[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15230-15236]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1615
                     REAL SECURITY PLAN FOR AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, tonight Representative Van Hollen and I will 
be discussing one of the core issues of national security, and that is 
energy independence.
  National security is the core function of our government. For most of 
our history as a Nation, bipartisanship governed American national 
security policymaking. In the words of Senator Arthur Vandenberg, a 
Republican, ``Politics must end at the water's edge.''
  A succession of American Presidents from Woodrow Wilson to Harry 
Truman to Dwight Eisenhower to Ronald Reagan guided this Nation through 
two world wars and the tense decades of the Cold War. Their leadership 
was based on asserting America's power in a way that advanced the 
ideals of our founders, and which made America a beacon to millions of 
people who were suffering under fascism and communism.
  Most importantly, these men knew the limits of any one Nation's 
ability, and they saw the wisdom of marshaling our strength with that 
of other freedom-loving people. They listened to the counsel of our 
allies and members of both parties here at home.
  The current administration has too often believed that it has the 
answers and does not need to pay attention to the ideas of others. This 
refusal to listen to other voices and an excessively partisan and 
ideological approach has resulted in an America that is more isolated 
than at any time in the postwar era.
  Around the world, among nations that should be our strong allies, we 
are less often seen as a force for good in the world, and this has 
jeopardized the cooperation we must have to win the war on terror. This 
has been most clearly seen in Iraq, where insistence on invading the 
country without the broad international coalition we assembled in the 
Gulf War, and then our brushing aside offers of help from the 
international community, have seriously undermined the war effort and 
increased the burden that our troops and our country must bear.
  But Iraq is not the only challenge facing our Nation. The ongoing 
crisis involving Israel, and Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists, Iran's 
standoff with the international community over its nuclear program, and 
a similar faceoff with North Korea are all competing for the attention 
of American policymakers.
  In each of those crises, America's ability to marshal international 
support and use the full range of our power to effect a positive 
outcome has been undermined by the administration's ineffective 
stewardship of our national security. Democrats have developed a 
comprehensive blueprint to better protect America and to restore our 
Nation's position of international leadership.
  Our plan, Real Security, was devised with the assistance of a broad 
range of experts, former military officers, retired diplomats, law 
enforcement personnel, homeland security experts and others, who helped 
identify key areas where current policies have failed and where new 
ones were needed.
  In a series of six Special Orders, my colleagues and I have been 
sharing with the American people our vision for a more secure America. 
The plan has five pillars, and each of our Special Order hours have 
been addressing each of them in turn: Building a military for the 21st 
century, winning the war on terrorism, securing our homeland, a way 
forward in Iraq, and achieving energy independence for America, the 
subject of Ms. Kaptur's recent 5-minute speech.
  During our first Special Order we discussed the first pillar of our 
plan, building a military for the 21st century. To briefly summarize 
what we discussed 2 weeks ago, here are the elements of that pillar: 
Rebuild a state-of-the-art military; develop the world's best equipment 
and training, and maintain that equipment and training; accurate 
intelligence and a strategy for success; a GI bill of Rights for the 
21st century; and strengthening the National Guard.
  We next discussed a comprehensive plan to win the war on terror, 
which focused on a wide-ranging series of strategies to destroy the 
threat posed by Islamic radicalism. This involves destroying al Qaeda 
and finishing the job in Afghanistan; doubling special forces and 
improving intelligence; eliminating terrorist breeding grounds; 
preventative diplomacy and new international leadership; securing loose 
nuclear materials by 2010; stopping nuclear weapons development in Iran 
and North Korea.
  The job of securing our homeland remains unfinished. In the wake of 
9/11, there have been numerous commissions and investigations at the 
Federal, State and local level as well as a multitude of private 
studies. All of them, all of them, have pointed to a broad systemic and 
other flaws in our homeland security program.
  Almost 2 years ago, the independent 9/11 Commission published its 
report, but most of its recommendations have yet to be implemented. Our 
homeland security plan requires the implementation of all of the 9/11 
Commission recommendations. It provides for the screening of all 
containers and cargo.
  It safeguards our nuclear and chemical plants. It prohibits 
outsourcing of ports, airports and mass transit to foreign interests. 
Trains and equips our first responders and invests in public health to 
safeguard Americans.
  In early June we discussed our plan for Iraq, a new course to make 
2006 a

[[Page 15231]]

year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqis 
assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their 
country with a responsible redeployment of U.S. forces. Democrats will 
insist that Iraqis make the political compromises necessary to unite 
their country and defeat the insurgency, promote regional diplomacy, 
and strongly encourage allies and other nations to play a constructive 
role.
  For the remainder of today's hour, we will discuss the fifth pillar 
of Real Security: Stable, reliable, affordable sources of energy are 
crucial to the U.S. economy and to the global economy.
  To ensure such a supply, I believe developing cleaner sources of 
energy and encouraging energy efficiency and conservation must be among 
the Nation's top priorities. Members of both parties in Congress and 
the administration must work together toward a pragmatic and 
comprehensive strategy to secure American prosperity in the 21st 
century.
  Democrats have long advocated increased investment in the search for 
alternative fuels and the development of energy-efficient technology. 
Today European and Asian competitors are already developing 
technologies that will reduce fuel consumption and lower the emission 
of greenhouse gases.
  Rather than American entrepreneurs, it is our competitors who are 
prospering from these developments. By marshaling America's great 
strengths, our innovativeness, our technological prowess, our 
entrepreneurial spirit, we can better secure our Nation, save our 
environment, and become the world leader in this cutting-edge industry.
  In pursuing energy security, we must use the Nation's resources 
effectively. The Real Security Plan directs the national investment to 
areas that minimize economic risk while maximizing the potential 
benefits. It also aligns incentives for American consumers with the 
goals of our Nation.
  It makes transparent the true costs of energy and ensures that the 
easy choice for Americans is also the right choice for the Nation. 
Finally, it emphasizes the importance of energy as a national security 
issue.
  To achieve this vision, the Real Security Plan offers fresh policy 
ideas. These ideas are drawn from a broad range of stakeholders, 
academic experts, government administrators, energy industry 
executives, environmentalists, and a vibrant grass-roots community.
  The Real Security Plan pushes the Federal bureaucracy to overcome its 
business-as-usual approach and it encourages American entrepreneurs to 
innovate. While many of the ideas are new, some have been around for 
years. For example, experts have for many years recommended updating 
the Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency or CAFE standards. This year even 
the majority on the Government Reform Committee stated in a report that 
the fuel economy standards have stagnated for years.
  Unfortunately, while the President has talked about the Nation's 
addiction to oil, he has failed to take the simple action of updating 
the CAFE standards. The President may believe that fuel efficiency 
standards are a burden on American manufacturers, or a constraint on 
the American consumer, but, sadly, he has underestimated American 
ingenuity and the willingness of Americas to sacrifice in the war on 
terror.
  In contrast, in 1961 President Kennedy announced his vision for the 
Apollo project to put a man on the Moon in one decade, by saying, ``I 
believe that this Nation should commit itself to achieving the goal 
before this decade is out.
  ``But I think every citizen of this country as well as the Members of 
Congress should consider the matter carefully in making their judgment, 
to which we have given attention over many weeks and months, because it 
is a very heavy burden. And there is no sense in agreeing unless we are 
prepared to do the work and bear the burdens to make it successful. If 
we are not, we should decide today and this year.
  ``This decision demands,'' he said, ``a major national commitment of 
scientific and technical manpower, material and facilities, and the 
possibility of their diversion from other important activities where 
they are already spread thin.
  ``It means a degree of dedication, organization and discipline, which 
have not always characterized our research and development efforts. It 
means we cannot afford undue work stoppages, inflated cost of materials 
or talent, wasteful interagency rivalries or a high turnover of key 
personnel.''
  You might recall, in speaking of the Apollo project, President 
Kennedy also said, ``We do this not because it is easy, but because it 
is hard.''
  This is the sort of leadership we need today on energy, and the level 
of commitment that we must be prepared to make, and we must ask of the 
American people. Unfortunately, this President has not asked the 
American people to sacrifice in the face of war or in the face of our 
tremendous challenges.
  I would now like to turn to my colleague, Representative Van Hollen 
of Maryland, who has been a very outspoken leader on national security, 
in general, on energy independence, in particular. I yield to the 
gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Schiff from 
California, for his leadership in bringing us together to discuss these 
very important national security issues. We are very pleased to be 
joined today by Congresswoman Kaptur, as well, who is very well versed 
in the issue of energy security and energy policy. It is wonderful to 
have her with us on the floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, I think America understands that energy security is a 
very important part of our national security. But if we are going to 
address energy security in a meaningful way going forward, we need to 
do it in a new manner. We cannot just be doing the same old thing.
  Now, I think many of us were pleased back in January when the 
President delivered his State of the Union address, and from the podium 
right behind Mr. Schiff, he said to the Congress assembled and to the 
American people that the United States was addicted to oil.
  In fact, his exact words were: The United States is addicted to oil 
which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.
  I am pleased that the President finally acknowledged that. That was 
kind of the headline in the newspapers the next day.
  The confusing thing, I thought, was that most of America already knew 
that we were overly reliant on oil, especially on foreign oil. But it 
was news that this administration had begun to at least acknowledge 
that problem.
  The question is, having acknowledged the problem, whether we are 
serious as a Nation about doing something about it. Unfortunately, if 
you look at the record to date from the Bush administration, despite 
the rhetoric he gave at the time he addressed the United States 
Congress, we have not seen the follow-through in terms of a new plan. 
And we need a new direction in energy policy.
  For example, that night he talked about the fact that we need to do 
more in the area of renewable energy, which we do; as you, Mr. Schiff, 
have said, that many of us have been pushing for for many, many years. 
But I think we all remember that it was not long after the President 
gave his State of the Union address that he flew off to the National 
Renewable Energy Lab out in Colorado, part of NOAA, and discovered that 
in fact the budget that he was submitting the day after the State of 
the Union address actually cut about 40 employees who were working on 
renewable energy at that lab.
  And so the difference is really the one between actually doing 
something about an issue or just talking about an issue.

                              {time}  1630

  Because when you submit a budget the day after your State of the 
Union address, in which you say that the country is addicted to oil, 
and we have got to do something about it, and you submit a budget that 
cuts individuals'

[[Page 15232]]

pay at one of the greatest national labs on that issue, in fact, the 
one that the President chose for his photo op on this issue, you know 
there is some kind of miscommunication between the guys who write the 
speeches and the guys that actually are putting the budget together 
which reflect the priorities of our Nation.
  Clearly, the priority in that budget wasn't to follow through in a 
new direction on energy policy. In fact, unfortunately, what we have 
seen is the same old, same old. We have an energy policy bill that some 
people say will help wean us off our dependence on oil, but a major 
feature of that bill is to provide more taxpayer subsidies to the oil 
and gas industry.
  Now, I have got to believe that the American people are scratching 
their heads and saying, what's wrong with this picture? I just went to 
fill up my car with gasoline. We have record prices at the pump. The 
oil and gas industry is making record profits, and yet you, the United 
States Congress, under this Republican leadership, you are taking some 
more of my taxpayer money and saying to the oil and gas industry, gee, 
even though you are making record profits and gas prices are through 
the roof, we are going to give you some of our constituents' taxpayer 
money as additional incentive for you to go out and explore and drill 
for oil and gas.
  What happened to the free market? What happened to the notion that 
here we want to make sure that the market works? In fact, we are taking 
money from our taxpayers to subsidize an industry that needs absolutely 
no subsidy. They are making record profits. In fact, the President 
announced that we have to break that addiction. If you want to break an 
addiction, the first thing you need to do is acknowledge you got a 
problem. Then you got to do something about it.
  Providing a greater subsidy or additional subsidies to the oil and 
gas industry, when you have acknowledged, as the President said, that 
we are addicted to oil, does exactly the opposite.
  Mr. SCHIFF. This sounds a little bit about the equivalent, if you are 
dealing with someone with a substance abuse addiction, to give them a 
subsidy to buy the contraband that is the subject of their addiction.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well, that is exactly right. Let us say you had an 
alcoholic. The last thing you want to do to help that person kick the 
habit is to provide a subsidy, for example, to the alcohol industry to 
make more alcohol at different prices. So we have got a real 
contradiction here between what we now acknowledge should be our 
national priority, a national priority, and what we are actually doing 
about it.
  That is why I think it is very important that we are here today to 
talk about a new direction, because I do believe that if we want to 
really help break that addiction and reduce our reliance on oil, we 
need a large national effort. That is why many of us have joined 
together to introduce the new Apollo Energy Act, which says we need to 
harness the great potential of this Nation, the grant entrepreneurial 
spirit, and make sure that we commit ourselves to this real national 
effort, in addition to the fact that we need to encourage, not just 
more renewable energy, but in the immediate short-term we can also 
encourage greater energy efficiency.
  We waste an awful lot of energy as a Nation through inefficient use 
of energy. So the Federal Government has tried and gave us a push to 
try to encourage States and local jurisdictions, the American people, 
to find ways to improve energy efficiency. But if you look at the 
President's budget with respect to energy efficiency efforts, you see 
dramatic reductions in the budget that he submitted for that purpose.
  In fact, Diane Shea, who is the executive director of the National 
Association of State Energy Officials, has said that the assistance 
that the States received from the Department of Energy is not going to 
be available this year as it was in the past. This year, the year after 
the President stood at this podium right here in this Chamber and said 
this is a national problem, we have got a national addiction, we have 
got to do something about it.
  Yet he reduced the efforts that we had put in place and were trying 
to develop to try to help people with energy efficiency, because we 
know that if we can use energy more efficiently, obviously, then we 
need less to produce the same output and the same quality of life.
  So if you look at all of these different areas, you just find a 
growing gap between what the Bush administration says it wants to do 
and what it is actually doing. It is a credibility gap that is growing. 
I think the American people recognize that fact, and they are looking 
for an alternative that is real.
  That is why we have developed what we call a real security plan, not 
a fake one, not one where you say one thing and do another, but a real 
plan, which really makes the national commitment to this effort in 
many, many different areas.
  The new Apollo Energy Project is part of that. A project to provide 
greater efforts in the area of ethanol is part of that. A whole series 
of concrete steps that are in a proposal that is put together through a 
consensus by many experts is part of that. We need to act on that 
proposal, and we need to start acting today if we really want to reduce 
our dependence on foreign oil, improve our national security situation, 
and improve our environmental situation and address the issue of global 
climate change, which we necessarily need to address as well.
  I would be happy to yield to our colleague, Ms. Marcy Kaptur, and 
thank her for her leadership on this issue.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank our colleague from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for their own energy and 
helping America shape a different century and different millennium in 
this 21st, and to say that there could be no more important dedication 
for us as public officials than to meet America's chief strategic 
vulnerability in imported petroleum with real answers. To do so, as 
Congressman Schiff reminded us, when President Kennedy helped to do 
what was hard and lead America to land a man on the Moon, it was done 
within 10 years.
  At that time, I remember as a child, it seemed so impossible to land 
a man on the Moon. Yet now we see space shuttles. When you stand 
outside and look at the sky, and you watch the shuttle come before the 
Moon and then go back around again, you may see what this Nation has 
achieved since the 1960s.
  But, indeed, we did land a man on the Moon in 10 years. I am troubled 
by the long-time horizon on new forms of energy, because if the 
government of the United States were serious, within 10 years it could 
use its own power to help convert this Nation.
  I will just discuss two of the committees on which I serve that have 
major roles to play in this conversion. Both Congressman Schiff and 
Congressman Van Hollen have talked about the Department of Agriculture.
  What Congressman Van Hollen has said is true, that although the 
President, in his State of the Union, talked about energy addiction and 
the importance of transitioning America to be energy independent, the 
cost-cutting budget of the Department of Agriculture, under his 
administration every single year, has cut funds for renewables.
  Farmers struggle in the rural communities across this country to try 
to piece together the investment dollars and have the confidence that 
what they are doing will weather the kind of beating that they will 
take from the oil cartels, who command the marketplace and control the 
price in this country. Please don't try to convince me it is a free 
market. Oh, no, it is only a free market for those who control the 
spigots.
  It isn't a free market for the consumer at all. Because in the 
community I represent, even if I want to buy a car that runs on 
ethanol, there is only one pump, and that was only put in after 
considerable pressure. Who has time to go way over to another part of 
the State or another part of the city to go fill up, with families 
having the pressures that they have on them in the workplace today?
  No, the Department of agriculture, although I authored the first 
title to a

[[Page 15233]]

farm bill in American history, title 9, that has the ability to invest 
some dollars in renewable energy through the farm community, it is such 
a pittance. It is almost laughable, except it is all we have. There 
isn't any major division over at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
even until today, that deals with energy independence and bringing up 
the full array of renewables.
  We know about ethanol, because ethanol is derived from corn, and corn 
is heavily subsidized. So, of course, we are going to get more alcohol 
from corn. But you know the truth is, in terms of science, that isn't 
the crop with the most oil, with the most ability to be refined. There 
are other seed crops that have much higher oil content. We have just 
never developed them.
  So the Federal Government isn't in the lead on this in agriculture. 
It is actually following in the wake of real progressive States like 
Minnesota, which I call the Thomas Alva Edison Center of the 21st 
century. What they are doing, they are viewing new energy production 
and new renewables and new investment there as economic development for 
the State of Minnesota.
  We have a lot to learn from them. The Federal Government ought to 
just copy what the State of Minnesota has done and make it available 
across the country. But it is a tragedy now because even though Detroit 
makes dozens and dozens of vehicles that will run on these new 
renewable fuels, there are no gas pumps around the country.
  There were a few incentives in one of the bills that we passed here 
in terms of tax credits and incentives for companies to put in tanks in 
the ground, but it is not serious. It is just sort of limping along. It 
isn't the kind of great challenge President Kennedy gave to us and the 
challenge that the Nation met.
  If I could just say a word about the Department of Defense, it is 
incredible that the Secretary of Defense of this Nation would come 
before the Defense Appropriations Committee, when asked the question, 
what role did he see for his Department, the largest purchaser of 
petroleum in the United States of America, and petroleum-based 
products, to help erase this strategic vulnerability that we had due to 
the fact that we import three-quarters of our petroleum, he said, That 
is not my job. That's the Department of Energy's job.
  I couldn't believe it. I went up to him afterwards, and I said, well, 
if it isn't our job, why do we have our Fifth Fleet porting in Bahrain 
holding up that government? You start looking around where we have put 
our defense forces to protect the oil lanes. We had a vote here today 
on Oman. It is pretty clear the Strait of Hormuz is very strategically 
important to us, because we are totally dependent on that oil lifeline.
  To me, that is America's chief defense vulnerability. So why doesn't 
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld know about it? He doesn't want to know 
about it. Know what, the generals know about it. The generals at the 
Air Force know it, the generals at the Navy Department know it. The 
generals over at Army know about it, and they know about the soldiers 
in the field.
  We have research projects going on at DOD to try to have solar tents 
where the sun's rays are used if we have to move battalions around and 
try to provide alternative ways of powering these different defense 
systems that we have in theater. People on the ground know. The Guard 
and Reserve know. America has to change.
  I hope the Secretary or somebody in his office will give him some of 
my remarks, because the Department of Defense ought to be in the lead. 
Then many of the other Federal agencies will follow.
  The Federal agency that deserves the biggest star for doing what is 
right is the postal service. The postal service, with its vehicles, and 
some of them only get 12 miles a gallon, we ought to convert those, has 
done more than any other Federal agency to use its power to try to use 
vehicles that run on new fuels, batteries, new technology, hybrids, 
which Congressman Schiff and Congressman Van Hollen have referenced in 
their remarks.
  The Federal Government itself, as major a share of the U.S. economy 
as it is, could do wonders. Would it not be great if the President had 
hybrids as part of the White House lineup? Wouldn't it be great if the 
Secretary of Defense could see his way to thinking about this and 
integrating the energy mandate into what the Department of Defense 
does?
  Wouldn't it be great if the Secretary of Agriculture actually helped 
the farmers of this country become owners in the new energy industries 
that are being created across the fields of Minnesota, Iowa, Ohio, 
Indiana and so many other places, rather than making these farmers 
struggle and be threatened with bankruptcy because they can't, they 
don't have all the connections on Wall Street, and they can't get up to 
the $40 million level for investment?
  So I thank the gentleman for giving me a chance to say a few words 
here this evening. I share your absolute commitment to energy 
independence by 2020 or even sooner than that.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentlewoman for all her leadership on this 
issue, and you alluded to the free market and the operation of market 
forces. That is not always as free as it might appear, particularly in 
the price at the pump. But there have been several obstacles to our 
energy independence, what has been a lack of vision in terms of where 
we need to go as a country in the administration and in the Defense 
Department, as you point out, but there have also obviously been within 
the oil industry efforts to stop this from happening.
  I have to imagine the best and quickest way to bring oil prices down 
is to make other sources of energy competitive. If we can incentivize 
the development of these biofuels and make them more readily available, 
the oil companies are going to drop their prices in a hurry in order to 
undercut this new industry, if nothing more.
  But what really kind of gnaws at me is when we look around the world 
at what China is doing with solar power and solar cities now, at what 
South American countries are doing at making themselves energy 
independent with biofuels, and what Japan is doing in terms of 
development of hybrid technology and how they are passing us by, that 
really grieves me because it hurts our national security interests. It 
hurts our economy.
  Let me do a reality check with Mr. Van Hollen's district which is 
3,000 miles from mine. If I ask my constituents, would you be willing 
to make a sacrifice so that you could tell the oil producing Nations of 
the world, many of which are not our friends, we do not want your oil, 
we do not need your oil, you can take your oil and whatever, my 
constituents would leap at that. How would your constituents feel?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I think despite the fact there are 3,000 miles 
between the area you represent and the area I represent, that is 
certainly one of the things that brings our constituents together. I 
think what they are all looking for, regardless of where they live in 
this great country of ours, is some real leadership on this very 
important issue.
  This House just a few weeks ago had another opportunity to send a 
statement on the fact that we wanted a forward-looking energy plan with 
a new direction or whether we just wanted to go the same old, same old.
  Our colleague, Congressman Markey of Massachusetts, offered an 
amendment. It said let us put an end to another subsidy to provide for 
deepwater drilling for oil and gas. In other words, and I just want to 
make this clear, in other words, taking funds from our constituents and 
providing it to the oil and gas companies effectively in the form of a 
subsidy so that they can drill for oil and gas.
  Now, even this administration said they were against this particular 
subsidy, but not the leadership in this House, not the Republican 
leadership in this House. It went right out of this House because, 
unfortunately, the Republican leadership is still in the old frame of 
mind that we can just keep doing what we used to be doing rather than 
moving in a very new direction.

[[Page 15234]]

  I would like to pick up briefly on our point that our colleague here, 
Ms. Kaptur, made with respect to the issue of the Federal Government 
leading by example.
  It is hard for all of us to ask people around this country to do 
things in the area of energy efficiency when the Federal Government 
itself has been such a deadbeat on this. The Federal Government, after 
all, is the largest single consumer of energy in the United States and 
yet, again, after the President gave his State of the Union address, he 
submitted the fiscal year 2007 budget, and that was the lowest request 
ever for Federal Government energy efficiency efforts. In fact, that 
was lower, despite the fact in 2004 the Federal Government consumed 
more energy than at any other time in the last 10 years.
  So, again, I get back to the point, you got to say what you mean and 
you got to follow through.
  Here was another example. This is the day of the State of the Union 
address, the budget came down, and yet the budget came down, the 
President, head of the executive branch, submitted a budget that 
reduced funds for energy efficiency programs in the Federal Government. 
That is not leading by example.
  Part of our new directions program is we say we will ensure that the 
Federal Government will be part of the solution, not part of the 
problem.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I wanted to make one comment and I have a question for 
Ms. Kaptur.
  When we talk about sacrifice during the War on Terror, really the 
only people in America who have been asked to sacrifice are the men and 
women in uniform and their families, and they are sacrificing big time; 
multiple deployments to Iraq, to Afghanistan, families left behind, 
wondering if their loved one is going to come back at all, come back in 
one piece, how to make ends meet while they are gone.
  I met when I was in Iraq a young man serving there who was on his way 
back home. His wife was also in the service. She was on her way to 
Iraq. They were going to be like two ships passing in the night. The 
level of sacrifice of the men and women in uniform is nothing short of 
outstanding.
  Outside of that group, though, Americans have not been asked to 
sacrifice for the greater good, but we are sacrificing in an unexpected 
way, and that is when we go to the pump. We are paying a heavy price. 
The problem is that the price we are paying is not going for any 
productive gain.
  Yes, we are paying a lot more at the pump. But where is that money 
going? It is going in two places. It is going into the record profits 
that Mr. Van Hollen mentioned, which it is not just record profits for 
the oil industry. The oil companies have had the largest profits of any 
corporation in American corporate history, and these are the same 
companies that are enjoying the tax subsidies that we keep passing. And 
yes, the market is allowing them to take these profits. It is not 
compelling them to. It is not compelling them to charge that price at 
the pump, but it is giving them the opportunity to, and they are taking 
it. So part of the money is going there.
  Where else is the money going? Well, a lot of the money is going to 
the Middle East. A lot of it is going to countries that, either openly 
or covertly, are funding people who are trying to kill us. That is not 
a worthwhile sacrifice for Americans to make. And the terrible tragedy 
of this is. And I think probably the biggest missed opportunity of this 
administration is if we had started 5 years ago, or even after 9/11, 
and we said we are going to make the sacrifice now to wean ourselves 
off of oil, we might have had to pay a little bit more in terms of our 
conservation measures, but that money would be an investment in our 
security. Now we are paying 10 times as much, and it is going to some 
of the people trying to kill us.
  What I wanted to ask Ms. Kaptur, I know other countries in South 
America, for example, have gone a long way in terms of using biofuel, 
have made themselves energy independent, have done what we have not 
been able to do. If we did have the right package of incentives, if the 
government was a leader and worked with the agriculture industry, how 
much of our domestic consumption of energy could be supplied by 
biofuels?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I think the honest answer to that is initially about 15 
percent. If one looks at the current type of production where we have 
field crops, if we compare ourselves to Brazil where they have many 
fewer cars than we do but they are really heavily biofueled right now, 
they have got well over half of their vehicles that are running on 
alcohol-based fuels. Under current technologies and current types of 
plants that we use, and current refining capacity, I think we could get 
up to about 15 percent.
  I do believe that with biotechnology and the introduction of more 
oil-rich seed crops we could push that number up, and that is part of 
the horizon of cracking the carbohydrate molecule, as we in the 20th 
century cracked the carbon molecule to produce gasoline and refine it 
off of petroleum.
  We are really neophytes in terms of really using oil seeds in order 
to produce the maximum number of Btus per acre and per ton. So I think 
if one looks at the period of a decade, we could do an enormous amount 
surely in the areas where we have field crops already in production.
  I would say that for the future, the Midwest would have a larger 
share of its vehicles that run on alcohol-based fuels than perhaps 
California. California might have more of a mix of hybrid battery 
technology, maybe hydrogen-infused systems. I do not think that there 
is just one answer here.
  But right now, because the oil companies really lock out the biofuels 
at the pump, we cannot move the vehicles that are already being made 
and sell them. Most Americans who are driving these flex-fuel vehicles 
do not even know it. So I would say that biofuels is at least a fifth 
of the answer, and then we have to look to fuel cells. We have to look 
to hydrogen-infused systems.
  I think that in the future, we are working on one project in the 
Midwest, we are taking the rays of the sun and converting them to 
hydrogen. Then we will have the plug-in vehicles, the experimental 
plug-in vehicles.
  So there is a series of technologies being used and developed. But 
imagine if the Federal Government were a partner rather than just sort 
of a bystander in this effort. We could ratchet up the usage so much 
more quickly.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank you very much for your leadership on this, and it 
seems to me there is maybe no other issue that is as cost-cutting, as 
energy independent and has such a positive synergy, since that to the 
degree we could wean ourselves off of foreign oil, that helps us with 
our national security and our foreign policy.
  To the degree we can develop these new technologies, that helps us 
economically. There has been tremendous demand in China, India, and 
elsewhere that are energy-starved countries with strong GDPs. So it is 
an economic winner.
  In terms of our environment, not sending all of those ozone-depleting 
gases and the greenhouse effect and the global warming, it is an 
environmental imperative.
  In terms of rescuing the family farm and helping our agriculture 
industry, it could be a vital part of the answer.
  Almost every challenge we face as a Nation intersects at the 
intersection of energy independence. Now, some people point at other 
solutions, and I want to ask the gentleman about this.
  Probably the most prominent debate we have on energy kind of tells 
you where we are here is on drilling in Alaska. From my point of view, 
that does not make much sense, both in terms of how long it would take 
to extract the oil, the environmental costs, but I wanted to ask your 
thoughts on that.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well, the gentleman is right, and I think the 
statistics on this are clear, that even if you took all the oil you 
could possibly drill out of Alaska, with all the costs and the 
environmental damage, it would deal with only a very short period of 1 
year, less than 1 year, a couple weeks to months in terms of our total 
energy use.

[[Page 15235]]

  So if you are trying to break an addiction, you do not keep feeding 
that addiction. What you need to do is have a different approach in 
general.

                              {time}  1700

  As Ms. Kaptur has said, it is not just one different thing, it is 
many different technologies and different ideas that you need to work 
on. But what you don't do if you want to kick a habit is keep 
encouraging that habit to remain. And yet that is what we have been 
using so much of our natural resources to do. We should not be using 
taxpayer money to do the oil and gas subsidies. Rather, we should be 
using our efforts to encourage these other ideas that are in our 
national interest.
  The President has said we have a problem. That is not the issue, 
apparently. But the issue is what are we doing about it. That is why I 
think this discussion is important.
  I really do believe it is a terrible thing when so many of the others 
around the world are ahead of us in so many areas where we should be 
leading the way. We have a great entrepreneurial spirit. We have the 
resources and talents to do this. There is no reason why other 
countries should be beating us in the area of renewable energy 
development and energy efficiency technologies. And yet they are. I 
think that is because of a lack of national leadership. Other countries 
have made this a priority. In this country we have made it a priority 
for sound bites, but we have not made it a priority for policy.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Coming from the industrial Midwest, I think I have more 
automotive plants in my district than the entire State of California 
has, so I come from an area where the automotive industry was born and 
hopefully is being reborn. But it is amazing to me the way in which the 
U.S. automotive industry chose to meet foreign competition. It was not 
to try to pry open Japan's market which remains closed to the goods of 
all countries. Even when the old Yugoslavia made Yugos, you couldn't 
get them into Japan. So less than 3 percent of the cars on their street 
are from anywhere else in the world, the second largest auto producer 
in the world.
  They did not really choose a strategy of opening up closed markets or 
of converting here at home the largest automotive market in the world 
through the intervention of more fuel-efficient vehicles. They were 
forced to do that by CAFE standards and so forth here. But they fought 
that every step of the way and forced on the American people choices 
that were very, very oil-consumptive choices. So SUVs came on the 
market, and yet you could look over to Europe and see a Mercedes diesel 
run on biodiesel operating over in Europe.
  Yet here we had something like the Hummer comes out, and it gets 9 
miles to a gallon at a time when we know that we have to have more 
fuel-efficient vehicles.
  I had an interesting experience a couple of years ago. I went up to 
the Detroit auto show, and I said I would like you to show me the floor 
with the new flex fuel or the biofuel vehicles, and the salesman just 
looked at me.
  We really don't have the industry well focused yet in terms of, look, 
Americans want to change the country. These are the vehicles that are 
available to you. This is how we are going to make it easy for you to 
convert. They are still not there yet. They have globally forced on the 
American market the big gas guzzlers. But if you go anywhere else in 
the world, whether it is Brazil or Germany, anywhere you go, you see 
the more fuel-efficient vehicles being employed.
  Think about your church parking lot or think about the supermarket 
parking lot that you shop in, and just go and look and see what is in 
the lot and what people are buying and what the miles per gallon is, 
and then do the same thing in Italy and do the same thing in Japan and 
do the same thing in Brazil and say to yoursel, What is wrong with this 
picture? Why aren't Americans being given the very same choices as 
consumers in other countries? Why have they been able to be more fuel 
efficient than we are?
  And if I can say just one thing on solar energy, since I represent 
the solar energy research center of the Nation, we make solar panels at 
a third of the cost of the Japanese, and they are just as efficient. In 
fact, they are more efficient, but they are bigger. Because they are 
bigger, they are one-third the cost. All of the companies in my 
district that are making these solar panels, they are being exported to 
Europe because Europe has the special incentives for renewable 
applications. And the majority of the technology on solar roofing and 
solar panels is being shipped to other countries because we don't have 
those same incentives here.
  So our government, those in the leadership here, can't see their way 
forward to help America convert when she wants to. The American people 
are with us on that. They know we have to change. Why don't we make it 
easy?
  Mr. SCHIFF. That is one of the things that drives me crazy. One of my 
staff just got a Toyota Prius. She had to wait 6 months to get that 
Prius. There is a 6-month waiting time to get a hybrid made in Japan.
  We don't have a non-SUV hybrid yet that I am aware of, an American 
car out on the road that competes with the Prius or with the Honda 
Civic hybrid. Why is it that some of the foreign automakers seem to 
know the American market better than we know ourselves?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. If the gentleman would yield, I understand your 
confusion, and I share that. I think it has been so shortsighted that 
we as a Nation didn't take the steps that we needed to take many years 
ago in this regard in terms of updating in a significant way the CAFE 
standard, the corporate average fuel economy standards in this country.
  When gas prices started going up over the last many months, all of a 
sudden you saw people running around with their heads cut off, trying 
to think of quick-fix solutions.
  You had the majority leader of the Senate, Senator Frist, he floated 
this idea of a $100 rebate to every American, as if that was somehow 
going to solve the problem. Quick fixes are not going to solve the 
problem. We need serious solutions.
  One of the things that should have been done years and years ago was 
updating the CAFE standards. It is interesting to hear Members of 
Congress who have been here for a long time, I listened to Senator Lott 
and others on the other side talking about this. They said, Gee, you 
know, if we had known what we were going to see today in terms of gas 
prices, we would have supported an increase in the CAFE standards back 
then. Well, you know, we don't all have crystal balls, but we have to 
exercise our best judgment.
  And the fact of the matter is that is a long overdue measure. And it 
is not a quick fix because it takes time for the fleet of cars to turn 
over. You can't just change the corporate average fuel economy 
standards today and, presto, have a result. It requires some forward 
thinking.
  The fact that we didn't do it before was a big mistake, and I think 
people should hold people accountable for their mistakes. On the other 
hand, it is better late than never. We need to get moving on that, and 
we need to get moving on the whole menu of other options that we have 
been discussing today. There is no silver bullet to this. You need an 
array of options. You need a number of efforts going on at the same 
time.
  But in order to get all of those things going, you need one essential 
ingredient, and that is some leadership and a commitment to this issue 
and a commitment to have a new direction and not just rely on the 
failed policies of the past that continue to get us into the mess we 
are in.
  Mr. SCHIFF. The gentleman is exactly right. We have this choice. We 
have had this choice for several years. We can have more of the same, 
more of the same $3.50-a-gallon gas, maybe $4-a-gallon gas at the pump, 
more warming of the global environment, more production of greenhouse 
gases, more pain economically in terms of higher energy costs for 
businesses.
  Or we can have a new direction. I think we have talked about several 
of the ingredients of that new direction

[[Page 15236]]

tonight. The investment of biofuels: That helps our farms and it helps 
our economy, it helps our energy independence, and it helps our energy 
independence and our national security.
  Investment in other alternative energy sources like solar power where 
the profit points are almost there, almost there for a great expansion 
of solar power. They just need a little incentivization before they can 
be broadly employed.
  The development of windpower, geothermal, and the whole host of 
renewable energy sources. This is the new direction we need to take 
this country in. Otherwise, every time we have a flare-up in the Middle 
East, as right now we are having this tragic situation, Hezbollah has 
attacked Israel, kidnapped soldiers and prompted this conflagration of 
the region, gas prices are going through the roof.
  Iran thumbs its nose at the international community and says we are 
going forward with our nuclear program, gas prices go through the roof.
  Hurricanes in the gulf take out refining capacity. We can't predict, 
as you say. We don't have a crystal ball. We don't know next year if it 
is going to be a hurricane, or next year it is going to be the Middle 
East, or the Venezuelan head of state who is anathema of the United 
States, but we do know it will be something. And if we don't take 
action to change the direction of our country to a new direction, we 
are going to be continuing to be funding a lot of the people that are 
bent on our destruction.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I just wanted to add that if one looks at the automotive 
industry, and I have all major companies in my district and in my 
State, and talking about their focus along with our focus, we have to 
continue to open closed markets of the world. That's where markets 
expand. You have to put some energy there. You can't just kind of put 
it on the back shelf.
  Many years ago President George Bush the first went to Tokyo. I still 
remember he got very sick at a dinner, and he was there for auto parts 
talks, market opening talks. And ever since that day, there has never 
been an aggressive effort by any administration to open up the second-
largest market in the world. So we have failed on the trade front 
significantly.
  And the major automotive firms have chosen a low-wage strategy rather 
than an innovation strategy. So they have been moving plants around the 
globe seeking cheap labor, whether it is China, Mexico, wherever it is, 
rather than focusing on the innovation that is inherent in the American 
people that was responsible for the dawn of the automotive age in this 
country in the first place.
  Those kind of minds are still out there, but we are kind of wed to 
old technology and the fact that if you sell a very large vehicle in 
this country, you make a little more profit than if you sell a smaller 
vehicle. The larger vehicles use more gas and petroleum-based products. 
We were stuck in that mold for a very, very long time.
  And if you go out and ask the average consumer what they are looking 
for, and the lines are showing it, they are looking for the new 
technology, and it just was not brought on.
  So the strategy that was chosen in the 1980s and 1990s has not led 
our Nation toward energy independence in vehicles. Now we see ads on 
television by the big companies saying we are trying to catch up. Well, 
we really need to catch up very, very quickly or they are going to 
become another segment of our wealth that are purchased by foreign 
interests and no longer belongs to us. We are seeing a lot of that as 
we pawn off pieces of America to try to cover our long-term debts and 
what we owe to the future, which I am very upset about, but alone can't 
solve.
  Nonetheless, I think our automotive companies really need to focus on 
innovation, listen to what the consumer is saying, give them what they 
want, and open up the closed markets of the world. That would go a long 
way to helping this industry revive. And then we have the legacy costs 
of the companies that have been in existence for a very long period of 
time that this Congress could do something about in order to make whole 
the pension and health benefits that workers were promised. That is a 
whole other Special Order.
  I thank Congressman Schiff and Congressman Van Hollen for allowing us 
to speak about such an important subject and one that is at the top of 
the list in terms of domestic security, and that is energy 
independence.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on this issue 
and on so many other issues here in the Congress.
  I want to wrap up by bringing this back to where we started, and that 
is the integral nexus between energy independence and national 
security. You can imagine what a positive to our national security 
policy it would be if in our dealings in the Middle East, our dealings 
with Russia and China and our dealings with South America, if energy 
was not an issue in the sense we were not dependent on other parts of 
the world, and particularly the Gulf States. What a transformative 
effect that could have in a positive way on our national security 
policy. Energy independence is really key.
  Our new direction, as outlined by real security, is energy 
independence by 2020. This is an achievable goal. It would require the 
kind of commitment that President Kennedy talked about when he talked 
about the Apollo project, but it can be done.
  I have great confidence in the American people and the American 
entrepreneur. We can do this. It would eliminate our reliance on Middle 
Eastern oil. We would increase production of alternative fuels in 
America. We would promote hybrid and flex-fuel vehicle technology in 
manufacturing, and we would enhance energy efficiency and conservation 
incentives. This is the direction Democrats feel we need to bring this 
country in order to make sure that our security is in fact very real.
  I want to yield to my colleague from Maryland for his closing remarks 
and once again thank you for not only this evening, but for all of your 
work on the national security plan.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague, Mr. Schiff from California, 
again, for his leadership. And I think we have covered a lot of 
territory in this hour. I think we will have a continuing conversation 
here in the Congress, and I am sure we will have a continuing 
conversation throughout the country about this very important issue.
  And, again, it goes to the question about whether we take our words 
seriously in terms of moving the policy of this country forward. And 
you can't have a situation where you have the President say this is a 
national priority, on the one hand, and then have a budget that comes 
down the next day that sends a very, very different message because, if 
you do that, number one, you lose credibility with the American people; 
and, number two, you obviously can't achieve your objective if you 
don't harness some of our national resources to this very important, 
very important effort.
  So I want to thank my colleague for his leadership on this issue. And 
I hope that in the days ahead, this Congress will move from a position 
of rhetoric on these issues to actually doing something meaningful and 
taking this country in a new direction when it comes to energy policy, 
which, as we have discussed tonight, is such an important component of 
our national security policy as well. So I thank the gentleman for his 
leadership on this issue.

                          ____________________