I think it is interesting to consider what would have happened if such a challenge had been made last year, energy independence, for instance, instead of spending up to $230 billion on national missile defense. We have already put an $8 billion downpayment this year. We are starting work in Alaska which, ironically, is something that is not going to make this country safe from terrorist attacks. If people in North Korea actually have a nuclear device, we are as vulnerable to somebody bringing a motor boat into the Puget Sound, into San Francisco Bay, into New York Harbor. Instead of moving forward with a challenge like the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) talked about, instead this last year has been characterized by a systematic assault on the environment.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing national security spending and its impact on energy independence and the environment.
Share
More from Earl Blumenauer
I am listening to my dear friend from Montana and the University of Oregon, and I couldn't disagree more. We have the opportunity to produce clean energy in the United States. The cost today of alternatives with wind and solar is cheaper…
I just have to note that my dear friend from West Virginia, a woman I deeply respect, would have reliance on fossil fuel for energy security. In her own State of West Virginia, the cheapest sources of power are renewable energy sources…
I urge you to reconsider your support for this legislation and address your concerns without compromising robust enforcement.
This week we are having a public media summit in our Nation's Capital, with representatives from independent television stations from across the country. Thirteen years ago, the prospects were not particularly encouraging. We had just had…





