or Login to see your representatives.

Access Candidates' and Representatives' Biographies, Voting Records, Interest Group Ratings, Issue Positions, Public Statements, and Campaign Finances

Simply enter your zip code above to get to all of your candidates and representatives, or enter a name. Then, just click on the person you are interested in, and you can navigate to the categories of information we track for them.

Public Statements

Sense of Congress Regarding Science Education

By:
Date:
Location: Washington, DC


SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING SCIENCE EDUCATION -- (House of Representatives - June 04, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the comments that have been made so far. I'm reminded by President Reagan, who once said there you go again, and some of those statements can apply here.

But one statement was they aren't accurate, but what we are talking about here in this part of the discussion deals with how real people are impacted in their daily lives.

We no longer are talking about energy consumption as an ethereal process or whether it meets different needs, kind of a policy concept. We're talking about how people, real people, bake their food, heat their homes, and how they keep their jobs.

For every dollar that there is an increase in oil prices and gasoline prices, it simply means that jobs are lost, that revenue does not flow here. Social Security programs are diminished, and the overall quality of life is diminished. We're talking about real people and how real people are impacted.

For every dollar a poor person or a middle-income person has to spend on increased energy consumption, that's a dollar they cannot spend on luxuries like tuna casserole. This is what we're talking about. If you're extremely rich, you can try and buy your way out of it like an old medieval duke buying indulgences from the Catholic church. But for middle-income people and poor people, we are talking about how they live their lives, and we're talking about a country that has more energy potential locked up than other Nations have in their entire countries.

That's the concept that is here, and yet we always come back to picky little reasons why we can't develop the source, renew that source or build on that particular source as well.

We can't develop in ANWR because even though the Carter administration set this particular piece of property aside for energy development because it offends somebody. We can't have windmills off the coast of Massachusetts; it doesn't look right. We can't drill off the coast of Florida because it might offend the tourists someway.

We all have picky little reasons on why we can't do it, and the net product is we harm our own people because we don't have a policy that provides a positive reinforced policy, a strong program that will encourage conservation but also encourage production of every source of resources that we have at our disposal.

It has to happen and it has to happen now because we're dealing with real people.

We're also dealing with the security of this country. Early on this floor, they talked about an element of section 526 that was passed in the energy bill which simply had the proposal of cutting out the needs of our military in their advancement for alternative synthetic fuels. That's one of the things we're looking at. Five years ago, it cost us $2 billion a year for petroleum for our military. Today, we're talking about $12 billion a year. We cannot do that any longer. Those are the issues we have to have.

We have to realize that what we're talking about is real people.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT


Source:
Back to top