American Energy Solutions for Lower Costs and More American Jobs Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is yet another exercise that explains why the public has such a low opinion of Congress.

We have considered this package of bills before. The Senate will not take it up. The President and administration would not approve it. We are wasting valuable time on our last day in session before the lameduck period.

This bill delivers more benefits to big fossil fuel and mining interests. It would allow them to extract fossil fuels and minerals from our coastlines and public lands with no serious consideration of public health, the environment, or of the many other business interests that rely on a clean, healthy environment to support their continued success.

Our Nation has real challenges. We need faster, broader job growth in all regions of our country and in all sectors of our economy. We need a national energy policy that provides more energy security through efficiency and expanded use of renewable energy resources.

We need an energy policy that recognizes and deals with the challenges of climate change. We need a thoughtful path forward that enables a transition to the energy sector of the future that brings workers and communities into this new model productively and profitably.

We need to invest in our transportation and water infrastructure--infrastructure that is in need of repair, in need of rebuilding, and in need of redesign--to meet our needs into the future. The financing structure in place today and the Federal resources being devoted to these essential systems is outdated and inadequate.

We need to do more to address the lingering problems from the financial debacle that crashed the economy in 2007. Too many of our citizens are still struggling under heavy debt loads as a result of the housing bubble, the stagnant wages, student loans, unemployment, and underemployment.

Our Tax Code needs revision to spur business investment, to bring down the deficit, and to make the Code fair for all taxpayers. We need to invest in research and development, the lifeblood of innovation and progress; instead, this legislation proposes to provide more to a sector of the economy that is already thriving.

Oil and gas production are at record levels, as are the profits of these industries. This bill continues the same old energy policy that we have been following for decades and ignores the mounting social and environmental costs associated with its continuation. This package doubles down on carbon emissions because it is a fossil fuel only policy.

With this proposal, we ask our citizens to accept greatly reduced public health and environmental protection not just to support our domestic use of these fuels, but to enhance our exports of fossil fuels.

It is sad and ironic that, during the week of the 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act and of the Land and Water Conservation Fund--laws that recognize all the values of public lands and resources to current and future generations and that have provided so much--that we are considering this bill.

H.R. 2 represents a narrow view of natural resources as assets to be exploited for short-term profit by this generation with little regard for our stewardship responsibility to our children and to our grandchildren. If we do not act decisively and soon, our generation's legacy will be one of shortsightedness and wasted opportunity.

We have ignored real challenges for far too long. We need to demonstrate the vision, the courage, and generosity of spirit that previous generations expressed on our behalf. We need to stop making policy in increments of months and do what we were sent here to do, govern by working together and compromising to find solutions with consideration of the present and an eye to the future with bold plans and initiatives.

Generally, I am a big fan of recycling, but H.R. 2 is only suitable for disposal. This is a deeply flawed piece of legislation. I cannot support it, and I strongly urge my colleagues to reject it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source