penalties for insider trading, and a real firewall between auditing and consulting activities. The last head of the SEC, Arthur Levitt, proposed forbidding auditing firms from earning other fees from its clients. That's a good place to start.

But getting to the bottom of the Enron disaster alone won't fix our pension system. In America today, there are more than 16 different pension programs -- all with their own different rules. You have to be an accountant just to understand the differences. And we have to do more as a nation to boost our national savings rate.

Since most workers change jobs a number of times during their working lives, they will end up with several different pension accounts when they retire. More times than not, employers haven't had the incentive to roll over any lump sum payment from previous employers. It's time we make our pension system truly universal and portable, to follow somebody from the moment they're born to the moment they cash out. I want to applaud the DLC and PPI for their work on this issue.

In the coming months, I will be offering legislation to create a universal pension system that will simplify the system by replacing the 16 current programs with one universal account. Interest on this account will be tax deferred. It will follow a worker wherever he or she goes.

I also propose making sure that each child starts out life right by staking each child with $500 through a refundable tax credit, called America's Children Accounts. These accounts could be used to buy a home or pay for college. With four million children born each year, it would be an investment well worth making.

To encourage low-income savings, I propose making the recently passed tax credit for contributions to retirement savings plans permanent.

We also know that many Americans making decisions about their pensions today are also being forced to make decisions about health insurance. Millions of Americans between the ages of 55 and 65 have lost their health insurance. After a lifetime of hard work, they've got nowhere else to turn. For nearly five years, House Republicans have blocked any meaningful reform to the system to help these Americans.

To solve this problem this year, Congress should let these hard-working Americans buy into the Medicare system. It won't add a dime to the deficit, but it will strengthen our families, and bolster the long-term viability of the program.

As baby boomers start to retire in droves at the end of this decade, there are few things more important that we can do than ensure the safety and security of their pensions and their health.

Fourth, we should make it a priority to develop new technologies that will protect our people and extend prosperity to all of America's communities.

A strong nation also rests on security and freedom -- safe streets, safe schools, safe neighborhoods. We need to set a goal for the American people: that they feel safe and secure because they are safe and secure. There is no higher calling for government than to safeguard its people.

When Speaker Hastert [Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert], John Sweeney and I met a group of business and labor leaders organized by Dick Grasso and the New York Stock Exchange, the message we got from them was clear: the key to economic security was the country feeling safe to go about its business. We shouldn't forget that reality.

September 11th showed us the flip-side of a world where borders have collapsed and distances shrunk. If the American people don't feel safe opening a letter, stepping on an airplane, going to a ballgame, or living their lives, all our efforts for economic growth won't mean a thing. We live in a new era, and we must be ready to defend against a new type of war.

As we all know, the front line against terrorism begins with our airports, water supplies, nuclear plants, electrical grids, and critical computer systems. Most of those activities are funded out of state budgets. Right now, due to last year's tax cut, the war, and the recession, the 50 states combined face a budget shortfall between $40 and $50 billion -- equivalent to 10 percent of all state budgets. In fact, more than 40 states anticipate facing deficits this year.

If we're going to rely on our states to be the first line of defense, we need to make sure they have the resources to do the job. We need to work in a bipartisan way to create a new homeland security trust fund that states can use to bear the new extra costs of homeland defense.

The federal government also needs to be reorganized to fight this new, modern battle. Right now, 40 agencies have a part in homeland security. We need to coordinate better and train better, in order to better protect our borders. We should improve Customs and INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service], to make them more efficient in their often overlapping duties. And we need to do a better job of screening applicants to our country before they arrive at our nation's doors.

We should invest money and research to keep us safe here at home. One good idea to pursue is the Detection Tracking System, another promising initiative supported by the DLC. This technology can detect nuclear weapons material as it is being transported on our highways and roads. Some experts estimate that we could protect the 20 largest cities for a cost of about $1 billion for the first year, and 200 million a year after that.

We can develop mobile systems for less densely populated areas. For biological and chemical weapons we should work on improving airborne particle detection technology. This could help prevent incidents from becoming catastrophes well into the next decade.

Technology can be the driving force to protect lives, create jobs and grow our economy.

In recent years, even though information technology accounts for just eight percent of our GDP [gross domestic product], it has driven more than a third of our economic growth. Much of today's high-tech boom can be traced directly to government investments in research. The Internet, for example, grew out of government support for computer networks such as ARPANET.

One of the keys is building an infrastructure that ensures that all parts of America have the same opportunity for technology-driven growth. That means our underserved urban and rural areas should be places where new businesses see the chance for success.

We need to support -- through grants and tax credits -- partnerships between universities and small businesses to repeat the success of areas like the Research Triangle in North Carolina. The Commerce Department should help create business incubator systems -- so that legal, patent, and technology services don't hold regions back from growth.

And we need to make broadband technology a national priority. By the end of the decade, we should make real broadband available to all Americans at an affordable price. We should use the National Science Foundation to study how the government, in partnership with the technology sector, can make this happen efficiently.

These four things -- achieving energy independence, improving our education system, creating a universal pension system, and deploying new technologies to help protect our people and grow our economy -- do not represent everything America needs to do. But to me, they are essential building blocks for putting our nation on the path to stability, security, and prosperity in the months and years to come.

How our nation addresses these challenges is a responsibility that falls to every one of us. If we don't talk with one another, how are we going to solve the challenges that face us? That's why I think an economic summit is so important. As far apart as we sometimes seem in this city, we must remember that what binds us together is our common responsibilities as Americans, which is more important than our differences.

For all the uncertainty we face today, I would bet there are few Americans who would trade living in this time and place with anybody else. We are fortunate to live in the greatest country during one of the most promising times in world history.

The terrorists who attacked us four months ago wanted to teach us a lesson. They wanted us to know them. But these attacks make clear: they don't know us. They don't know what we will do to defend freedom, and they don't know what they've started. But they're beginning to find out.

Theodore Roosevelt once said, "The American people are slow to wrath, but when their wrath is kindled it burns like a consuming flame."

Let's do all we can to make sure that flame burns not just for justice abroad, but for opportunity at home; not just for peace overseas, but prosperity at home; not just to win the war against terrorism, but to make our economy work for all Americans in decades to come. Together, we can make the 21st Century not only the most prosperous, but the most peaceful and rewarding time in all of history. Thank you very much."

02/08/2002

U.S. Energy Official Cites Need for Hydrogen-Powered Vehicles

(Garman says Freedom CAR would build on successes of hybrid cars)

A U.S. Energy Department official says a new cooperative automotive research partnership called Freedom CAR will reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil by dramatically changing how cars and light trucks are powered.

In a prepared statement February 7 before the House Committee on Science, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy David Garman said the program's long-term goal is to develop technologies for hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicles that emit no harmful pollutants and "eventually remove the automobile as a factor in the environmental equation."

Garman said that Freedom CAR (Car stands for Cooperative Automotive Research) -- first announced by Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham on January 9 -- calls on the agency to work in partnership with the major automakers General Motors, Ford and Daimler Chrysler Corporation. At the same time, Garman said the Freedom CAR project is not abandoning the "successes or the collaborations" fostered by the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) program, an ambitious government-industry effort to develop fuel-efficient, hybrid gasoline-electric cars.

Garman said there are many shared components between an advanced hybrid electric vehicle and a fuel cell vehicle, including lightweight materials, power electronics, electric motors and batteries.

He said, however, that one of the problems with PNGV was its focus on a production prototype of a family sedan, while Freedom CAR would develop technologies applicable across a wide range of vehicles, including sport utility vehicles, vans and trucks.

"Freedom CAR is focused on petroleum free, emissions free transportation, with emphasis on hydrogen fuel cells," Garman said. "PNGV was focused on building a production prototype 80 mile-per-hour family sedan."

Garman cautioned that there are significant technical and infrastructure barriers that must be overcome in developing a hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicle, including fuel cell cost, and hydrogen production, storage, cost and distribution challenges, among others.

Following is the text of the Garman statement:

(begin text)

STATEMENT OF DAVID K. GARMAN

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Before The Committee on Science U.S. House of Representatives

The Freedom CAR Initiative

February 7, 2002

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss Freedom CAR - our flagship research and development initiative to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil by dramatically changing how we power our cars and light trucks.

By way of background, the most striking feature of our transportation system is its nearly complete dependence on petroleum as an energy source. Petroleum is used to satisfy 95% of America's transportation energy needs, consuming two-thirds of all the petroleum we use. Since roughly 55% of our petroleum is imported from abroad, the implications of this dependency on our energy security are well understood by the members of this Committee, and I need not dwell on them here.

There is an expanding gap between declining domestic oil production and our increasing demand. Opening the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to exploration would clearly help, but that alone would not close the gap. The R&D approach we were previously embarked on would have also helped, but would not have closed the gap either. Indeed, both taken together would not have closed the gap.

Mindful of these realities, Secretary Abraham challenged the Department of Energy to take a bolder approach to our work. He directed us to focus our efforts on programs that "revolutionize how we approach conservation and energy efficiency." He challenged us to "leapfrog the status quo" and to pursue "dramatic environmental benefits."

On November 1, 2001, I had the opportunity to testify before this Committee's Subcommittee on Energy, and indicated that we would be more aggressive in the pursuit of revolutionary, transforming technologies designed to decrease our dependence on foreign petroleum. I indicated that we would be shifting our R&D technology portfolio to "higher risk, higher reward" strategies leading to the use of fuel cells and domestically derived hydrogen for transportation. Mr. Chairman, we are following through with this promised shift.

On January 9, 2002, Secretary Abraham, joined by top leadership from General Motors, Daimler Chrysler, and Ford, announced Freedom CAR at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit.

The CAR in Freedom CAR stands for Cooperative Automotive Research. And the "Freedom" concept represents our fundamental, long-term goals for this program: Freedom from petroleum dependence; Freedom from pollutant emissions; Freedom for Americans to choose the kind of vehicle they want to drive, and to drive where they want, when they want; and Freedom to obtain fuel affordably and conveniently.

We are seeking to develop cars and trucks that are free of foreign oil and harmful emissions, without sacrificing safety, freedom of mobility and freedom of vehicle choice. We are looking to eventually remove the automobile as a factor in the environmental equation, and as a factor that drives our dependency on foreign petroleum.

This is a dramatic, far reaching vision, one that requires new technology. We cannot break the bonds of oil dependency by continuing with the status quo. Given the low gasoline and diesel prices we enjoy today, we can reasonably expect consumers to continue demanding larger, heavier, more powerful vehicles, and vehicle manufacturers to continue using internal combustion engines to satisfy that demand. We clearly see this in the marketplace today. The majority of the new passenger vehicles sold in 2001 were, for the very first time in automotive history, light trucks in the form of sport utility vehicles, vans and pickups.

How is it possible to offer performance, convenience and functionality in a range of vehicles that can meet the needs of a diverse population without using petroleum? We believe the most promising long-term approach is to employ hydrogen fuel cells combined with electric drive.

Therefore, the first element of our strategic approach is to develop technologies to enable mass production of affordable hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles and assure the hydrogen infrastructure to support them.

Fuel cells, of course, can be thought of as batteries that are continuously replenished by a constant supply of hydrogen. And hydrogen, the most plentiful element in the universe and the third most plentiful on earth, can be derived from a variety of sources including petroleum, natural gas, coal, biomass, and even water.

But there are significant technical and infrastructure barriers that must be overcome, including fuel cell cost and durability; electric drive performance and cost; hydrogen production, storage, cost and distribution challenges; and many others. Neither industry nor government, working alone, is likely to overcome these barriers in any reasonable timeframe. Therefore, we must work in partnership.

The partnership we have enjoyed in the past, the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PGNV), has had some successes, and we are certainly not abandoning those successes or the collaborations it fostered. Indeed, many of the research elements of PNGV are embodied in the second element of our approach: Namely, to continue support for hybrid technologies and advanced materials that can dramatically reduce oil consumption and environmental impacts in the nearer term.

But one of the problems of PNGV was its focus on a production prototype of a family sedan. Therefore, the third element of our strategic approach is to develop technologies applicable across a wide range of passenger vehicles.

In its most recent peer review of the PNGV program, the National Academy of Sciences made a number of observations and recommendations, a few of which I will list here:

"[T]he priorities and specific goals of the PNGV program should be reexamined. There is a need to update the program goals and technical targets in the context of current and prospective markets ... government and industry participants should refine the PNGV charter and goals."

"[T]he demand for sport utility vehicles, vans, and pickup trucks in the United States has drastically increased ... This has increased the importance of reducing the fuel consumption of these vehicles compared to the typical family sedan."

"If the program goal(sic) were refocused on reducing total new light duty vehicle petroleum consumption, this would encourage the emphasis to be placed on those vehicles that offer the greatest potential for achieving this societal goal."

"...it is inappropriate to include the process of building production prototypes in a precompetitive, cooperative industry-government program."

We have accordingly made changes responsive to the observations and recommendations of the peer review panel. With respect to key goals: Freedom CAR is focused on petroleum free, emissions free transportation, with emphasis on hydrogen fuel cells. PNGV was focused on building a production prototype 80 mile-per-gallon family sedan.

With respect to timeframe: Freedom CAR has a long-term vision with 2010 component technology goals to gauge progress. PNGV was a 10-year program focused on 2004.

With respect to government leadership and focus: Freedom CAR is a partnership solely between DOE and USCAR. PNGV was a collaboration between USCAR and seven government agencies led by the Department of Commerce.

With respect to technology emphasis: Freedom CAR is focused on hydrogen and fuel cells, with transitional efficiency gains from advanced combustion and fuel processors. PNGV emphasized compression ignition direct injection (diesel) hybrids.

With respect to vehicle focus: Freedom CAR's focus is R&D at the component level with equal emphasis on light trucks and cars. PNGV emphasized development and demonstration of pre-production mid-sized family sedans.

Let me again emphasize that we are not abandoning the good work that has emerged from PNGV. There are many shared components between an advanced hybrid electric vehicle and a fuel cell vehicle, including lightweight materials, power electronics, electric motors, and batteries. Breakthroughs we make in these components need not wait for fuel cells or hydrogen infrastructure to reach the market, as they can be employed as soon as they are ready.

We will also be continuing our work in alternative fuels and advanced combustion engines (including emissions controls R&D) that are needed to support the development of advanced hybrid electric vehicles.

Of course, new areas of emphasis aboard the vehicle include hydrogen storage, on-board reformation, and fuel cell stack development.

But we are also beginning to address the technologies necessary to make a transition to a hydrogen-based transportation economy. Principal among these efforts will be solving the problems associated with producing and making hydrogen fuel widely available. To that end, elements of the hydrogen program in the Office of Power Technologies (OPT) are being integrated into the Freedom CAR effort. Efforts by DOE's Fossil Energy office on deriving hydrogen from coal (with sequestered carbon) are also being reviewed. In addition, a related effort in OPT on hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engines is under consideration for inclusion.

In November of 2001 my office convened senior executives representing energy industries, environmental organizations and government officials to discuss the role for hydrogen systems in America's energy future. This group addressed a common vision for the hydrogen economy, the time frame for the vision and the key milestones needed to get there. There was general agreement that hydrogen can be America's clean energy choice, and that the transition to a hydrogen future has already begun but could well take 40-50 years to fully unfold. We are working on a specific technology roadmap covering production, storage, conversion and infrastructure that leads us to that vision, and we are continuing that work as a part of the Freedom CAR program plan.

Freedom CAR Research Components and Spending Levels

We are proposing to spend $150.3 million on this initiative in FY 2003. The most notable changes in the FY 2003 budget are: 1) increased funding for vehicle fuel cell R&D of $8.075 million, to a level of $50 million, and 2) increased funding for hydrogen generation, transport and fueling infrastructure by $9.659 million relative to FY 2002 appropriation levels.

Whereas PNGV was a multi-agency partnership, the only Federal partner in Freedom CAR is the Department of Energy. Since the inception of PNGV, DOE has accounted for most of the government's contributions. In FY 2001, we provided 86 percent of the funding that was directly relevant to the PNGV goals, and that was linked with the plans developed by the PNGV government-industry technical teams. While other agencies are not formally involved as Freedom CAR partners, we intend to coordinate our work with the appropriate technology research, development and demonstration programs managed by other Federal agencies, and by State governments as well. The mechanisms by which coordination is accomplished will be worked out during the next few months.

Conclusion

Mr. Chairman, our vision for Freedom CAR is a bold one, in response to Secretary Abraham's challenge that we act boldly to "revolutionize how we approach conservation and energy efficiency."

Freedom CAR is clearly a long-term effort beyond any near-term political horizon. But even as we pursue our ultimate vision of emissions-free, petroleum-free, safe and affordable transportation, we have developed near-term goals to ensure that we make measurable, demonstrable progress toward that vision in the coming decade.

And again, while we do face significant technology and infrastructure risks, the exceptional rewards and naional benefits we could achieve justifies the effort.

12/26/2001

U.S. Pushes for Cleanup of Abandoned Industrial Sites

(EPA hails law to restore "brownfields" to productive use)

Christie Whitman, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said on December 21 that recent passage of so-called "brownfields" legislation will enhance the cleanup of abandoned industrial sites by limiting the legal liability of small businesses and prospective developers.

"Returning abandoned industrial sites to productive use can create jobs in areas where they are very much needed and also will improve the tax base of many communities," said Whitman.

Following is a December 21 press release from the Environmental Protection Agency:

Whitman Praises Passage of Brownfields Legislation

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Christie Whitman praised Congress for its passage on December 19 of bipartisan brownfields legislation. Whitman said the new legislation will make the cleanup of brownfields a more effective and cooperative effort.

"Revitalization of brownfields and new investment in our cities is essential. The passage of brownfields legislation by Congress will considerably enhance our efforts on those fronts. Returning abandoned industrial sites to productive use can create jobs in areas where they are very much needed and also will improve the tax base of many communities," said Whitman. "The passage of this legislation has been a top environmental priority for the administration and I look forward to continuing to work with Congress on the important issues that face us.

"Cleaning up brownfields will be more efficient with the passage of this bipartisan legislation. By differentiating between large contributors of toxic waste and small businesses who disposed of only small amounts of waste or ordinary trash, and should not be considered responsible parties, we will be reducing litigation as well as removing barriers," said Whitman. "This important action addresses many areas that were of significant importance to the President as we move forward with the assessment and cleanup of what are environmental eyesores. It recognizes the importance of our state and local partners by increasing funding and granting them more flexibility. It also assures prospective redevelopers that the federal government will not hold them responsible for past pollution at the redevelopment site. This effort, which includes small business liability reform, will bring much needed clarity to the liability section of the Superfund law."

01/11/2002

Bush Signs Law to Encourage Cleanup of Abandoned Industrial Sites

(Cites importance of new environmental legislation)

President Bush has signed legislation establishing a five-year program that will award as much as $250 million a year to state and local governments for cleaning up abandoned, polluted industrial sites in urban areas, known as brownfields.

Speaking at a signing ceremony at the Millennium Corporate Center in Pennsylvania, which has been developed on the site of an abandoned steel foundry, Bush called the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act the most important piece of environmental legislation passed by Congress last year.

Bush also reported that his budget for fiscal year 2003 calls for doubling the amount of funds appropriated by Congress this year for brownfields cleanup.

Referring to abandoned industrial sites as "eyesores," Bush said that anywhere from 500,000 to 1 million brownfields exist in American cities across the country. "These areas once supported manufacturing and commerce, and now lie empty -- adding nothing of value to the community, and sometimes only causing problems."

He said the legislation being signed into law will provide lawsuit protection to prospective buyers who didn't create the brownfields, but want to help clean them up and develop them. The law will also help strengthen state cleanup programs; help arrest urban sprawl; and turn polluted sites into productive pieces of property.

Following is the transcript of Bush's remarks:

January 11, 2002

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT IN SIGNING OF H.R. 2869, THE SMALL BUSINESS LIABILITY RELIEF AND BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION ACT

Millennium Corporate Center

Conshohocken, Pennsylvania

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much for that warm welcome. It's great to be back here in Pennsylvania. (Applause.) I'm glad to be traveling with one of the most effective members of my Cabinet, the former Governor of New Jersey, now the Administrator of the EPA, Christie Todd Whitman. (Applause.)

America is getting to know what people in this part of the world understand, that she is an able Administrator, a fine person, a person who cares deeply about the environment and our country. And she's going to go down as one of the best selections I have made in my Cabinet. So Christie Todd, thank you for coming, and thank you for your leadership. (Applause.)

I want to thank you all for coming. When I saw the family over there, it reminded me that we have more responsibilities than just those on the war. And that is, we've got a responsibility of making sure every child is educated, and that the environment in which our children grow up is healthy and clean.

I'm here to sign this bill, and it's a very important piece of legislation. It's a great accomplishment. And I do so in Pennsylvania, because your state has been on the forefront of brownfield legislation, thanks to now the -- in part, to the Director of our homeland security effort, Governor Tom Ridge. (Applause.)

I want to share with you, just right quick, my attitudes about how to keep the peace. And the reason I brought up the family is, is that it's so important for our fellow Americans to understand that our efforts overseas and our efforts at home are all aimed at making sure that little fellow can grow up in a peaceful world, and in a world that understands freedom. We have learned that there are some on this globe that hate America, and hate what America stands for.

Those folks didn't understand our country. They thought because we were prosperous and free, we would be soft and complacent. They made a grave mistake. Our war overseas, and our war at home, to stop terrorist activity, is all aimed at making sure the youth of America can grow up in a free society. They will not stop us. They will not deter us. We will achieve our aims and bring the terrorists to justice, no matter where they hide, or where they exist. (Applause.)

So we'll be focused overseas. And we'll be making sure we follow every single lead about whether or not they're going to try to hit us again. But we've also got a lot of work to do here at home. I made that clear the other day when I signed a really good peace of legislation, and that's the education reform bill. And I'm now making that statement again when I sign this sensible peace of legislation, one that emphasizes the need for environmental stewardship all across the country, and a piece of legislation that will enhance prosperity and the safety of Americans living in urban areas.

This bill was passed because of the work of both Republicans and Democrats. It's an example of what can happen when people put partisanship aside, and focus on what's best for America. It shows what can happen when people say, I'm proud of my political party, but I'm more proud of my country, and I'm in Washington, D.C., to do what's right for America first, not my political party. (Applause.)

And so I want to thank Paul Gillmor, from the state of Ohio. (Applause.) Paul flew over today from his district outside of Toledo, in order to watch this bill being signed. And it's right that he's here, because he was the main sponsor in the House, who has worked hard to get this piece of legislation through. Paul, I want to thank you for coming. I look forward to giving you the pen, as I sign the bill. This should be one of the high marks of your leadership and your service to the country. So thank you for being here, sir. (Applause.)

I want to thank two members of the Pennsylvania delegation for being here, Joe Hoeffel and Bob Borski. Thank you both for being here and taking time out of your day to come. (Applause.) It's good to see the old Governor here. I appreciate Mark coming today. I appreciate his leadership. And I know the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appreciate his willingness to step in when Ridge left. And he's doing a fine job. (Applause.)

I want to thank the Attorney General, Mike Fisher, for being here as well. Michael, thanks for coming, and thanks for your service to Pennsylvania. (Applause.) And then I want to thank Brian O'Neill. (Applause.) I knew the O'Neills were a big family, but I didn't realize -- (laughter) -- they were that big. But I thank Brian for being a risk taker; somebody who understands that in order to create jobs, you have to take a risk; somebody who is an entrepreneur; somebody who has had the vision to take these eyesores and convert them into positive economic assets that benefit the community at large. And so, Brian, I'm proud of the work you do, no more so than the citizens of this community. You're leaving behind a legacy that is positive and strong. And I'm honored to be here at your place of business. Thank you, sir. (Applause.)

I also want to thank some of the Senators that worked on this piece of legislation, none of whom could be here today. They're traveling around in different parts of the globe. One is Senator Lincoln Chafee from Rhode Island. He sponsored the bill. (Applause.) Kit Bond worked on it, Senator Bob Smith, Senator Harry Reid all worked hard to get this legislation out of the Senate, and eventually onto my desk.

All of us have a responsibility to be the stewards of our land. When we use the land, we must do so wisely and responsibly, balancing the needs of the environment with the best interests of those who live and work on the land.

The law I sign today addresses the problem of land which has already been developed, and then abandoned. American cities have many such eyesores -- anywhere from 500,000 to a million brownfields are across our nation. These areas once supported manufacturing and commerce, and now lie empty -- adding nothing of value to the community, and sometimes only causing problems.

Many communities and entrepreneurs have sought to redevelop brownfields. Often they could not, either because of excessive regulation or because of the fear of endless litigation. As a consequence, small businesses and other employers have located elsewhere -- pushing development farther and farther outward, taking jobs with them, and leaving cities empty.

For its part, the federal government sometimes spent more time haggling over regulatory details than it did working with states and cities to fix the problem. The old way of doing things was to mandate, regulate, and litigate. That began to change a few years ago as some states, such as Pennsylvania, and some communities and local businesses began to work together, in a constructive relationship, to find positive solutions to the brownfield problem. And the federal government began to help, by pursuing a more cooperative approach -- with regulatory relief, with loans and with technical support.

Here at the Millennium Corporate Center, if people take time to find out what happened, you'll see the possibilities of what can happen when people work together. For a long time this site was the site of a steel foundry. After the foundry closed, the property sat in disrepair. Finally, with a grant from the EPA, Montgomery County began to work to turn things around. Then O'Neill came in, with private investment, and he received cooperation at every level of government. This place is a good place to work. It is now a good place to live. And there are going to be more people employed here than before. (Applause.) This is an example of what can happen, of what is possible.

And the bill I am about the sign will enable this success to be repeated many times over, all over America. It gives protection against lawsuits to prospective buyers and others who didn't create the brownfields, but want to help clean them up and develop them. And it will help strengthen state cleanup programs, with more federal funding and less federal meddling. My budget for next year will meet this commitment by requesting that Congress double EPA's brownfields funding.

The law will also make way for the creation of more jobs. As the employees here know, when a business develops a brownfield, it turns a stagnant plot of land into a productive neighborhood. What we ought to be asking in America is, what does it take to create more jobs? Sure, we want those who have been affected by 9/11 to be helped with an unemployment check, but what they really want is a permanent paycheck, in all public policy. (Applause.) Public policy ought to figure out ways to make sure that the entrepreneurs can succeed, so that there is job creation taking place all over the country. This is a good jobs creation bill.

Further benefit will come as businesses recycle older properties and spare surrounding lands from development. There has been a lot of talk about urban sprawl. Well, one of the best ways to arrest urban sprawl is to develop brownfields, and make them productive pieces of land, where people can find work and employment. (Applause.) By one estimate, for every acre of redeveloped brownfields, we save four and a half acres of open space.

This legislation will also protect small business owners from unwarranted Superfund liability. Lawyers and governments used to tell small business owners that because they sent their trash to a landfill -- and because that landfill became contaminated -- they were potentially liable for cleaning up the entire site.

When government acts in such a heavy-handed way, it hurts a lot of people, and works against its own purposes. It discourages small business growth. With this bill, we are returning common sense to our cleanup program. We will protect innocent small business owners and employees from unfair lawsuits, and focus our efforts instead on actually cleaning up contaminated sites. (Applause.)

Environmental protection and economic growth can go on together. It is possible for the two to exist, if we're wise about public policy. And the law that I'm about to sign is good public policy. It's got a lot of common sense in it. It's wise. It encourages growth. It fosters the environment. It is the best -- it shows what can -- it is the best of Washington, when people decide to cooperate, not bicker, when people put the national interests ahead of political interests.

And so it's an honor to be here in Pennsylvania, to sign the most important piece of environmental legislation that came out of the Congress last year, the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act. (Applause.)

Thank you very much. (Applause.) (The act was signed.) (Applause.)

01/14/2002

Brownfields Legislation to Restore Old Industrial Sites

(New law encourages reuse of abandoned manufacturing locations)

Following is the text of the White House fact sheet:

January 11, 2002

Fact Sheet on Brownfields President Signs Legislation to Clean Environment and Create Jobs

Presidential Action

President Bush today visited the Millennium Corporate Center in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania to sign bipartisan legislation that will encourage the cleanup and redevelopment of old industrial properties cleaning up our environment, creating new jobs and protecting small businesses from frivolous lawsuits.

The President also announced that his fiscal year (FY) 03 budget [which begins October 2002] will double the funds available through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in FY 02 -- from $98 million to $200 million -- to help states and communities around the country clean up and revitalize brownfields sites. This is an example of budgeting resources for programs that get results.

The Presidents FY 03 budget also includes $25 million in funding for urban redevelopment and brownfields cleanup through the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

And, the Presidents budget proposes to permanently extend the Brownfields Tax Incentive, which encourages the redevelopment of brownfields. According to government estimates, the $300 million annual investment in the Brownfields Tax Incentive will leverage approximately $3.4 billion in private investment and return 8,000 brownfields to productive use.

Background on Presidential Action

Brownfields are abandoned or underutilized industrial or commercial properties where redevelopment is hindered by possible environmental contamination and potential liability under Superfund for parties that purchase or operate these sites.

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that between 500,000 and one million brownfields tarnish the landscapes of communities across America, typically in urban areas. Spurring more effective and efficient cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields will:

-- Remove environmental hazards from communities;

-- Relieve pressure to develop pristine open space and farmland; and

-- Revitalize communities by creating jobs and returning productive property to local tax rolls.

Located 20 minutes from Philadelphia on the banks of the Schuylkill River, the Millennium Corporate Center is the 1,000th site redeveloped under Pennsylvania's Land Recycling Program. The Center is built on the former site of the Schuylkill Iron Works, and, when completed, it will be the centerpiece of a 40-acre, $115 million office, recreation and residential development. More than 500 people already work at the new development.

Some 40 states have developed voluntary programs that are cleaning up hundreds of brownfield sites faster and more effectively, and with less litigation, than under the federal Superfund program. These programs set high cleanup standards and provide liability protection under state law for new owners and operators of brownfields sites.

However, these state programs have been hindered by the lack of liability protection in federal law. Under Superfund, owners and operators of a contaminated property can be held liable for the cost of cleanup, regardless of whether they actually caused any of the contamination. This potential liability creates a strong incentive for businesses to avoid redeveloping brownfields.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors, in its February 2000 brownfields survey, Recycling Americas Land, called for a national commitment to recycle the thousands of brownfields in Americas cities. They estimated that cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields could generate $2.4 billion in new tax revenues.

The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act reforms the major hindrance to brownfields cleanup -- the federal Superfund law. The bill provides liability protection for prospective purchasers, contiguous property owners, and innocent landowners and authorizes increased funding for state and local programs that assess and clean up brownfields.

The legislation also provides common sense relief from Superfund liability for small business owners who sent waste or trash to waste sites, protecting innocent small businesses while ensuring that polluted sites continue to be cleaned up by those most responsible for the contamination.

President Bush called for Superfund reform during his campaign, and worked to craft a bipartisan solution to the problem of contaminated and abandoned brownfields. Overcoming years of legislative gridlock on this common sense issue, Congress approved the bipartisan bill without opposition in December 2001.

01/11/2002

Abraham to Recommend Use of Nevada Nuclear Waste Site

(Calls controversial site scientifically sound for development)

U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham says he will recommend to President Bush that a site in the state of Nevada called Yucca Mountain should serve as the nation's long-term geological repository for nuclear waste.

In a January 10 letter to Nevada officials, Abraham said that the desert site about 150 kilometers northwest of Las Vegas is scientifically sound and suitable for development as a repository and would meet "compelling national interests."

The Congress mandated the Yucca Mountain site as the only candidate for storage of all nuclear waste generated in the United States almost 20 years ago. The government has already spent $6,800 million in preliminary planning and development of the site, with a goal of opening the repository by 2010.

Nevada officials and environmentalists oppose the plan, asserting that scientific evidence shows that storage of 77,000 tons of radioactive waste beneath Yucca Mountain, as the government proposes, could contaminate groundwater because of long-term leaching.

Following is the text of a press release containing Abraham's letter:

U.S. Department of Energy

January 10, 2002

Department of Energy Notifies Nevada of Intent to Recommend Yucca Mountain as National Nuclear Waste Repository

Sound Science & Compelling National Interests Lead to Secretary's Recommendation of Yucca Mountain

Washington, D.C. - As required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham today notified Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn and the Nevada Legislature that he intends to recommend to President Bush that the Yucca Mountain site is scientifically sound and suitable for development as the nation's long-term geological repository for nuclear waste, which will help ensure America's national security and secure disposal of nuclear waste, provide for a cleaner environment, and support energy security.

The Secretary of Energy phoned Governor Guinn at 2:10 p.m. to inform the Governor of his decision. The Secretary's letter of notification was transmitted to Governor Guinn and the Nevada Legislature immediately following the call. Following is the text of the notification letter:

Thursday, January 10, 2002 Dear Governor Guinn:

This letter is to notify you, in accordance with section 114(a)(1) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, of my intention to recommend to the President approval of the Yucca Mountain site for the development of a nuclear waste repository. In accordance with the requirements of the Act, I will be submitting my recommendation to the President no sooner than 30 days from this date. At that time, as the Act also requires, I will be submitting to the President a comprehensive statement of the basis for that recommendation. First, and most important, that recommendation will include the basis for and documentation supporting my belief that the science behind this project is sound and that the site is technically suitable for this purpose. Second, there are compelling national interests that require us to complete the siting process and move forward with the development of a repository, as Congress mandated almost 20 years ago. In brief, the reasons are these:

A repository is important to our national security. We must advance our non-proliferation goals by providing a secure place to dispose of any spent fuel and other waste products that result from decommissioning unneeded nuclear weapons, and ensure the effective operations of our nuclear Navy by providing a secure place to dispose of its spent nuclear fuel. A repository is important to the secure disposal of nuclear waste. Spent nuclear fuel, high level radioactive waste, and excess plutonium for which there is no complete disposal pathway without a repository are currently stored at over 131 sites in 39 States. We should consolidate the nuclear wastes to enhance protection against terrorists attacks by moving them to one underground location that is far from population centers. A repository is important to our energy security. We must ensure that nuclear power, which provides 20% of the nation's electric power, remains an important part of our domestic energy production. And a repository is important to our efforts to protect the environment. We must clean up our defense waste sites permanently and safely dispose of other high level nuclear waste.

As I indicated earlier, pursuant to section 114(a) of the NWPA, I will be submitting my recommendation to the President no earlier than 30 days from today, together with the other documentation the statute requires. I will provide you with a copy of those materials at that time.

Sincerely signed Spencer Abraham Secretary of Energy

In addition to the notification letter, the Department also released today a document entitled Yucca Mountain "Commonly Raised Topics," which includes a map of nuclear-waste sites. This document is reflective of the most commonly raised topics and includes a description of the step-by-step decision process as required by law.

In addition, as required by law, the Secretary of Energy's basis for recommendation and supporting materials will be available to the public once the formal recommendation is delivered to the President.

For an online copy of the "Commonly Raised Topics," a map of the nuclear waste-related sites, and the Secretary's letter to Governor Guinn, visit the Department of Energy's website: www.energy.gov

01/08/2002

NAFTA Group Releases Study on Protected Land in North America

(Cites significant biodiversity loss across continent)

A new study reports that while the amount of land in North America protected from development has tripled over the last two decades, remaining natural environments face a "widespread crisis" due to pollution and loss of habitat.

A January 7 press release says that according to the study, the total protected area in North America has increased from less than 100 million hectares in 1980 to 300 million hectares now -- or about 15 percent of the continent's land surface.

The Montreal-based North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) released the study. The report was required under the environmental accord of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and was submitted by top environmental officials of the NAFTA partners, Canada, Mexico and the United States.

The report says the creation of new wilderness areas accounted for most of the increase in protected land, including the doubling in the size of U.S. areas in 1980 with enactment of the Alaska National Interest Lands Act. Nineteen new biosphere reserves were created in Mexico in the 1990s, and Canada has tripled the area of its protected sites over the past three decades.

The report adds, however, that "looming threats overshadow these positive achievements." All three countries are in danger of being overwhelmed, the study finds, by factors such as the attraction of visitors to natural areas, the allocation of insufficient funds to manage natural places, and adjacent development that turns protected areas into threatened islands.

For example, half of North America's most biodiverse regions are now severely degraded and the region now has at least 235 threatened species of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, according to the study.

The report says bio-invasion, or the spread of non-native species -- introduced to North America through increased travel and trade -- has become one of the greatest threats to natural biological diversity.

The entire CEC report can be found at the following Web site: http://www.cec.org/soe

Following is the text of the press release:

North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation

Significant biodiversity loss across North America, NAFTA body's State of the Environment report says

Three countries responding, but "looming threat overshadows positive achievements"

Montreal, 7 January 2002 -- North America is facing a "widespread crisis" due to its shrinking biodiversity, according to a new report released today by the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC).

"In the process of finding solutions to our transportation, settlement, energy and other material needs, remaining natural environments have been placed under enormous stress, and continue to be fragmented, polluted or damaged in other ways," says the study The North American Mosaic: A State of the Environment Report. The report was formally released to the three NAFTA partner governments on 7 January.

"This decline in habitat, plus specific hunting and harvesting practices, has led to a widespread crisis not confined to any one country or region," the report says. Half of North America's most biodiverse eco-regions are now severely degraded and the region now has at least 235 threatened species of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians.

"Our report shows that over the past few decades, the loss and alteration of habitat has become the m

ain threat to biodiversity," said Janine Ferretti, Executive Director of the CEC. "A significant proportion of the plant and animal species of North America is threatened."

"North America's diminishing biological diversity has profound consequences. Because the loss is irreversible -- species that are lost are lost forever -- the potential impact on the human condition, on the fabric of the continent's living systems, and on the process of evolution is immense," the report states.

"Some of the region's species depend on healthy, contiguous forest ecosystems. Habitat fragmentation and loss within these forests now threaten many migratory species. Birds are losing nesting, feeding, and resting areas," according to the report. It says the monarch butterfly faces threats, including "coastal development in California, deforestation of oyamel fir forests in Mexico and the use of pesticides on and around milkweed plants," the species' primary food and where they lay their eggs.

The three NAFTA partners have responded to the threat posed by rapid decline of biodiversity.

Mexico has adopted a three-pronged national strategy that includes management and sustainable use of wildlife, strengthening the National System of Protected Areas, and increasing knowledge through the National Commission for the Understanding and Use of Biodiversity. In the past 10 years, Mexico created 19 new biosphere reserves.

Canada developed a biodiversity strategy in 1994. Federal legislation to protect threatened species is pending. A 2000 report on the nation's national parks called for urgent action to mitigate the impact of ongoing stresses. Since 1970, the amount of protected area has tripled.

In the United States, "both federal and states agencies invest huge amounts of their time and budgets in habitat and species protection," the report says. Much of the money flows through partnership arrangements with private and public sector organizations. In 1980 alone, the extent of protected areas doubled with the enactment of the Alaska National Interest Lands Act. Overall, the total protected area in North America has increased from less than 100 million hectares in 1980, to 300 million hectares now, or about 15 percent of the continent's land surface.

"Looming threats overshadow these positive achievements, however. Natural areas in all three countries are in danger of being overwhelmed by multiple factors," the report says. These factors include:

-- The overwhelming success of natural areas in attracting visitors

-- Insufficient funds allocated for management of natural areas

-- Adjacent development that turns protected areas into threatened islands

-- Uses of surrounding lands that are often incompatible with natural areas and counter to their sustainability "There is enormous variety in the levels of protection afforded to these areas. Some that are deemed 'protected' actually encourage development activities that put biodiversity at great risk," the report says.

'Bio-invasion' poses a serious threat to biodiversity. The growing number of invasive species introduced to North America through increased travel and trade also poses serious threats to native biodiversity, including species competition, predation, disease, parasitism and hybridization, the report says. "Bio-invasion," or the spread of non-native species, has become one of the greatest threats to natural biological diversity. Without additional safeguards, it is almost inevitable that increased international trade will also increase the rates at which alien species are introduced into domestic waters and terrestrial ecosystems, according to the report.

The following are other report highlights:

-- Natural disasters becoming more frequent, and more expensive

-- Poor are hit hardest by environmental problems

-- Transportation follows unsustainable trend

-- Soil erosion on decline but threat of drought increasing

-- North Americans fishing down the food chain

-- Freshwater species more vulnerable to extinction

-- Global warming induced rise in sea level would threaten Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, among other areas worldwide.

The North American Mosaic presents the first analysis of the overall state of the North American environment by the Montreal-based CEC. The CEC was established to build cooperation among the NAFTA partners -- Canada, Mexico and the United States -- in protecting shared environments, with a particular focus on the opportunities and challenges presented by continent-wide free trade.

For more information on the complete report or highlights of the report, visit http://www.cec.org/soe

02/01/2002

World Wetlands Day Celebrated February 2

(Marks 31st anniversary of Ramsar Convention)

World Wetlands Day is being celebrated on February 2 to promote public awareness of the value of wetlands, which provide flood control, water purification and storm protection for local communities around the world, according to a press release by the U.S. State Department.

World Wetlands Day will mark the 31st anniversary of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, which has been signed by 130 countries. The diversity of countries represented has contributed to the decision this year to celebrate the cultural heritage of wetlands, according to the press release.

Many Americans will be engaged in activities February 2 to recognize the work of volunteers in wetlands protection and awareness. Two hundred years ago the United States had twice as much wetlands as it has today, now estimated at around 40 million hectares.

Following is the text of the press release:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Office of the Spokesman

February 1, 2002

World Wetlands Day

February 2 is World Wetlands Day, a day celebrated by local communities around the world who are promoting public awareness of the value and functions of wetlands, both for the environment and for people. Many Americans today are engaged in activities to recognize the work of volunteers in wetlands protection and awareness.

World Wetlands Day on February 2 celebrates the day in 1971 when the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands was signed in the town of Ramsar, Iran. This year marks the 31st Anniversary of the Convention. From the first 18 countries that signed the treaty, the Convention has grown to 130 parties today. The diversity of countries represented contributed to the decision this year to celebrate the cultural heritage of wetlands. Contracting Parties have listed 1,133 wetlands covering 273,251,980 acres in the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance.

The United States joined the Ramsar Convention in 1986. Americans, and citizens of other countries, in growing numbers are focusing efforts on protecting their local wetlands and recognizing their important values and functions, such as flood control, groundwater replenishment, water purification, storm protection, and havens of biodiversity and cultural values which provide products for local communities.

Two hundred years ago the United States had twice the acreage of wetlands that it has today, now estimated at around 100 million acres. There have been similar decreases in much of the world, and fewer and fewer pristine wetlands remain. World Wetlands Day is commemorated as a time to acknowledge the importance of saving the world's wetlands and to note the work of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands in fostering international cooperation in this regard.

For further information, visit the State Department's Bureau of Oceans, Environment and Science Web site at http://www.state.gov/g/oes/env/ and the Ramsar Web site at http://ramsar.org.

01/28/2002

EPA Announces Watershed Protection Program

(Program will support local community efforts to protect waterways)

President Bush will ask Congress for $21 million for fiscal year 2003 for an initiative to protect, preserve and restore pollution-damaged waterways across the country.

According to a January 25 press release, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christie Whitman said that under the new program, her agency would target up to 20 watersheds that deserve more protection using grants to states, tribes and local representatives.

Whitman said the initiative would also support local communities in their efforts to expand and improve existing protection measures with tools, training and technical assistance.

Information of the watershed program is available at the following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/

Following is the text of the press release:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

January 25, 2002

EPA Announces New Initiative to Protect and Preserve America's Waterways

President Bush will include $21 million in his 2003 budget for a new EPA initiative to protect, preserve, and restore waterways across the country. This effort was announced by EPA Administrator Christie Whitman during a visit to the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area.

The Administrator announced as part of this community-based initiative, EPA will target up to 20 of this country's most highly-valued watersheds for grants. EPA will be working cooperatively with state governors, tribes and other interested parties on this initiative. This program will also support local communities in their efforts to expand and improve existing protection measures with tools, training and technical assistance.

"As we mark the 30th anniversary of the Clean Water Act this year, we have much to celebrate and many challenges left to face with regard to our nation's water resources," Whitman said. "I have heard a watershed defined as "communities connected by water," a good reminder that we all live downstream from someone. I am proud to say that the Bush Administration needs no reminding of that fact.

"President Bush understands the importance of watershed protection and he is taking action to make America's waterways cleaner and healthier for the families that enjoy them," Whitman continued. "In his 2003 budget, President Bush has included $21 million for a new EPA initiative to copy successful approaches and techniques to protect highly valued watershed resources throughout the country. With the President's commitment to watershed protection, I am confident that we can preserve and protect our precious waterways for future generations."

Whitman noted that the program "recognizes the important role that states and local communities have in helping to achieve our common goals, by giving them the power to do what works."

Water quality problems including habitat loss and alteration, nutrient enrichment, pathogens, and invasive species continue to harm watersheds nationwide. These problems prevent our resources from meeting water quality goals and deprive the public of economic, recreation, and drinking water opportunities. The problems are complex and require local assessment, involvement and commitment. This investment will capitalize on the lessons learned from existing community-based protection efforts. Information on the watershed program is available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/.

01/10/2002

Bush Takes Action to Restore Florida Everglades

(Agreement ensures adequate water supply for South Florida ecosystem)

President Bush has taken action to ensure that adequate water supplies are available for the restoration of Everglades National Park in the state of Florida.

According to a White House statement released January 9, the president signed an agreement with Florida Governor Jeb Bush that supports the 30-year Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), the most comprehensive ecosystem restoration project ever undertaken in the United States.

The restoration plan aims to reverse the damage done to the ecosystem of South Florida by decades of land development. During a period of booming growth in the last half of the 20th century, wetlands were filled in and natural water channels were diverted and redirected to supply water for agricultural, suburban and urban development. Through dozens of planned projects, the CERP will attempt to redirect water flow back to the Everglades wetlands, a unique ecosystem that has been likened to a river of grass.

Under the agreement, the State of Florida will reserve water for the benefit of state and federally owned natural resources in the South Florida ecosystem, including the Everglades. According to a press release from the office of Florida's governor, 6,400 million liters of fresh water in the region is diverted daily to the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. The CERP will recapture that water for ecosystem restoration.

When fully implemented, the CERP will provide the region with an additional 6,400 million liters of fresh water per day -- ensuring an expanded water supply to meet the growing needs of South Florida communities and farms. Restoration and operating expenses for CERP projects are being shared equally by the federal government and non-federal interests, including the state of Florida.

Following is the text of the statement:

(begin text)

White House Press Office

January 9, 2002

(begin text)

Another Step Forward for Everglades Restoration Today's Presidential Action

Today, President Bush and Florida Governor Jeb Bush took action to help the effort to restore the Everglades. The President and the Governor signed an agreement that ensures adequate water supplies are available to support the 30-year Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.

Today's announcement reflects the Bush Administration's strong support for the 30-year, $7.8 billion Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). The CERP is the most comprehensive and ambitious ecosystem restoration project ever undertaken in the United States. It includes more than 68 projects, and the costs of the restoration and future operating expenses will be shared 50-50 by the Federal government and non-Federal interests, including the State of Florida.

Background: The Bush Administration's Commitment to Restoring the Everglades

Over the long-term, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan will restore approximately 2.4 million acres of the Everglades ecosystem. The CERP will also help to ensure that South Florida has a reliable supply of fresh water for years to come. When fully implemented, it will provide the region with an additional 1.7 billion gallons of fresh water per day -- ensuring an expanded water supply to meet the growing needs of South Florida communities and farms. The CERP enjoys broad, bipartisan support from Congress, the State of Florida, tribal organizations, environmental groups, local communities, the agricultural community and other key stakeholders.

Today's agreement between the federal government and the State of Florida ensures that adequate water supplies will be available from projects in the CERP for the benefit of state and federally-owned natural resources in the south Florida ecosystem, including Everglades National Park and the Big Cypress National Preserve. The State of Florida will reserve water under State law for the benefit of these natural resources based on the needs of each project.

This agreement solidifies the unique 50/50 partnership between the federal government and the State of Florida to restore the Everglades and the south Florida ecosystem, and it reinforces the important roles of the Department of the Interior, the Army Corps of Engineers and the State of Florida in the restoration effort.

President Bush's FY02 budget provided more than $219 million for restoring the Everglades -- an increase of more than $58 million over FY01 funding levels. These funds include $15 million for the Department of the Interior to continue to help the State of Florida acquire lands needed for projects included in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. To date, the federal government has helped acquire over 110,000 acres needed for these projects.

The Department of the Interior will spend additional funds to help recover the endangered key deer in the Florida Keys so they can eventually be de-listed under the Endangered Species Act. The Department also increased funding available for the eradication of exotic plants and other species that threaten restoration of the ecosystem.

Governor Jeb Bush recently announced how the State of Florida will fund its share of the cost of the CERP for next year. President Bush will outline the Administration's plan for funding the federal share for FY03 in his budget announcement in February.

For more information on the President's initiatives, please visit www.whitehouse.gov

12/26/2001

White House Announces International Wildlife Refuge

(Habitat on U.S.-Canadian border will protect waterfowl and fish)

President Bush announced on December 21 that he had signed legislation establishing the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge, the first-ever international wildlife refuge.

The area, said the president, "is a prime waterfowl migration corridor and is considered a special place for sportsmen, birders, and boaters. An estimated 300,000 diving ducks stop in the River to rest and feed during their fall migration from Canada."

President Bush also noted that at least 65 species of fish live in the Detroit River.

Following is the text of the White House statement:

(begin text)

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

December 21, 2001

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am very pleased to sign into law H.R. 1230, which will establish the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge, the first-ever international wildlife refuge.

The Detroit River on the Michigan-Canada border has lost over 95 percent of its coastal wetland habitat and has been designated a Waterfowl Habitat Area of Concern by the Canadian and American governments. Establishing this International Wildlife Refuge will do a lot to provide this special place with the protection that it needs.

This area is a prime waterfowl migration corridor and is considered a special place for sportsmen, birders, and boaters. An estimated 300,000 diving ducks stop in the River to rest and feed during their fall migration from Canada. At least 65 species of fish live in the Detroit River, including millions of walleye.

This innovative legislation enhances public-private partnerships for conservation and habitat restoration. I want to thank the many area businesses and groups that developed the conservation vision for the refuge.

01/10/2002

White House Statement on Species Preservation Laws

(Laws help conserve elephants, rhinos, tigers)

The White House Press Secretary issued a statement January 9 on the president's action to sign two bills into law protecting endangered species.

Following is the White House text:

(begin text)

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

January 9, 2002

STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY

The President was pleased to sign into law yesterday two important conservation measures, the African Elephant Conservation Reauthorization Act and the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Reauthorization Act. These new laws will further our national interest in promoting environmental stewardship around the world. They provide important grants to help conserve some of the world's most critically endangered species through public-private international partnerships that deliver on-the-ground conservation projects and build local conservation expertise and capability.

01/16/2002

Study Cites Accelerating Deforestation in Brazilian Amazon

(Findings based on detailed satellite imagery)

A new study by a team of U.S. and Brazilian scientists suggests that forest destruction in the Brazilian Amazon has accelerated over the last decade.

A January 15 press release says the study's findings, showing that rates of deforestation in the Amazon have risen sharply since 1995, were based on over two decades of detailed satellite images of the region taken by Brazil's National Space Agency.

Team leader William Laurance, a scientist with the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI), said forest destruction from 1995 to 2000 averaged almost two million hectares a year. He said the destruction is comparable "to the bad old days in the 1970s and 1980s when forest loss in the Amazon was catastrophic."

The Brazilian government has said that threats to Amazonian forests have fallen in recent years because of improved environmental laws and public attitudes.

The government plans to invest more than $40,000 million in new highways, railroads, power lines and gas lines in the Amazon over the next few years, saying these projects will have only limited effects on the Amazon. But the research team disputes the government assertions, saying there is no way the Amazon basin can be criss-crossed by giant transportation and energy projects without having a tremendous impact on the region.

The team's findings are described in an article in the journal "Environmental Conservation."

Following is the text of the press release:

(begin text)

Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI)

January 15, 2002

Is deforestation accelerating in the Brazilian Amazon?

A research team of U.S. and Brazilian scientists has provided compelling evidence that rates of forest destruction in the Brazilian Amazon have accelerated over the last decade.

The team, led by STRI scientist William Laurance, analyzed deforestation estimates produced by Brazil's National Space Agency that were based on detailed satellite images of the Amazon since 1978.

Contrary to the claims of the Brazilian government that threats to Amazonian forests have fallen in recent years because of improved environmental laws and public attitudes, the Smithsonian team asserts that rates of deforestation have risen sharply since 1995.

"Forest destruction from 1995 to 2000 averaged almost two million hectares a year," said Laurance. "That's equivalent to seven football fields a minute, and it's comparable to the bad old days in the 1970s and 1980s, when forest loss in the Amazon was catastrophic."

The research team's findings are important because the Brazilian government plans to invest over $40 billion in new highways, railroads, hydroelectric reservoirs, power lines, and gas lines in the Amazon over the next few years. About 5000 miles of highways will be paved. The government claims that these projects will have only limited effects on the Amazon. But the research team disputes these assertions.

"There's no way you can criss-cross the basin with all these giant transportation and energy projects and not have a tremendous impact on the Amazon," says Laurance. "When you build a new road in the frontier, you almost always initiate large-scale forest invasions by loggers, hunters, and slash-and-burn farmers."

Although new environmental laws in Brazil are designed to slow forest loss, the research team claims that most laws are rarely enforced. That, in concert with a rapidly growing population and dramatically expanding logging and mining industries, means that threats to Amazonian forests are growing.

"The scariest thing is that many of the highways and infrastructure projects will penetrate right into the pristine heart of the Amazon," says Laurance. "That could increase forest loss and fragmentation on an unprecedented scale."

The team's findings are described in a paper that just appeared in the journal Environmental Conservation (William F. Laurance, Ana K. M. Albernaz, and Carlos Da Costa. 2001. "Is deforestation accelerating in the Brazilian Amazon?" Environmental Conservation 28:305-311)

01/29/2002

Large Amounts of Amazon Rainforest Being Lost to Illegal Drug Production

(State Department official describes widespread deforestation)

By Eric Green

Washington File Staff Writer

Washington -- Illegal drug cultivation in South America is destroying large amounts of the Amazon region's rainforest, a State Department official says.

About 2.3 million hectares of rainforest have been destroyed over the last 20 years in the Amazon basin due to the cultivation of coca, the crop used to make cocaine. This figure amounts to about one-quarter of all the deforestation that occurred in the area during the 20th century, said Rand Beers, assistant secretary of state for international narcotics and law enforcement affairs.

Briefing reporters January 28, Beers said the evidence shows that an "enormous amount of cutting" is occurring "for no other purpose than illegal drugs."

Speaking at the State Department's Foreign Press Center on the environmental damage caused by the drug trade, Beers said that in Bolivia "slash-and-burn" clearing of new coca fields resulted in the destruction of nearly 40,000 hectares of forest land in that country's Chapare region in the 1980s and '90s, while in Peru the amount lost was even larger.

Another problem caused by the drug trade, said Beers, is the large amount of toxic pesticides that coca growers put in their fields to get a higher return on their coca crop. Beers said that in Peru, for example, 346 metric tons of pesticides are used annually. These substances are then washed down by rain into the watershed, damaging plants and animals directly or indirectly via the food chain.

Beers charged that coca producers have no conscience in terms of how they are ruining the rainforest. For instance, coca growers cut down forests to grow their illegal crop, and then abandon these areas after only two to five years. They then move on to other areas, cutting down even more of the rainforest.

Beers indicated that because of the "clear-cutting" of forests, "quite significant" amounts of toxic runoff end up in the Amazon and Orinoco river basins. As evidence of this environmental damage, he said illicit crop cultivators cut down four hectares of forest for each hectare of coca planted, and two and a half hectares for each hectare of opium poppy.

Reporters asked Beers to compare the pesticides used by the coca growers to those used by the United States in its aerial drug eradication campaign in Colombia. He pointed out that "cocalleros" (coca growers) use a herbicide called glyphosate in much larger quantities than is used in the U.S. program. The coca growers also use far more toxic chemicals, such as paraquat and parathion, which he said are "sprayed indiscriminately" on the fields in order to kill weeds and thus allow coca bushes to grow more rapidly.

By contrast, he said, all the independent studies conducted so far suggest no health risk to humans from the amount of glyphosate used in the U.S. spraying campaign.

"It is certainly true that the herbicide [glyphosate] itself, if taken in a significantly concentrated fashion, just like baby shampoo, will kill you. But we don't spray it at that level," Beers said. "We spray it at something considerably less than that kind of toxicity, and we do not believe and have not seen evidence that it is harmful either to the environment or individuals, despite the numerous press reports to the contrary."

Beers said the United States, in partnership with the governments of Colombia, Bolivia and Peru, seeks to raise the issue of how coca production is hurting the Amazon region "so that people understand the seriousness of it." Beers referred to a pamphlet produced by the State Department, called "The Andes Under Siege: Environmental Consequences of the Drug Trade," which offers detailed information about the problem. The pamphlet is available on the Internet in English and in Spanish at http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/andes.

Another speaker, Luis Alberto Moreno, Colombia's ambassador to the United States, said the U.S. aerial drug eradication campaign and his own government's social development programs are beginning to achieve success in bringing more stability to his beleaguered nation.

Moreno declared that the long-standing internal conflict in Colombia "must be resolved by Colombians," and added that this view is wholeheartedly supported by the United States.

01/17/2002

Bush Names Members to Bioethics Council

(Council tackles human cloning as its first task)

President Bush has named 17 leading scientists, doctors, lawyers and theologians to serve on the newly created President's Council on Bioethics, a group that will advise the president on a range of bioethical subjects such as embryo and stem cell research, assisted reproduction and cloning.

The members of the group were identified in a January 16 White House press release. Bush had named University of Chicago bioethicist Leon Kass in August to chair the council. The council's first meeting was scheduled for January 17-18 in Washington.

In addition to stem cell research and cloning, the 18-member council is also charged with tackling the uses of knowledge derived from human genetics or the neurosciences, end-of-life issues, as well as broader ethical and social issues, such as the protection of human subjects in research.

The White House statement says the council's paramount objective will be to develop a deep understanding of such issues and to advise the president of the complex and often competing moral positions associated with biomedical innovation.

At its initial meeting January 17, Kass said the council would examine the ethical, scientific and legal issues surrounding human cloning as its first short-term project, being mindful of the nation's ongoing legislative and policy debates on the subject.

Last year, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a ban on all human cloning. But many Democrats as well as Republicans in the U.S. Senate favor a limited ban exempting cloning for research purposes that does not involve transferring a cloned embryo into a woman's womb to mature into a cloned baby.

Researchers in Massachusetts reported last November that they had made the first human embryo clones.

President Bush promised last August to create the Bioethics Council after announcing that he would allow federally funded research on embryonic stem cells on a strictly limited basis. Because embryonic stem cells have the ability to transform themselves into virtually any other type of cell in the body, doctors believe they might be used to replace human tissues and organs damaged by disease or injury to restore healthy function.

Following is the text of the White House statement:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

January 16, 2002

STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY

President Bush today named 17 leading scientists, doctors, ethicists, social scientists, lawyers, and theologians to serve on the President's Council on Bioethics. The Council will be chaired by Dr. Leon Kass, a prominent bioethicist from the University of Chicago who was previously named. As biomedical science continues to develop at a rapid pace, our society must confront increasingly difficult ethical questions. The Council will keep the President and our nation apprised of new developments and provide a forum for discussion and evaluation of these profound issues.

The Council will consider a range of bioethical matters connected with specific biomedical and technological activities, such as embryo and stem cell research, assisted reproduction, cloning, uses of knowledge and techniques derived from human genetics or the neurosciences, and end-of-life issues. The Council may also study broader ethical and social issues, such as the protection of human subjects in research and the appropriate uses of biomedical technologies.

The Council's paramount objective will be to develop a deep understanding of the issues that it considers and to advise the President of the complex and often competing moral positions associated with biomedical innovation. The President has assembled a diverse group of individuals to address these matters, who will bring a variety of perspectives to these challenging issues. Council members have been chosen not only for their specialized knowledge, but also for their thoughtfulness and their devotion to serious ethical inquiry. With their assistance and guidance, the President will continue to forge a policy on bioethical issues that reflects his strong support of science and technology, as well as his deep respect for human life and human dignity.

The Council will hold its first meeting on January 17-18, 2002, in Washington, D.C. Council members include:

Leon R. Kass, M.D. Chair. Addie Clark Harding Professor, College and the Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago, and Hertog Fellow, American Enterprise Institute. Professor Kass, a nationally renowned bioethicist, has written extensively on biology and human affairs. His works include Toward a More Natural Science (1984), The Hungry Soul (1994), and The Ethics of Human Cloning (1998, with James Q. Wilson).

Elizabeth Blackburn, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University California San Francisco. Professor Blackburn, a distinguished cell biologist whose research is on chromosome telomere structure, holds a number of awards and prizes, including the California Scientist of the Year Award (1999) and the American Association for Cancer Research-G.H.A. Clowes Memorial Award (2000). She is an elected fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1991) and a member of the Institute of Medicine (2000). She has also served as President of the American Society for Cell Biology (1998).

Stephen Carter, J.D. William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law, Yale Law School. Professor Carter teaches constitutional law and law and religion. His recent books include God's Name in Vain (2000), Civility (1998), and Integrity (1996).

Rebecca Dresser, J.D., M.S. Daniel Noyes Kirby Professor of Law, Washington University School of Law. Professor Dresser has written extensively on bioethical issues, and she serves on the editorial boards of IRB: Ethics and Human Research and the American Journal of Bioethics Her book, When Science Offers Salvation: Patient Advocacy and Research Ethics, was published last spring.

Daniel Foster, M.D. Donald W. Seldin Distinguished Chair in Internal Medicine and Chairman of the Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School. Dr. Foster, whose research is in intermediary metabolism, has received the Banting Medal, the Joslin Medal, the Tinsley R. Harrison Medal and the Robert H. Williams Distinguished Chair of Medicine Award for his work. He is a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences and is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Francis Fukuyama, Ph.D. Bernard Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University. Professor Fukuyama has written widely on the human and political implications of modern technological society. His books include The End of History and the Last Man (1993), The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order (2000), and a new book on biotechnology that will appear shortly.

Michael Gazzaniga, Ph.D. Director, Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Dartmouth College. Professor Gazzaniga conducts research on how the brain enables the mind. He is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Neurological Association. His publications include The New Cognitive Neurosciences (2000) and The Mind's Past (1998).

Robert P. George, J.D., D. Phil. McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University, and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. A lawyer and constitutional scholar, Professor George is the author of Making Men Moral: Civil Liberties and Public Morality (1995) and In Defense of Natural Law (1999). He is a member of the editorial board of the American Journal of Jurisprudence and the board of directors of the Philosophy Education Society.

Alfonso Gomez-Lobo, Ph.D. Ryan Family Professor of Metaphysics and Moral Philosophy, Georgetown University. Professor Gomez-Lobo specializes in Greek philosophy, Greek historiography, the history of ethics, and contemporary natural law theory. He is the recipient of several awards, including a research fellowship from the Guggenheim Foundation. His latest book, Morality and the Human Goods, will appear shortly.

Mary Ann Glendon, J.D., L.LM. Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard University. Professor Glendon teaches and writes on international human rights, comparative law, and constitutional law issues. The National Law Journal named her one of the "Fifty Most Influential Women Lawyers in America" in 1998.

William B. Hurlbut, M.D. Consulting Professor in Human Biology, Stanford University. Dr. Hurlbut's main areas of interest involve the ethical issues associated with advancing biotechnology and neuroscience, and the integration of philosophy of biology with theology. Most recently, he has worked with the Center for International Security and Cooperation on a project formulating policy on Chemical and Biological Warfare and with NASA on projects in astrobiology.

Charles Krauthammer, M.D. National Columnist, The Washington Post. Dr. Krauthammer, who received his medical degree from Harvard Medical School and practiced psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital for several years, writes a nationally syndicated editorial page column for The Washington Post Writers Group. He won the 1987 Pulitzer Prize for distinguished commentary. He has written many newspaper and magazine articles on bioethical topics, including stem cell research, cloning, euthanasia, and assisted suicide.

William F. May, Ph.D. Cary M. Maguire Professor of Ethics Emeritus, Southern Methodist University. Professor May, a distinguished and widely respected medical ethicist, was until last June head of the Maguire Center of Ethics at SMU. He is also a founding fellow of the Hastings Center for Bioethics. His numerous books include Beleaguered Rulers: The Public Obligation of the Professional (2001) and The Physician's Covenant: Images of the Healer in Medical Ethics (1983); and The Patient's Ordeal (1991).

Paul McHugh, M.D. Henry Phipps Professor of Psychiatry and Director of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and Psychiatrist-in-chief of the Johns Hopkins Hospital. Dr. McHugh, a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, is currently Co-Chairman, Ethics Committee of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology. He also serves on the board of The American Scholar. His writings include Genes, Brain, and Behavior (1990) and essays on assisted suicide and the misuse of psychiatry.

Gilbert Meilaender, Ph.D. Richard & Phyllis Duesenberg Professor of Christian Ethics at Valparaiso University. Professor Meilaender is an editor for the Journal of Religious Ethics and the Religious Studies Review. He takes a special interest in bioethics and is a Fellow of the Hastings Center. His books include Body, Soul, and Bioethics (1995) and Bioethics: A Primer for Christians (1997).

Janet D. Rowley, M.D., D.Sc. Blum-Riese Distinguished Service Professor of Medicine, Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology, and Human Genetics, Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago. Dr. Rowely is internationally renowned for her studies of chromosome abnormalities in human leukemia and lymphoma. She is the recipient of the National Medal of Science (1999) and the Albert Lasker Clinical Medicine Research Prize (1998), the most distinguished American honor for clinical medical research.

Michael J. Sandel, Ph.D. Professor of Government, Harvard University. Professor Sandel, who was a Rhodes Scholar, teaches contemporary political philosophy and the history of political thought. Sandel's books include Democracy's Discontent: America In Search of a Public Philosophy (1996) and Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (1982). He has received fellowships from the Ford Foundation, the American Council of Learned Societies, and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

James Q. Wilson, Ph.D. The James A. Collins Professor of Management and Public Policy Emeritus at the University of California Los Angeles. Professor Wilson, one of the nation's most respected political scientists, has written extensively on human nature and ethics. His publications include The Moral Sense (1997) and Moral Judgement: Does the Abuse Excuse Threaten Our Legal System? (1998).

Donald D. Utt, Ph.D

Will Sprawl Gobble Up America's Land? Federal Data Reveal Development's Trivial Impact

The Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder 1556, May 30, 2002, 15p

http://www.heritage.org/library/backgrounder/bg1556.html

“The study shows not only that current urban growth rates pose no danger to the environment, but also that these plans would seriously infringe on property rights and discriminate against lower income individuals.”

Rolf Pendall, Jonathan Martin, and William Fulton

Holding The Line: Urban Containment In The United States

Brookings Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, Report, August 2002, 51 p

http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/es/urban/publications/pendallfultoncontainment.pdf

“Policies designed to deliberately control the spread of urban areas are increasing in popularity throughout the United States. Several states, and many local governments in the west, are adopting urban growth boundaries and other containment measures in their land-use planning laws and legislation. Whatever the primary purpose, it is clear that the precise impacts of containment policies are not well understood. This paper reviews the research on urban containment generally, and also examines the experience of such policies in particular metropolitan areas. It discusses some lessons learned and raises relevant research questions for practitioners as well as policymakers at the state and local level.”