Interview with Craig Williams

Sy Snyder talks with 7th Congressional District candidate, and former Marine and federal prosecutor, Craig Williams about today's pressing issues and his run for Congressman Joe Sestak's seat in Southeast PA.

SS: Congressman Sestak has said the number one issue voters in the district are concerned about is the economy.  What can the federal government do to allay people's concerns? 

CW: The federal government can start by letting workers keep more of their hard-earned dollars.  The federal budget is filled with waste and pork barrel spending that ultimately drives up taxes on working people.  Unfortunately, Joe Sestak has repeatedly voted against extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.  In fact, the budget bill he supported earlier this year sought to increase federal spending through $683 billion in tax increases.  Those tax increases included the restoration of the marriage tax penalty, lower deductions for the child tax credit, and increased income tax rates for low and middle income families, to name a few.  In all, each resident in my district is projected to see a tax increase by more than $2,700 on average, per year.    Given the current economic situation, Congress should be taking steps to address the public's concerns - not voting to further increase taxes.

 We can also allay people's fears by taking action to address the energy crisis.  By approving a comprehensive, "all of the above" approach to energy reform, Congress can show the American people that it is taking action to wean our nation from foreign oil and establish greater energy independence.  This, along with the greatly improving value of the dollar, will help restore the American people's confidence in the overall economic health of our nation.

SS:  On what issues has Congressman Sestak sought to re-invent himself as a moderate?

CW: In July, Joe Sestak went on NBC 10's "Live @ Issue" and told Steve Highsmith that he supports drilling in ANWR.  But in fact, Sestak is a co-sponsor of legislation that would prohibit recovery of oil and natural gas from ANWR.  More recently, he has attempted to portray himself as a supporter of nuclear energy and off-shore drilling.  However, he keeps throwing out a litany of Democrat pre-conditions that must first occur before he would vote for these expanded energy opportunities.  He is basically telling voters what they want to hear, while setting up the issue with fictitious pre-conditions so that he never has to actually support it. 
 
On the war on Iraq, Sestak campaigned in 2006 on the idea that it was a "tragic misadventure" and called for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.  The first piece of legislation he introduced when he went to Congress was a bill of surrender, calling for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops by the end of 2007.  Fortunately, not even Sestak's own Democrat party would get behind that legislation.  And when our commanders on the ground in Iraq and John McCain called for the surge of U.S. forces, Sestak went to the floor of Congress and called the surge "doubling down on a bad bet."  Until about two weeks ago, Sestak has steadfastly maintained that the surge has not worked.  Sestak has now abandoned his calls for the withdraw of troops by a date certain and no longer supports his own legislation calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces.  The surge he opposed has proven to be a success and Sestak now says we should work with the Iraqi government to establish an overall timeline for the orderly withdraw of troops - the very position many Republicans were rightfully taking in 2006.  Of course, the U.S. has in place a framework for a Status of Forces Agreement with the government of Iraq, which establishes a phased withdrawal from Iraq.  So, Sestak's position of surrender was overcome by victory.  Sestak's position on Iraq has shifted with the polls.  That's not leadership, that's pandering. 
 
And in June, we saw Sestak flip-flop on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.  After I repeatedly called him to task for going on vacation while our intelligence capabilities were diminished because of the expired Protect America Act, Sestak ultimately voted to allow overseas wiretaps of foreign terrorists and supported granting immunity to telecommunications companies on the issue of wiretaps after saying he was against it.  One Stanford University law professor called it a "face saving technique" and "capitulation" on the part of Sestak and other Democrats.  To this day, he denies that his vote on FISA permits immediate wiretapping and immunity for telecommunications companies, when he knows that it does.
 
But for all his public attempts to appear to move to the middle, he still has an extremely liberal voting record in Washington, DC.  That includes the budget bill and tax increases I mentioned earlier, his support of card check legislation that would result in a corrupt voting practice to unionize businesses, and his support of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", which would essentially dictate to talk radio hosts what they could and could not talk about on the air.  Sestak's voting record is out of step with the political beliefs of the voters of the 7th District.  Part of my challenge is to make the voters aware of that.

SS: How do you plan to distinguish yourself from a national republican party that many Americans seem poised to reject? 

CW: I disagree with the notion that the American people are poised to reject the Republican Party as a whole.  I think many Americans still believe strongly in the core principles of the Republican Party -- lower taxes and fiscal responsibility; free market principles; strong national security; and the rejection of big government solutions.  What the people are rejecting are President Bush and his failed policies.  But at the same time, people are equally disappointed with the job Congress has done, as shown by the institution's historically low approval rating. That is because Congress hasn't addressed some of the key issues on the minds of voters - and the energy crisis tops that list. 

On the campaign trail, I often say that Republicans and Democrats in Washington are equally responsible for not getting the job done.  And Congressman Joe Sestak, who I am running against, is part of the problem. He has repeatedly blocked bi-partisan efforts to bring energy reform to the floor of Congress.  He also has helped block the consideration of strong bi-partisan legislation to address illegal immigration in our nation by strengthening our borders.  And this is legislation he was a co-sponsor of -- legislation that he now will not support bringing to the floor for a vote. 

The American people are rejecting politics as usual. They want people who will reach across the aisle, regardless of party labels, and work to address the problems our nation faces.  Joe Sestak is not that person - he's voted with Nancy Pelosi 98 percent of the time in Congress and repeatedly blocked even the consideration of bi-partisan legislation.  I believe strongly that a bill should be voted up and down on its merits.  But many strong, innovative pieces of legislation are not even allowed to be debated on the floor of congress.  That's wrong.

I think the tide is turning in favor of Republicans, and the American people seem poised to reject Senator Obama and his lack of experience.  People are beginning to see through the hype - and I don't think they believe Obama is ready or prepared to be our Commander in Chief.  Even my opponent is trying to remake himself as a moderate - publicly adopting GOP-like positions that are clearly not in synch with his voting record in Washington. 

 SS: What did you learn on your recent trip to ANWR?

CW: I learned that we can responsibly explore for oil and natural gas on the coastal plain of ANWR.  I also learned that we have to work hard to get rid of the mythical barriers put in front of us by the Democrats about drilling for oil.

First, we are not talking about drilling in the midst of rolling mountains and areas teeming with wildlife.  The debate is actually about a small portion of ANWR known as the 10-02 area (which is part of the coastal plain of the North Slope), which was set aside for possible drilling by Congress in 1980.  That area - which makes up less than 8 percent of the 19 million acre refuge -- is barren, Arctic tundra that is frozen with ice and snow and temperatures well below 0 degrees for eight to nine months of the year.  Of that 1.5 million acres that make up the 10-02 area, drilling would only occur on about 2,000 acres.  In short, we are talking about 2,000 acres in an area that is more than 3 times the size of New Jersey. 

I also had the opportunity to meet with a number of Eskimo leaders during our trip.  In the village of Kaktovik, which is actually within the 10-02 area of ANWR, the people overwhelmingly favor drilling for oil, as long as it is done in an environmentally responsible manner.  This small village of 300 people has a high unemployment rate and people struggle with the costs of consumer goods that many of us take for granted.  A quart of motor oil, for example, costs as much as $50. Ironically the Kaktovik people have even determined that they have oil on their own land, but are prohibited by the federal government from recovering that oil.  So much for property rights.  Remember, the Eskimos of Kaktovik live a subsistence lifestyle, which means protecting their local habitat is very important to their way of life.  They insist that the tundra be protected, and they are confident that oil and natural gas exploration can be done responsibly.

But one of the most interesting aspects of the trip was learning the truth about the sham policy that Democrats in Congress are promoting - the so called "use it or lose it."  The Democrats argue that oil companies have leases on land where oil exists, but they have chosen not to recover that oil.  It simply is not true.  In most cases the oil that is discovered is so small that it is not cost effective to build the recovery sites and then ship it to refineries.  Or it is too difficult to get it out of the ground because of the surrounding geology.  Or, as is the case in parts of Alaska, the oil then has be piped hundreds of miles to another pipeline.  And all the while, environmentalists are halting oil recovery in federal courts. 

The case of the National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska (NPR-A) offers a clear example of the fallacy of the Democrat argument.  The NPR-A sits on 23.5 million acres of the North Slope, in tundra that is very similar to the tundra of ANWR.  The primary difference between the tundra of the NPR-A and ANWR is that the NPR-A is far more a wetland than the tundra of ANWR.  As a result, there is far more wildlife in the NPR-A, including migratory water foul, grizzly bears, wolves, wolverines, and thousands of caribou.  (As you can imagine, the Eskimos of the North Slope Borough believe that the federal government got it completely backwards when they set aside ANWR and chose to develop the NPR-A.) 

Since 1999, the Bureau of Land Management has sold more than 300 leases to explore for oil in the NPR-A, but not one drop of oil has been sent to market from discoveries made in the NPR-A.  First, companies are unable to drill there because environmentalists have kept the leases locked up in litigation for the past 10 years.  Local Eskimo officials also noted that drilling there would require a 250-mile pipeline to reach the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in Prudhoe Bay (the site of the largest oil find in the United States).  Similarly, the Army Corps of Engineers has not provided the companies with an okay to build a pipeline over a major river.  In addition, the Bureau of Land Management has not yet issued the construction permits necessary to begin drilling.  "Use it or lose it" is just a political charade designed to deflect attention from the inaction by Congress on this issue.

I have seen the coastal plain of Alaska.  I have spoken to native residents.  And I have seen first-hand how the oil industry has significantly improved its oil and natural gas recovery operations to have an ever-smaller footprint on the surface of the earth, responding to concerns about protecting the environment.  We can safely and responsibly drill for oil in ANWR, while preserving the pristine quality of the North Slope of Alaska.

ANWR is not the solution to our energy problems, but it should be part of the solution.  Our long-term goal as a nation must be to move away from a dependence on fossil fuels toward renewable energy sources.  But we need to be realistic.  Today, less than 6 percent of our nation's energy production comes from renewable energy resources such as hydro-electric, solar, and wind power.  We need to provide a bridge to tomorrow that provides us with access to domestic energy resources -- such as ANWR -- until we can implement sustainable, affordable, and more widespread renewable energy policies and technologies. 

SS: Why so passionate about this particular issue?

CW: Because I believe this is one of the largest crises our nation has faced.  So many aspects of our daily lives are tied to energy.  Families are being forced to make tough household budget decisions as gas prices drive up the cost of food and other consumer goods.  Seniors are being forced to cut back on the amount of heating oil they purchase because of high prices - leaving many in potentially life-threatening situations in the coming winter months.  

Two-thirds of our nation's oil comes from foreign countries.  In fact, we send more than $700 billion each year to foreign nations each year for oil.  And many of these countries make no effort to hide their disdain for democracy and our way of life.  This is not just about, $4.00 a gallon gas, this is also about our nation's economic and national security. 

I suppose I'm passionate about this issue because I'm frustrated that Congress has not properly addressed the energy issue.  We knew back in the 1970s that we were headed toward an energy train wreck.  But our nation's leaders buried their collective heads in the sand.  Republicans failed to invest properly in alternative energy sources while Democrats moved to block our nation from accessing our own fossil based fuels, including oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and off-shore.  As a result we are heavily reliant on Middle Eastern countries and OPEC for our energy sources.  These nations now hold incredible power over our economy.     

We need to buy ourselves 15 to 20 years of traditional energy from domestic sources until we can rely more heavily on renewable energy sources.  That includes domestic recovery of oil and natural gas, utilizing clean-burning coal technologies, and increasing the use of nuclear power all while increasing conservation, improving energy efficiency, and funding continued renewable energy research.

SS: How will the selection of governor palin play with voters in the district you're seeking to represent?

CW: I think Sarah Palin was a fantastic pick.  My brother was her speechwriter during her Gubernatorial campaign, so I have had the opportunity to get to know her a little over the years.  Most recently, I sat down with her for a meeting during her visit in June to Philadelphia for the National Governor’s Association meeting and then did a joint press conference with her a few days later during my visit to Alaska to promote increased domestic oil production.   I have been a major proponent of Sarah Palin as the Vice President pick for several months now. 

I think suburban voters – men and women alike – see a lot of themselves in her.  This is a woman who identifies with the needs of working-class families, who was involved in her own kids’ education as a member of the PTA, who went and sat at her kids’ sports games.  She bucked the Republican Party leaders in Alaska over ethics and corruption issues.  She’s a straight shooter who stands up for what she believes is right. 

Since Sarah Palin’s selection I have seen a rejuvenated and re-energized Republican Party in Delaware, Chester, and Montgomery Counties.  We’re getting more and more volunteers in our campaign and have seen our numbers continue to rise over the past few weeks.