As you know, global warming is the greatest environmental challenge of our time. Sea levels are on the rise, ice and snow cover are decreasing, and storms are becoming more powerful. Leading scientists, such as James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, caution that we are nearing a climate "tipping point", beyond which large-scale, dangerous impacts would become unavoidable.

For these reasons, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 620, the Climate Stewardship Act. Introduced by Representatives John Olver [D-MA] and Wayne Gilchrest [R-MD], the Climate Stewardship Act [CSA] would freeze U.S. emissions at the 2006 levels beginning in 2012. Starting in 2020, the bill reduces emissions by roughly 2% per year, reaching 15% below 2006 levels by 2029. Continuing on this trend, the bill requires a 37% reduction by 2049, and a 75% reduction for 2050 and beyond. H.R. 620 would achieve these reductions by establishing a "cap-and-trade" program that is market-driven and designed to encourage the development of low (or zero) emissions and energy efficient technologies.

In addition, I have joined a number of my colleagues in sending a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] in support of the "Waxman Principles" for strong, fair, science-based legislation to fight global warming while creating jobs and building a clean energy economy. The letter stated that comprehensive legislation to address global warming must achieve four key goals:

• Reduce emissions to avoid dangerous global warming;
• Transition America to a clean energy economy;
• Recognize and minimize any economic impacts from global warming legislation; and
• Aid communities and ecosystems vulnerable to harm from global warming.

Not only is addressing climate change in a scientific manner absolutely necessary, it also going to be the means by which we grow our economy during this decade, and thereby create jobs and grow the middle class. Developing our renewable energy resources will create jobs, save consumers money, and bolster rural economies. In Kansas, for instance, farmers and rural land owners will have the opportunity to build or lease land for wind energy development and should carbon sequestration technology be developed, it would provide an additional revenue stream. Moving people to renewable energy sectors such as research, production, and installation will provide a number of new manufacturing jobs, as will research, sales, service, etc. Recent analyses by the Union of Concerned Scientists [UCS] found that a replacing 20% of electric generation with renewable energy sources by the year 2020 would generate over 355,000 new high-paying jobs and save consumers at least $49 billion on their electric and natural gas bills.

When President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely in 10 years, many people doubted we could accomplish that goal. But 8 years and 2 months later, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the surface of the moon. In the process, we were reminded that the strength of the American spirit is reflective of its leaders and moreover, is capable of rising to any challenge -- even rising to the moon. We must now challenge our nation to reach another set of goals that will change history -- to reverse global warming and become energy independent. We can meet the goals and we must -- our grandchildren are depending on us.

Additional infromation from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service:

• CRS - Climate Change: Current Issues and Policy Tools


• CRS - Climate Change: Science Update


• CRS - Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cap-and-Trade Program

The protection and preservation of our nation’s beautiful natural habitats is an important issue to me, and that’s why I am supportive of the following legislation:

• H.R. 39, the Udall-Eisenhower Arctic Wilderness Act, which would permanently designate the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge as wilderness;


• H.R. 1975, the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act, which would protect 20 million acres of publicly owned wild lands that remain unprotected in an area defined as the Wild Rockies;


• H.R. 1919, America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act of 2007, which would protect more than nine million acres of federal public lands in Utah that contain some of the world’s richest concentrations of prehistoric ruins – left by ancient Anasazi and other cultures;


• H.R. 2516, the National Forest Roadless Area Conservation Act, which would ensure that certain Forest Service lands remain ‘roadless’ areas.

Protecting our country's precious waterways is essential to safeguarding our drinking water, alleviating flooding conditions, providing recreational opportunities, maintaining fish and wildlife habitat, and promoting a healthy economy.

That’s why I am a cosponsor of H.R. 2421, which would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to replace the term "navigable waters," throughout the act, with the term "waters of the United States." This simple change would affirm Clean Water Act (CWA) protections for millions of wetlands, streams, ponds, and other waterways.

The ESA, which was enacted into law in 1973, protects species identified as endangered or threatened with extinction and attempts to protect the habitat on which they depend. Despite the law’s success in responding to the near extinction of the bald eagle, great whales and other precious species, the law has been one of the more contentious environmental laws in recent history.

For instance, once a species is listed as either endangered or threatened, powerful legal tools are available to aid its recovery, which some contend has detrimental economic consequences and infringes on the rights of property owners. In addition, the ESA may also be controversial because dwindling species are usually harbingers of broader ecosystem decline: the most common cause of listing species is habitat loss.

During the 109th Congress, Representative Richard Pombo introduced H.R. 3824, legislation that would severely weaken the ESA by replacing the critical habitat designation with a greatly expanded 'recovery' program intended to increase the populations of endangered species. I voted against H.R. 3824 because this legislation placed a far higher priority on development than conservation, vastly diminishing the government’s ability to protect fish and wildlife.

The ESA is landmark legislation that has rescued certain species, such as Red Wolves, Bald Eagles and California Condors, from almost certain extinction. In fact, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 68% of the species listed at endangered are stable or improving.

Due to sharp increases in the prices of gasoline and natural gas in recent years, the dispute over the approval of energy development in the ANWR has been a major element of the energy debate.

ANWR consists of 19 million acres in northeast Alaska. Its 1.5 million acre costal plain is viewed as one of the most promising U.S. on-shore oil and gas prospects. At the same time, the Refuge, and especially the costal plain, is home to a wide variety of plants and animals. The presence of caribou, polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves, migratory birds, and many other species in a nearly undisturbed state has led some to call the area "America’s Serengeti." In fact, the Refuge and two neighboring parks in Canada have been proposed for an international park, and several species in the area are protected by international treaties or agreements.

I am opposed to oil and gas drilling in ANWR; studies indicate that this area could only provide six month’s supply of oil, 10 years from now, and consequently would have no significant effect on our nation’s dependence on foreign oil, while potentially having a devastating effect on this pristine and unique area. I believe our nation needs to develop a national energy policy that emphasizes energy efficiency and alternative energy sources, not drilling for oil on environmentally sensitive areas.