Senator Elizabeth Dole discussed national and economic security issues Tuesday evening on the Senate floor. The remarks, available below, were presented during the debate of America’s Climate Security Act.

A release from Dole’s office labels the Senator as an original cosponsor of the legislation to address climate change “using a market-driven approach that will strengthen our economy and national security and make America more energy independent.” In her lengthy statement, Dole says nuclear energy is a “safe, reliable, low-cost” energy alternative. She also talks about the need to explore drilling operations in Alaska to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

The following remarks were distributed by Dole's Office and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Aisling Broadcasting or its advertisers.

"Mr. President, nearly a year ago, I began working on the Climate
Security Act with two Senators, both of whom I also serve with on the
Armed Services Committee.  As members of that Committee, we have worked
together to write and pass defense authorization bills to strengthen our
national security and support our military.  Senators Joe Lieberman and
John Warner have moved the issue of climate security forward in the
American dialogue, and I join them in that effort.
I understand this bill is viewed by most as an environmental bill -
which it is - but it is also essential to our national security.  Just a
few weeks ago, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates talked about the
threats our nation faces.  He said, "Rather than one, single entity -
the Soviet Union - and one, single animating ideology - communism - we
are instead facing challenges from multiple sources: a new, more
malignant form of terrorism inspired by jihadist extremism, ethnic
strife, disease, poverty, climate change, failed and failing states,
resurgent powers, and so on."  Of the threats Secretary Gates
articulated, we know the predicted negative ramifications of climate
change could initiate a chain-reaction of events such as severe drought
or floods that diminish food supply and displace millions of people.
Additionally, last year 11 retired three-star and four-star admirals and
generals issued a report, National Security and the Threat of Climate
Change.  They had four primary findings:  (1) Projected climate change
poses a serious threat to America's national security; (2) Climate
change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most
volatile regions of the world; (3) Projected climate change will add to
tensions even in stable regions of the world; and (4) Climate change,
national security and energy dependence are a related set of global
challenges.  At the release of this report, retired General and former
Army Chief of Staff Gordon Sullivan said, "People are saying they want
to be perfectly convinced about climate science projections, but
speaking as a soldier, we never have 100 percent certainty.  If you wait
until you have 100 percent certainty, something bad is going to happen
on the battlefield."
Adding to this concern, a joint report issued by the Center for
Strategic and International Studies and Center for a New American
Security, has made clear that we are now in the age of consequences
regarding the foreign policy and national security implications of
global climate change.  The consequences range from expected to
catastrophic, and a key finding is that the United States must come to
terms with climate change.  According to the report, we can expect
strengthened geopolitical influence by fuel exporting countries, and a
correlating weakened strategic and economic influence by importers of
all fuels.  We can expect many more consequences, but in short, the
intersection of climate change and the security of nations will become a
defining reality in the years ahead.  We cannot ignore the costs of
inaction and we cannot leave these massive security concerns to the next
generation.
This is not a perfect bill, and a perfect bill likely does not exist.
However, the fundamental approach of this bill - providing a market
driven system - is the right way to address climate change.
I am disappointed that this bill fails to consider the need for more
nuclear energy in the United States.  Patrick Moore, co-founder of
Greenpeace made the need for nuclear energy clear when he wrote, "...my
views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to
update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy
source that can save our planet from another possible disaster:
catastrophic climate change."  In order to meet all of the projected
models for reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, we need a nuclear
renaissance in this country, and this bill must be the vehicle by which
we advance that renaissance.  Nuclear energy, after decades of dormancy,
must be given an opportunity to be an affordable and reliable energy
choice for consumers.  Wind and solar will play a role in our low-carbon
energy needs, but as of now they are not reliable, and cannot provide
the base load electricity generation that is needed, and that which
nuclear energy, can provide.  Nuclear is safe, reliable, low-cost energy
and those who oppose it will find themselves in the precarious position
of being unable to seriously confront climate change.
We have a solution to low-cost electricity generation in nuclear energy,
and we also have a solution to high fuel costs - the answer is more
domestic exploration here at home.  Americans are clearly aware that our
dependence on foreign oil is far too dangerous and much too costly.  A
significant amount of our oil comes from the Middle East, Russia and
Venezuela - three parts of the world that do not have U.S. interests in
mind in their oil production.  As former Director of Central
Intelligence James Woolsey noted, "we're paying for both sides in the
war on terror."  At approximately $130 per barrel of oil, we are
enriching, by billions of dollars, the likes of Iran's Ahmadinejad,
Russia's Putin, and Venezuela's Chavez.  They are flush with oil cash
and are leveraging their influence against ours with Beijing and New
Delhi in a geopolitical chess match.  
We must shift away from our dependence on foreign oil, and this bill,
probably more than any other the Congress has ever considered, provides
the resources and framework to do just that.  Under this bill, the
Natural Resources Defense Council estimates oil imports to drop to 35
percent of total U.S. oil supply by 2030, compared to the approximately
60 percent of foreign oil imports we rely on today.  In fact, by 2025
oil imports are expected to drop to around 6 million barrels per day,
the lowest point since 1986.  That is a savings of more than 8 million
barrels a day - more oil than the United States currently imports from
OPEC.  We achieve these reductions through an overall reduction in
demand, and increased domestic oil production due to increased use of
Enhanced Oil Recovery - a process by which we sequester carbon from
power plants to derive more oil from the ground.  What all this means
for families is that under this bill, the average household will pay 13
to 17 percent less for transportation fuels in 2020 than they did in
2007.  This is a savings of up to $530 a year at the pump for Americans.
The long-term outlook is positive for weaning ourselves off of foreign
oil, but there is a major flaw in this bill in that it does not address
our near-term energy needs for more domestic oil and natural gas
exploration and production.  Increased oil and natural gas access here
at home is essential to lowering the high fuel costs consumers are
feeling today and for keeping them low in the early years of this bill.
Lower fuel costs will get our economy back on track and increase our
energy security.  Unfortunately efforts to allow that access to our
American resources have been blocked for years by our friends across the
aisle.  The high cost of fuel is unsustainable, and we must take action
to increase our domestic energy supply - this means we must explore and
produce here at home.  At a time when Americans are experiencing record
high oil prices, we must begin exploration in areas such as the Gulf of
Mexico and in remote areas of Alaska where the local population supports
it.  There is no silver bullet, but there are common-sense solutions
that we must move forward, in the wake of $4 per gallon gasoline.
It is time to put more dollars back in the hands of Americans instead of
foreign dictators.  Our energy independence will drive our economic
success.  In keeping our economy the envy of the world, it is important
to note that not addressing climate change is a costly course of action.
The Stern Review, the leading analysis of the economic aspects of
climate change conducted by Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist
at the World Bank, estimates that the monetary cost of inaction is
equivalent to losing at least 5 percent, or $2.4 trillion, of global
gross domestic product each year.
Indeed, delaying action comes at a cost!  Paul Volcker, former Federal
Reserve Chairman under President Ronald Reagan stated, "If we don't take
action on climate change, you can be sure that our economies will go
down the drain in the next 30 years."  The National Academy of Sciences
stated this year that "Global Warming threatens roads, rail lines,
ports, and airports."  America's global competitiveness, Mr. President,
is also at stake on this issue.  We used to be the leader in wind,
solar, nuclear and other low-carbon energy.  Acting on climate change
first puts the United States in a position to develop and own new
technologies and all the jobs that come with them.  We have never ceded
ground on American competitiveness to China, India and other developing
countries - nor should we, on this issue.  We do not address climate
change without the entire world playing a role, but we also do not
address it by waiting for others to act.  And we can take action in a
way that continues to grow our economy.            
With the right policy that spurs investment and innovation, we can
deploy new technologies that will cut our emissions and not change our
lifestyles.  We have an opportunity to seize these new technologies, or
we can wait, and cede ground to others.  The status quo just won't work,
not this time and not on this issue.  The current path is untenable.  It
leaves the future of our economy in the hands of volatile and unfriendly
nations from which we import oil.  It allows the quiet growth of the
predicted negative ramifications of climate change that national
security experts have cautioned us about.  And it leaves us less
competitive in new and green technologies.  
Cap and trade, first adopted for acid rain under the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments is an American environmental and economic success story.
There is no doubt that this is a much greater challenge and one that
affects every sector of the economy, but we have the ability to repeat
that success.  Our constituents do not send us to Washington to sit back
and do the easy things; rather, they send us here to have the courage to
tackle the challenges.  This may be one of the hardest things we do, but
as American leaders we have responsibility to lead.  We have a
responsibility to find common-sense solutions to the hard problems and
not be afraid of carrying out those solutions.  
A clean environment and economic and national security should not be
Republican or Democrat issues - these are American issues.  We have the
opportunity to lead, and to change the entire landscape of this
dialogue."