Energy Independence is a Matter of National Security
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE IS A MATTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY -- (House of Representatives - July 21, 2009)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. KRATOVIL. Let me thank the gentleman from New York for, first of all, leading us in this discussion this evening on such an important topic and, of course, my friend and colleague from Ohio, Mr. Boccieri, for passion.
I want to follow up on just a couple of things that you had mentioned, Mr. Boccieri, talking about this issue from a historical perspective. You know, so many times in this country we talk about for years and years the things we need to do, and yet when push comes to shove, we don't always have the political courage to do what needs to be done. You were speaking about discussions you had with your father.
You know, every U.S. President since Richard Nixon has advocated the need for energy independence. In 1974, Nixon promised it could be achieved within 6 years. Gerald Ford promised it could be done in 10 years. And Jimmy Carter pledged to wage the moral equivalent of war to achieve it. And yet, here we are, in 2009, and for the first time really we have made steps, really aggressive proactive steps in reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
I want to read you something that President Nixon said at the State of the Union address in 1973. Looking at the year 1974, which lies before us, there are 10 key areas in which landmark accomplishments are possible this year in America. If we make these our national agenda, this is what we will achieve in 1974. We will break the back of the energy crisis. We will lay the foundation for our future capacity to meet America's energy needs from America's own resources. That was Nixon in 1973.
Gerald Ford, in 1975, said, I am proposing a program which will begin to restore our country's surplus capacity in total energy. In this way we will be able to assure ourselves reliable and adequate energy and help foster a new world energy stability for other major consuming nations. We must develop our energy technology and resources so that the United States has the ability to supply a significant share of the energy needs of the Free World by the end of this century. President Ford, in 1975.
So, looking at it from a historical perspective, we have talked about this for years and years because Presidents in the past have recognized, and Congresses in the past have recognized, that it is essential for our own national security that we reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
In 1970, our oil imports have grown from nearly 24 percent in 1970, to nearly 70 percent of our total consumption now. Last year alone, the United States spent $475 billion on foreign oil.
Needless to say, as Mr. Boccieri mentioned, and as you mentioned, much of this funding benefits nations that support terrorism or, at the very least, anti-American political extremism. How long should we continue to provide dollars to nations that seek to destroy us?
And so, although this bill focused also on the issue of climate change, for me, and I'm sure for many other Members, this issue had more to do with, from my standpoint, an issue of national security, reducing our dependence on foreign oil and doing what we should have been doing back in the 1970s and moving our country forward.
Now, let me say something about our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Objections have been raised with a number of bills that have come before this Congress, and arguments that we are moving too quickly. Some of those arguments I've agreed with. But the key in moving this Nation forward is not simply to have people that stand in the way of making progress. Regardless of arguments that they make, if we were to give as much time as our opponents on the other side of the aisle would allow, many of them would still object to moving this country forward.
So we need to find a reasonable balance between some of the objections that are made in terms of process and yet, at the same time, make sure that we are not simply standing in the way of progress simply as a result of being in opposition for whatever we do to move this country forward.
And with that, I'll yield back to the gentleman from New York.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. KRATOVIL. Thank you for yielding.
Mr. Tonko, thank you for your comments.
I want to follow up on something you said. You were talking about misstatements that were made in terms of the costs. I want to go back to that in a minute.
You know, one of the misconceptions that you hear when you're back in your districts and elsewhere across the country and that was played up nationally is that, you know, the status quo is acceptable, that Congress doesn't need to take any action, that we're good where we are, and that, at this time, we don't need to do anything. Of course, that is not accurate.
As you folks know, the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the
Clean Air Act, meaning that the EPA today, without congressional action, could take action on their own to reduce greenhouse gases without any of the protections that were provided under the bill that we passed here in the House. So the argument that Congress could sit back and do nothing is clearly inaccurate simply based on the Supreme Court case in 2007 that demonstrated otherwise. So that ship, in a sense, has sailed.
Congress had an obligation to do it, not simply because of the Supreme Court case, but as we're talking about here, obviously we needed to do it in terms of national security and in terms of reducing our dependence on foreign oil, Mr. McMahon, as you pointed out so clearly and also you, Mr. Tonko, in terms of moving us forward in these new green energy jobs that we need.
In terms of the cost issue that you raised, that is the best example of how in a national debate statements are made that are so clearly factually inaccurate. As you folks know, I spent 14 years as a prosecutor, and my life and profession were governed by facts. When you see a misstatement like that in terms of facts, it's somewhat overwhelming, particularly, as you said, in the study that was cited by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. The author of that study that was cited came out publicly and said that he was being cited inaccurately and that that was not what he said.
The interesting thing is, in looking at it in terms of energy efficiency, not only, arguably, will it not cost our constituents more, but arguably, it will cost them less because of the energy-efficiency savings that will result from that bill. In Maryland, as an example, the study that you cited, Mr. McMahon, indicates that Marylanders could arguably save $8 per month as opposed to the arguments that they're going to pay $3,900 more. So the facts that have been given are oftentimes inaccurate.
As you go around and as you're having this discussion with people on whether we should have the policies that were included in that bill, it's interesting from a Maryland perspective, because I heard quite frequently people saying, You know, Mr. Kratovil, we don't want cap-and-trade. Well, in Maryland, we've had cap-and-trade since 2007. Maryland has participated in a regional greenhouse gas initiative since 2007, so we already had that.
Again, the interesting thing is, in terms of the Federal standards that were set in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent, in Maryland, it's 25 percent. So, in many ways, in Maryland, the argument wasn't so much whether or not we should have these policies; the question was whether or not we should have these policies nationally so that we're all playing by the same rules.
So many of the facts that have been given are inaccurate. As I said, it is incredible when you think about the fact that, for the last 40 years, there has been a recognition among Presidents that, in terms of national security, we must reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Ronald Reagan: The best answer, while conservation is worthy in itself, is to try to make us independent of outside sources to the greatest extent possible for our energy. 1981, Ronald Reagan.
President George H.W. Bush, October 25, 1991: When our administration developed our national energy strategy, three principles guided our policy--reducing our dependence on foreign oil, protecting our environment and promoting economic growth.
Arguably, this bill does all three.
Yet, despite that recognition dating back to Nixon, despite the fact, as Mr. Boccieri has correctly pointed out, that every major Republican Presidential candidate acknowledged the need for reducing our dependence on foreign oil and despite the fact, as was mentioned, that Senator McCain specifically promoted cap-and-trade, when we take the vote in the House, we only have a few brave Republicans who are willing to cross party lines.
Now, why is that?
In my view, despite arguments that are made in terms of process, despite arguments that are made somewhat substantively related to the bills, the bottom line is, ultimately, the votes that are being taken on major issues facing this country are still predominantly based on politics and are not based on what is in the best interest of this country.
As we talked about after this vote, were we to have the vote tomorrow, I would make it again. It was a vote that was very important to this country. It is a vote that will move this country forward, and we need to do what we're doing tonight to convince the people of this country that we were right, as I think we were.
With that, I will yield back.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. KRATOVIL. Since this will likely be my last round here as we go through this, let me thank the three of you for the courage to take the vote that you took on this bill. And as I mentioned in the last few discussions that I have had, I do think that it's important in moving our country forward that we do have people in this House that are willing to make difficult choices and to take difficult votes that ultimately are the best for this country even at times when it's politically difficult to do so. So I thank you for the courage to do that.
You know, people forget that just last year when we were running for office we had $4-a-gallon gas, and people were looking at Congress and saying, What are you doing about $4 in gas? And I mentioned when that was going on that what we do oftentimes in this country is we deal with the crisis but we don't always deal with the underlying issue that led to the crisis.
And so now as the gas prices have dropped, many have forgotten what we were facing just a year ago. Many have moved on. And yet my view is we should not forget the position we were in 1 year ago because we could, at any time in the future, be again paying $4 a gallon, $5 a gallon for gas as long as we are held hostage by those that control our energy. And until we make a decision, as we did in this vote, to move forward towards renewable energy, renewable fuel and ending our dependence on foreign oil, we could, at any moment, face the same situation we faced last year. And none of us as Americans should forget the anger that we had last summer when we were doing that. Many have forgotten. We should not forget that.
We should deal with the underlying issue that led to the energy crisis that we faced last year, and that is reducing our dependence on foreign oil, moving towards renewable energy, and making positive steps in terms of our own national security.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source