Adaptation to Changing Crude Oil Markets

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 702, a poorly crafted bill that needlessly and recklessly sweeps away 40 years of critical energy protections for national security, our economy, consumers, and the environment.

H.R. 702 is a blunt object that doesn't just undermine current protective authorities related to crude oil; it also prohibits any Federal official from taking any action at any time if that action either restricts or enforces a restriction on the export of oil. The term ``restriction'' is undefined and potentially dangerous in scope.

The bill would also override any other law that would impose any restriction by any Federal official on exports. That means that the bill does nothing to preserve any environment or safety statutes or regulations, and it doesn't even preserve the Defense Production Act, one of the most important tools any President has to ensure our national energy security in the face of a threat.

Let's be clear, Mr. Chairman. The President has already stated that he will veto this bill. Further, any legislation of this nature is completely unnecessary since the President already has the authority to ease or even remove restrictions on crude oil exports, and the Obama administration has taken major steps to exercise that authority by approving crude oil swaps with Mexico and applications for the export of condensate.

The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is that it is imperative for Congress to consider a host of factors before we lift the current restrictions and, certainly, if we are to completely dismantle our Nation's ability to restrict oil exports, as proposed by H.R. 702.

First, Mr. Chairman, there are consumer impacts, especially related to the price of crude oil and gasoline. A recent study found that changes to U.S. oil export policy will have little to no impact on the future price of oil.

What we do know is that changes in our crude oil policy will lead to a significant payday for oil producers, with increases in annual profits approaching $30 billion by 2025.

Next, there are the impacts on our refinery capacity and associated jobs, well-paying middle class jobs that have grown over the past few years due to increased production. Unrestricted exports of crude oil put those jobs at jeopardy and could mean exporting those jobs and losing out on critical investments in future refining capacity.

And finally, Mr. Chairman, there are, of course, the environmental and climate impacts of lifting the export ban. Energy policy is fundamentally linked to environmental policy. Each is a facet of the other. Increasing crude oil exports means increasing domestic production and its impacts on climate change, public health, worker safety, property owners, and protection of our drinking water supplies.

As I have said before, this legislation eagerly embraces short-term profits and benefits without understanding or even considering the cost of such a major action. We simply can't afford to make that mistake. We should ensure we fully understand and consider the enduring consequences of our actions and choose the cleanest and most sustainable path forward.

I don't believe, Mr. Chairman, that the potential impacts of H.R. 702 on national security, on the economy, on consumers, and on the environment can be considered acceptable.

So, Mr. Chairman, increased crude exports certainly help oil companies. It is a bonanza for the oil companies, but without any guaranteed benefits for consumers. I urge my colleagues to join me and the President in saying ``no'' to this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me point out that the administration, the President, has issued a SAP saying that he would veto this bill. This bill is going nowhere because of that veto and the potential for a veto.

All this legislation does is to give a windfall of $30 billion in profits to the oil industry, no strings attached, no sacrifices required.

The legislation is opposed by over 40 environmental groups: the United Steelworkers, the IBEW, the BlueGreen Alliance, and the Industrial Energy Consumers of America.

Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, it is supported by the American public who, regardless of party, support investing in refineries at home rather than lifting crude export restrictions. In fact, around 70 percent of voters oppose allowing oil companies to export more U.S. oil.

The Republican majority has spent the whole week doing little more than attacking women's health and assisting Big Oil for their big profits. It is time to come together in the name of energy and national security. In the name of common sense and economic good sense, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. I support the amendment but would note that the best way to prevent our Nation's oil resources from falling into the hands of bad actors is to maintain the reasonable, time-tested controls on exports that are currently in place.

If you are concerned about our oil falling into the wrong hands, then you should vote ``no'' on final passage of H.R. 702.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana. However, I would point out that Iran has the fourth largest number of proven oil reserves in the world. In fact, supporters of this bill often state concern over the market impact of increased Iranian exports on domestic producers.

So while it is hard to understand why we need to worry about our crude oil going to a country that is a major net exporter of oil, I have no objection to adopting this amendment and making really sure Iran doesn't get any of our oil and petroleum products.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source