[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 4]
[House]
[Page 4406]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            MOVING FROM ENERGY INSECURITY TO ENERGY SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. INGLIS. Mr. Speaker, just before the President's Day recess, I 
stood on this floor and talked about the national security risk we're 
running with our energy insecurity. Tonight, I'd like to talk about the 
economic opportunity that's present in moving from energy insecurity to 
energy security.
  You know, I'm on the Science Committee, and in the Science Committee, 
we get to see a lot of new technology. The question of the hour really 
is how to get that technology to the market, how to do for energy what 
Microsoft and Apple did for the PC and the Internet; how do we get from 
here, from ideas, to jobs.
  Well, I happen to think that this is a place where folks on my side 
of the aisle, Republicans, can be particularly helpful because what we 
realize is some market distortions, and the impact of those market 
distortions, on bringing products to market.
  So the market distortion I'm particularly interested in talking about 
tonight comes from the fact that certain negative costs associated with 
the incumbent technologies, especially petroleum, aren't attached to 
that product. As a result, we drive around in our cars unaware of the 
extra costs that are really associated, properly associated with a 
gallon of gas.
  So, for example, it's a huge national security risk associated with 
buying gasoline. Gasoline right now in my district is costing about 
$1.70 a gallon. But that doesn't factor in the cost of operations in 
places like Iraq. It doesn't factor in the risk of future operations in 
the Middle East. And, of course, it also doesn't factor in the 
environmental consequences of that $1.70 worth of gasoline.
  So what would happen if you had what economists call internalize the 
externals. What if you attached to the price of that gallon of gasoline 
those externalities, those costs that are currently unrecognized? Well, 
that's really the key to moving technology from the lab into the 
showroom. Because right now, it's there in the lab; we know a lot of 
things will work.
  But it doesn't really compete with the incumbent technology because 
the incumbent technology--gasoline in this case, talking about 
transportation fuels--it gets a big freebie or two. It gets us 
subsidizing their business in the form of national security 
expenditures, and it gets us winking and disregarding the environmental 
consequences associated with that gallon of gasoline.
  If those externalities were internalized to that price of gasoline, 
of course the price of gas would rise; but the other technologies that 
are out there that are ready to take out that incumbent technology and 
reduce our national security risk and to create these new jobs would 
become viable.
  And, of course, in this economic downturn, we're looking for all of 
the ideas we can find about how to re-employ Americans, how to get our 
economy going. And what I'm hoping, Mr. Speaker, is that we see a 
tremendous opportunity in energy.
  Our insecurity in energy can become energy security when we 
internalize the externals associated with the incumbent technologies 
and make it so the market doesn't have this distortion any longer. This 
is a strength that I think that people who understand markets can 
deliver to this process. I hope the Obama administration is going to 
listen to those ideas because together, we can solve this problem and 
we can reach an American solution.
  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

                          ____________________