BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1229 and H.R. 1230.
We like to stand on this floor and talk about the things we can't agree on.
On this issue, there's more common ground than you might think.
We all seek to end our dependence on foreign oil because it endangers our environment, hurts our economy and weakens our national security.
Our disagreement lies in potential solutions.
In order to lower gas prices we can and must crack down on oil speculators, end big oil handouts, invest in public transit and electric vehicles and increase corporate average fuel economy standards.
The other side of the argument, the one that is presented today and that we will be voting on, would have you believe that all we need to do is increase our domestic oil resources and remove regulations.
Regulations that have purportedly forced us to look outside our nation's borders for oil.
Our answers do not lie in more oil--our answers lie in conservation and smart investments.
They do not lie in increasing our oil supply, because, let's face it, oil prices are based on a global market, and one nod from OPEC would make any increase in U.S. domestic supplies irrelevant.
Our answers cannot be found by damaging the ecosystems the industries along our coast rely on.
And, our answers will not be solutions that defy our military experts who are saying oil ain't the answer.
Earlier this week, I offered an amendment that was not made in order by the Rules Committee--an amendment that said we must look at the damage we could incur before we extract oil and gas.
This same common sense must be applied to our energy plan.
We can proactively move our nation toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil so that we take control of our energy future, protect our nation, our economy and our environment--and we must.
But, these are not our solutions.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT