Conservative Principles Now

Kudos to Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) for recognizing that current “rhetoric and legislation [which] are focused primarily at climate change” are out of step with the concerns of most Americans. A January poll by Pew Research Center found “dealing with global warming ranks at the bottom of the public’s list of priorities; just 28% consider this a top priority.” The Senator frames his new approach in this way:

I am proposing practical steps that save money and that everybody can support. Threats to our economy and security are of paramount importance. We can best face these threats by reducing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and creating U.S. jobs in new energy and conservation efforts.

However rhetorically pleasing that may sound, Americans and policymakers should realize that such a plan would mean more power for the federal government and less choice for Americans. When viewed through that lens, the Senator’s proposal is similar to Obamacare, cap-and-trade and the EPA’s proposed global warming regulations. All three are wildly unpopular with the American people.

Let’s briefly walk through Senator Lugar’s policy outline.

First, he proposes “national building performance standards,” government incentives for retrofitting, and strengthened appliance and lighting efficiency standards. The truth is that government intervention is not needed to achieve these sorts of advancements. They happen naturally as consumers gravitate towards better products and services, which is why, as Heritage’s David Kreutzer points out, the current “trend toward greater energy efficiency is expected to continue.” Such mandates also come with perverse unintended consequences. Don’t believe me? Think about the CFL light bulbs that contain mercury and how the mandate to buy them killed manufacturing jobs in America.

Second, the Senator proposes a “clean energy standard,” enhanced loan guarantees and early retirement for some coal plants. As my colleagues Ben Lieberman and Nick Loris point out, a clean energy standard “is proposed only because renewables are too expensive to compete otherwise. In effect, Washington is forcing costlier energy options on the public. Since renewables are lavished with substantial tax breaks, a national mandate will cost Americans both as taxpayers and as ratepayers. Any incentive proposed by government should in truth be read as a handout.” Since when did expensive energy mandated by the government and subsidized by the taxpayer become a good idea?

Finally, the highest ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee suggests we reduce our dependence on foreign oil by increasing CAFE standards, continuing the severely flawed ethanol mandate and enhancing “domestic oil production.” The latter is a great idea, which Heritage supports vigorously, but only in the context of free markets, not energy security. Unfortunately, the other measures Lugar identifies are not helpful: 1) the partially enacted ethanol mandate has already severely distorted markets and 2) CAFE standards will force consumers to buy smaller, more expensive vehicles.

Policymakers must realize that empowering the federal government, spending more taxpayer dollars, and taking away consumer choice is not sound energy policy. Its not sound policy, period. Our nation’s energy policy needs change, but those changes should favor consumer choice and free enterprise, not government bureaucrats.

For two decades, the word “trade” has been a dividing force in Congress.

Its supporters, like me, see trade as a boon to our economy. As the free leader of the world, the U.S. is also one of the largest trading nations, supporting millions of American workers and millions of American jobs.

Increased trade is good for America. In the past decade, U.S. exports have nearly doubled to $2 trillion a year. More exports from the U.S. can increase production of American-made products, spurring and stabilizing local jobs while supporting small business and increasing consumer choice.

In my home state of Texas, over 20,000 small and medium-size businesses rely on exporting goods and 1 in 5 manufacturing jobs relies on trade.

Along the southern border, Laredo, Texas, the nation’s largest inland trade post and 6th largest trade port, has experienced a stabilizing effect in local unemployment, in large part due to trade. While national unemployment hovers at or near 10%, Laredo’s unemployment has remained steady at 8.6% despite a 30% poverty rate.
Everyday, $1 billion is generated in trade between the United States and Mexico, with 10,000 trucks crossing Laredo’s border every 24 hours. American goods are exported to Mexico as important Mexican goods move into the United States.

Trade like this helps keep our food prices down. America exported more than $100 billion worth of agriculture products in 2009, supporting a $30 billion agriculture trade surplus here at home.

In a time of rising deficits and widespread unemployment, trade continues to generate revenues and jobs for the United States. These are revenues that we’d otherwise have to make up with widespread tax hikes or with jobs we’d struggle to recreate.

This week, President Obama released his annual trade policy agenda and I applaud the President for recognizing that increasing exports has the potential to create 2 million jobs in the next 5 years. However, more can and should be done. That’s why I support implementing three important free trade agreements with Panama, Colombia and Korea.

The economic opportunities from passing these FTAs will spark new heat in the nation’s economic engine.

To pass these and other future trade agreements, both sides of the aisle must come together and forge a consensus putting the American economy first.
That’s why I’ve formed a bi-partisan Pro-Trade Caucus in Congress dedicated to building a bi-partisan coalition to advance an international trade policy that keeps America competitive. By leveling the playing field with 21st Century trade deals, we increase American exports abroad and spur job creation here at home.
There’s a growing global market share waiting for the U.S. to grab a hold. And there’s no time, nor good reason, to wait.

(Congressman Henry Cuellar (TX-28) is currently serving his third term in Congress. In 2009, he founded the Pro-Trade Caucus to help advance bipartisan efforts to expand American trade. As a native to Laredo, Texas, Congressman Cuellar has been a long-time advocate for trade and represents the nation’s largest inland trade post. He also serves as the House Homeland Subcommittee Chairman on Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism.)

The views expressed by guest bloggers on the Foundry do not necessarily reflect the views of the Heritage Foundation.