Rob Bishop: “I was hoping the gentleman would insert me as well. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity of being here. We are here…”

“I was hoping the gentleman would insert me as well. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity of being here. We are here today on day two of the Democrat week of energy proposals. And once again, we will quote Earl Weaver when he went out to the umpire and said: Is this as good as it gets, or are you going to get better? I will say the same thing on this bill as we did yesterday. Is this as good as it gets, or are you actually going to get better? This is the same concept we had with the first bill that we did. We voted second, but we actually discussed it as the first bill yesterday, in which we did things that are basically illogical, not for science reasons. Science was essentially taken out and shoved into a trash can, but, actually, we did it for political reasons. It is signified by the amendments that the Rules Committee, unfortunately, made in order in which we made amendments in order to have all sorts of studies on the issue. In the real world, you would try and do a study, come up with results, and then come up with the policy. That is not what we did yesterday. We decided on a policy, and then we are going to institute a lot of non-comprehensive, skewed studies to try and see if we can come up with arguments in favor of the policy we already did. It is backwards. It is okay to do it. You have the votes to do it. That is fine.…”