Adaptation to Changing Crude Oil Markets
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my amendment to H.R. 702. This is the only amendment that the majority would allow in order to help us understand the impacts of lifting the crude oil export ban on greenhouse gas emissions.
Before the Rules Committee, Ranking Member Pallone and I offered two other amendments that would have more proactively studied the increase in greenhouse gas emissions caused by this bill. Instead, the majority only allowed this amendment, which requires that the Department of Energy do a report on the increasing greenhouse gas emissions caused by the lifting of the crude oil export ban, but still allows the ban to be lifted.
This is what the legislative process has come to, unfortunately, in this Chamber. Instead of analyzing full impacts before voting, the majority has adopted a ``pollute first, ask questions later'' approach. Repeal the restrictions on fossil fuel extraction and production, and then we will figure out the environmental impact later.
Now, lifting this 40-year-old ban on exports could increase oil production by as much as 500,000 barrels a day. That is a significant increase that risks expanding production into sensitive areas off our coasts and our public lands.
According to the Center for American Progress, this surge in production would result in an additional 515 million metric tons of carbon pollution each year. That is the equivalent of an additional 108 million passenger cars on the road or 135 coal-fired power plants put online. That is what this bill could do. That is why over 40 environmental groups are opposing it.
Now, my Republican colleagues might dispute this study. It is the Center for American Progress. And so, when we hear studies from any group that is not funded by the fossil fuel industry, we typically hear them accused of being biased, left-leaning sources, and certainly they are welcome to make that argument.
But doesn't that support the need for an established, nonpartisan source of assessments on the impacts to our environment for bills that this Congress considers?
That is why today, Mr. Chairman, I am also introducing the Carbon Pollution Transparency Act of 2015. This is a bill that would require the CBO to estimate and report on the projected carbon footprint of each bill Congress considers. That way, we know before we vote how a bill would impact our climate and our environment.
Members of Congress already rely on the fiscal impact estimates produced by the nonpartisan CBO to help us make good decisions, make up our minds. But we need to also take into account the environmental consequences of our votes.
The American public has the right to know whether their Representatives in Washington are voting to help harm the environment, to worsen climate change, or whatever the impact may be. That is why my bill ensures that we have a fair judge, the CBO, for each bill that we consider on its environmental impact.
But today we at least have an opportunity to require such a study as part of H.R. 702. It is not enough, but it is a step forward to fully understand the impacts of lifting the crude oil export ban and, potentially, the harm that would result to our environment.
So I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment and a ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUFFMAN. To my esteemed colleague and coach of the baseball team, in the spirit of thinking good thoughts, if you will think good thoughts about considering the impacts to our environment and our climate, I will accept your previous offer to voice vote this amendment, and maybe all of this great good thought stuff will get us home faster.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin with the usual stipulations. This is the final amendment to the bill. It won't kill the bill or send it back to committee. When this is adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended, so there is no procedural reason to oppose this motion to recommit.
Let's talk about the substance. Now, we have heard a lot of debate this morning about the need to give Big Oil--the most profitable industry in the history of the world--yet another advantage. For years, Americans have been told that we have to ``drill, baby, drill.'' The theory that we always hear is that we need to extract every barrel of oil from every acre of American soil to keep gas prices low and to provide ``energy security.''
But as soon as American gas prices started to drop, the curtain was raised, and the truth was revealed. The real reason for ``drill, baby, drill,'' surprise, surprise, was to give Big Oil the chance to maximize their profits on the world market.
It is not enough that they have been able to game the Tax Code for a century with billions of dollars of tax breaks not available to other taxpayers or businesses. It is not enough that they continue to enjoy access to our public lands and waters for oil drilling, even though they are no longer paying into the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the longstanding law that expired at the beginning of this month.
As a reminder, for the past 50 years, the Land and Water Conservation Fund was an agreement, a compact between the American people and Big Oil. It said that when we let oil and gas companies drill and profit from drilling in Federal waters, they have to dedicate a fraction of the profits, just a fraction, to protect our great outdoors for future generations. The deal is that they have to dedicate a fraction of those profits to protecting our great outdoors for future generations so that our grandchildren will be able to hike and hunt and fish in our parks and wildlife refuges.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund was shamefully allowed to lapse at the beginning of this month, and the majority hasn't scheduled a single vote--or even a hearing--to get it back on the books. No, all of these concessions to the oil and gas industry are not enough for this House.
With today's bill, the House majority is saying that American oil and gas companies can drill more, export more, and realize even greater profits, no matter the environmental consequences, no matter the consequences to health and safety. As presently written, the underlying bill, H.R. 702, would permanently ensure that no export restrictions for any reason could be implemented or enforced in the future. That is what this bill says. That is breathtaking in its devotion to the oil and gas industry's agenda.
Now, my motion to recommit would ensure that the President and Federal Government agencies charged with protecting human health, the environment, and public safety can continue to do their job that constituents rely on them to do. Specifically, with this amendment, we will ensure that bedrock health and safety laws, like the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act, that laws like that will not be cast aside in favor of Big Oil's desire to sell more crude overseas.
Now, if you think about it, this is a very straightforward motion.
I just want to ask my colleagues a question: Should crude oil exports trump the Safe Drinking Water Act?
Should Big Oil profits trump the need for pipeline safety and pipeline inspection?
Of course not. We need to protect safe drinking water. We need to ensure pipeline safety. So, my colleagues, I urge you to vote ``yes'' on this MTR to improve this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source