Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to acknowledge the life of Massachusetts' Christa McAuliffe. She lost her life, along with six other crewmembers, 30 years ago today when the space shuttle Challenger exploded. She was an extraordinary teacher and was selected out of a pool of 11,000 applicants to lead the ultimate field trip as the first teacher in space. Her legacy lives on in many ways but especially at the Christa McAuliffe Center for Education and Teaching Excellence at her alma mater, Framingham State University. Amendment No. 2982

Mr. President, the omnibus spending bill that was enacted into law in December lifted the 40-year-old restriction on exporting U.S. oil overseas. During that debate, concerns were raised regarding the impact that exporting American oil abroad could have on U.S. consumers and refining fuel prices, independent refineries, and other sectors of the U.S. economy, such as shipbuilding.

However, the final language that became law did not include any requirement for analyzing and reporting on any potential impacts that exports could have on the industry or on U.S. consumers. The Markey amendment No. 2982 to the Energy bill would create such a review. The amendment would require the GAO to review and report back annually for 3 years on the impacts of crude oil exports on U.S. consumers, independent refineries, shipbuilders, and energy production.

The language of my amendment is language that is bipartisan. The language of my amendment is identical to language included in legislation sponsored by Chairman Murkowski. It is also identical to language included in legislation introduced by other Senators.

Exporting American crude oil could be a disaster for independent refineries in regions such as the east coast. Upwards of 55 percent of our refining capacity on the east coast could potentially close as a result of oil exports.

The Energy Department has said that exports could lead to as much as $9 billion less investment and 1.6 million barrels less refining capacity in 10 years. It could lead to up to $200 billion less revenue for the U.S. refining sector over the next decade.

It could raise prices for consumers, who are currently saving $700 a year at the pump and $500 a year on home heating oil this winter because of low prices.

It could harm U.S. shipbuilders. We have been having a shipbuilding renaissance in this country. We are currently seeing the biggest shipbuilding boom in 20 years, and it has been because of our increasing oil production and the Jones Act, which requires shipments between U.S. ports to be on U.S.-built, U.S.-flagged, and U.S.-crewed ships. This means that producing more oil is leading to investment in U.S.-built ships to move that oil around the country. Right now, U.S. shipbuilders have orders to expand our domestic tanker fleet capable of transporting crude oil by 40 percent. Each oil tanker can represent an investment of $100 to $200 million. Five years ago there were zero orders. Now one company alone in Pennsylvania--Aker ASA--has nearly $1 billion in back orders and has tripled employment over the last 3 years.

Exports could stop all of this in its tracks, so that GAO report is very important. I also want to compliment Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell for their excellent work in partnering to produce the legislation which we are considering here on the floor. It represents bipartisanship in the way it is meant to operate.

It is an amendment to improve the way we are going to be selling oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Our Nation's oil stockpile is supposed to be there to protect American consumers and our security in the event of an emergency. We should not be using it as a piggy bank to pay for other priorities. But if we are going to sell oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we should at least make sure that we do so strategically, to get the best deal for taxpayers and American consumers. Last year, Senator Cassidy and I offered a nearly identical amendment to the Transportation bill, which was adopted on the Senate floor and ultimately became law. That amendment protects taxpayers by improving the way the sales required under the bill--sales of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve--are, in fact, conducted. The Cassidy- Markey fix gives the Secretary of Energy more flexibility to sell oil when prices are high and directs the Department to stop selling oil when the revenue targets required by the bill are reached.

This fix should allow us to sell fewer overall barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and get a better return on those sales. However, the roughly $5 million worth of SPRO that was required to be sold as part of the Budget Act that passed in November did not include this commonsense fix. The current Cassidy-Markey amendment that is pending to the Energy bill contains language virtually identical to the amendment to the Transportation bill that was adopted on the Senate floor. It would apply the same fix to the sales required by the Budget Act in order to protect taxpayers.

Too often our policy with respect to SPRO has been to buy high and sell low. Taxpayers have paid an inflation-adjusted average of roughly $75 a barrel for the oil that is in our Nation's stockpile. We should ensure that we get the best return for our taxpayers in those SPRO sales. That is what our amendment would do.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source