This Energy bill is supposed to be about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, not increasing it. It seems to me that by turning to the same old, same old is ignoring the fact that our coastlines and our shores and the area out 50 miles where this will kick in are huge economic engines for our various States. So doesn't my friend believe, to restate his argument in a slightly different way, that we are going back to the same old solutions and ignoring what has happened in the last 20 years since we protected our coasts, that the economic engines of our coastal States have driven jobs and tourism and all the good things that come with a protected coast?
Barbara Boxer: “This Energy bill is supposed to be about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, not increasing it. It seems to me that…”
On the recordJune 14, 2007
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of the Energy bill on coastal economies and environmental protections.
Share
More from Barbara Boxer
Apr 24, 2022
It's up to his colleagues to determine if they want such a coward, such a liar, to be their leader, and or maybe even speaker.
Apr 24, 2022
This is a sad moment, we always had two parties, one was to the right of center, one was to the left of center, and we never had a party, so extreme and so willing to become the party of grievance and anger and division.
Jul 13, 2022
We Democrats, we do have a very good and diverse coalition. It truly is diverse, everywhere you look at it. But in terms of leadership in Congress, it is true, they’re getting older.





