And, in effect, that is a tax on families in this country. Now, we all want to get to a, I would refer to it as an energy security, not only American energy security, but we ought to be talking about global energy security in this context. Right now we're focused just on the U.S. And so as we look at this energy security, not understanding that a global portfolio standard increased to an unworkable 15 percent is a heavy tax on consumers, it's a tax on businesses, it's a tax on anybody who turns on a light, anybody who gets in a car, anybody who uses electricity, that's a tax that they're not currently paying; and those increased taxes go to a narrow margin of the energy supply. And our real goal should be energy security at a cost that we can afford. And I yield back.
Mike Conaway: “And, in effect, that is a tax on families in this country. Now, we all want to get to a, I would refer to it as an…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of energy policy and its impact on consumers and businesses.
Share
More from Mike Conaway
I am all for that, but just to have an open-ended check I don't think is necessarily a good idea.
I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding and for those very kind words. I thank Chairman Engel and Mr. McCaul, the ranking member, for bringing this resolution forward. I rise today in strong support of the passage of my resolution…
I thank my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) for those overly kind words, and I certainly appreciate his sentiments for my service. And I, too, will miss our Armed Services Committee hearings and sitting beside him. He is a terrific…
I was attending an event in my district with President Trump to discuss the importance of American energy independence. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 168, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 169, ``yea'' on rollcall…





