There are so many actions that we could take right now to address this, so I urge my colleagues not only to be looking at technology and research but looking at technical possibilities that we can take right now to reduce energy intensity and carbon intensity on our planet. I truly believe it is the most important issue facing us for the future of our country and the health of our planet, so I thank you for this hearing and would like to place in the record these papers.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney follows:]

Representative Carolyn B. Maloney (NY-14)
"Climate Change Technology Research:

Do we need a 'Manhattan Project' for the Environment?"
2154 RHOB - 10:00 A.M.
September 21, 2006

Thank you Chairman Davis
and Ranking Member Waxman

for holding this important hearing today
on global warming technology research.

In July, this committee held a hearing examining the science surrounding global warming.

Finding that global warming

is indeed real and that increasing levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are greatly contributing to it,

we can now move forward

to the critical question of how best to address the problem.

Federal research and development

on technologies to address global warming is no doubt a critical first step,

and I am eager to hear about progress

for Climate Change Technology Program.

But what I am really hoping to hear is a set of concrete plans for deploying these new technologies into the market place, in both the short and long terms.

As we all know, technology

that is not actually being used

can do nothing to address global warming.

Finally, I look forward to hearing

the witnesses views on the creation of a new climate technology program

based on the model of the Defense Advanced

Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which would focus on high-risk research.

If successful, this type of research may hold the key to dramatic results in combating global warming.

I thank all our witnesses for being here today,

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Without objection they will be placed in the record. Thank you, Mrs. Maloney.

Mr. Kucinich.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The title of this hearing is Climate Change Technology Research: Do we need a Manhattan Project for the Environment? I would respectfully suggest this is kind of an unfortunate title for this particular hearing. The Manhattan Project harnessed the scientific genius of America for a purely destructive purpose, the building of nuclear weapon, under conditions of assorted history of human experimentation and spawned a nuclear industry which drove up utility rates and gave us nuclear waste forever. Nuclear weapons now constitute a threat to the survival of our entire planet, and certainly, as Jonathan Schell pointed out in his book, Fate of the Earth, a threat to the common global environment.

Now, if we are talking about saving the planet, maybe we should come up with an analogy that is not so obviously contradictory. Asking whether we need a Manhattan Project for the environment begs the question don't we already have one. Everything about our energy policies are destabilizing. Oil runs our politics, bringing with it not only the injurious effects of climate change but war, environmental ruin, economic decline, manipulation of prices, oil politics are visiting us right now on the eve of an election. You see the prices dropping at the pump trying to lull the public to sleep about the game that is being played by the oil companies in cooperation with the administration.

Global warming? Until recently, scientists for hire were ready to discount the result of our destructive energy policies and urging administrations to refuse to participate in the Kyoto Climate Change Treaty. I would agree with the colleague that we ought to talk to China, but wouldn't it be good if we had trade agreements that held environmental quality principles as one of the bases for international trade.

Mr. Chairman, I have to submit for the record here a study of the Manhattan Project called the New and Secret World of Human Experimentation. I also have my statement, which calls for new direction with respect to sustainable energy choices like wind, solar, ocean, geothermal, and with a call for investment to match the intention of changing our energy policies. We really ought to change the title of the hearing though.

Thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. Maybe we ought to call it a Marshall plan. Do you like that better?

Mr. KUCINICH. You know, yes, like rebuilding after a war. Yes, that is a great idea.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. OK.

Next, Mr. Van Hollen.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing, and to Ranking Member Waxman for his leadership on this very important issue.

I agree with statements made by my colleagues really some on both sides of aisle here with respect to the importance of moving forward in a bipartisan manner, but to do that we are going to have to make decisions based on science and based on the facts.