Providing for Consideration of H.R. 5658, Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5658, DUNCAN HUNTER NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 -- (House of Representatives - May 21, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Washington for yielding some time.

I did vote for the underlying bill that this rule is associated with and intend to vote for it on the floor as it is currently drafted. But I'm going to speak against the rule and intend to vote against the rule, should we get that vote.

While the Defense Authorization Act doesn't have much public policy in relation to energy in it, it is a beneficiary of good, sound national energy policy.

[Page: H4340]

DOD is the single largest department purchaser of energy of any of the Federal agencies that this Congress oversees. It would benefit dramatically by decreases in costs of energy, as would every consumer, every American home would as well. And conversely, its budgets are dramatically negatively impacted with rampant run-up in costs. We fly jets, we drive tanks and Humvees and other vehicles, and we have to buy that fuel to get that done. These increased costs as a result of an unsound national policy on energy are a detriment to the Department of Defense.

A sound national policy on energy should promote additional supplies of domestically produced sources, both fossil fuel sources as well as unconventional sources. It's not an either/or, it ought to be both. And this Democratically led House has consistently, over the last 16 months, had a very negative bias against fossil fuel sources.

Every rational projection of energy usage over the next 20 to 30 years shows that we will continue to be reliant on crude oil and natural gas for that entire time frame. The larger the domestic supply of crude oil and natural gas we have, the less dependent we are on foreign sources and the cheaper it will be. There is an action in economic law for supply and demand that says if you restrict the supply, then your costs are going up. And increased costs of energy and fuel to the Department of Defense is a negative that we ought to address.

If you punish the producers of crude oil and natural gas, you're going to get less of it. The bill we passed yesterday, which unleashes the Department of Justice on an unwarranted witch hunt against the oil and gas industry, will increase costs and will, therefore, have a negative impact on the operations of the Defense Department, which this authorization bill governs. Those increased costs are not in the best interests of Americans and not in the best interests of the Department of Defense.

So while this bill and this rule do not specifically address our national energy policy, a policy that is sound and promotes domestic production of both crude oil and natural gas as well as unconventional sources of energy to supply our Department of Defense with the energy it needs to fly those airplanes, drive those tanks, drive those Humvees, and light the offices at the Pentagon, as well as the housing associated with the Department of Defense, is in all of our best interests. I would urge our colleagues to look at that as we approach these issues.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source