Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 538, Native American Energy Act, And Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 702, Adaptation To Changing Crude Oil Markets

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule, and in particular I oppose H.R. 702. Apparently, we have learned nothing over the past 40 years because this bill asks that we forget about oil shortages, oil recessions, and painfully high energy bills.

Do we really believe that the days of $100 per barrel of oil are gone? Do we really believe that our military will never again be called upon to keep vital oil trade routes or production areas open? I wish that were true, but I doubt it.

Until we reduce our dependence on oil, we should retain control over our domestic oil resources. Our Nation is not energy independent. We still use a great deal of oil and other petroleum products.

Our transportation sector is still extremely vulnerable to price increases, whether we are talking about certainly individual drivers, certainly our airlines or freight companies.

Our manufacturing sector is vulnerable, also. China may now be the largest importer of oil, but we are still the world's largest consumer of oil. This policy is not just about whether we open up trade on another commodity. It is a matter of national security and economic security. It is in our national interest that we can and do export crude oil and refined petroleum products now.

When we export refined products, we gain the extra benefit of jobs in the refining industry as well as those in oil production. This bill eliminates Presidential authority to restrict trade in crude oil.

It allows decisions about oil exports to be made by the oil companies, and they put a higher value on their profits than on our national security, our United States consumers, or our environment.

The oil companies see this window of low global oil prices as the opportunity to lift the ban on crude exports. The advocates for this policy point to the current slowdown in new drilling activity as evidence that our export policy is eliminating jobs in oil production.

The fact remains that oil is a global commodity and the global market price for a barrel of oil is no better than the price here in the United States. When oil is under $50 per barrel, wells that are marginal or with higher costs will be capped until the price rises. That situation will not change by exporting to any already oversupplied global market.

But what happens when Asia's demand for oil increases, as it surely will, and the global price again climbs into the $100 per barrel range? That is an excellent opportunity to sell as much as possible on the global market, a windfall for the oil companies and an economic downturn for us.

This policy change benefits a few of the wealthiest companies on this planet. There is no benefit for consumers. We will put our national security at risk, and certainly jobs and infrastructure in the refining industry and other industries as well will be hurt.

Exports of oil, in fact, and any of our strategically important resources should be in our national interest. Big Oil gets more than their share of subsidy from the United States' taxpayers. They do not need this additional windfall, and consumers and taxpayers cannot--simply cannot--afford to provide it.

I urge you to reject this rule and to oppose H.R. 702.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source