Strategic Production Response Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 21. Once again, House Republicans are showing their true colors--bringing a bill to the floor that helps their Big Oil friends and hurts hardworking Americans.
This is a reckless and extreme bill. It will hamstring the single most important tool the Biden administration has used to fight Putin's price hike on gasoline. The chairwoman mentioned affordability, but by releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the Biden administration helped bring down gas prices by over $1.50 per gallon. Republicans call that politicizing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I call that providing real relief to the American people at the gas pump.
Again, Democrats are addressing affordability trying to bring down high gas prices; and now, after promising to lower costs for American families, House Republicans want to pass this bill that will raise gas prices at the pump.
Make no mistake, Mr. Chair, that is exactly what this bill would do. It would prevent the Department of Energy from using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to respond to price hikes until Big Oil is given open access to drill on public lands.
Restricting the Federal Government's best tool for decreasing gas prices in the middle of a global energy crisis defies any logic. After all, this is a tool that administrations of both parties--Democrat and Republican--have successfully used in the past.
It is baffling to me to see Republicans oppose President Biden's release of oil from the reserve considering that in recent years, Republican administrations withdrew even more due to oil sales that they themselves mandated when they were in control of Congress. House Republicans have also used the reserve as a piggy bank to withdraw nearly 300 million barrels of oil to pay for their priorities. Yet now they want to feign outrage that President Biden withdrew fewer barrels to lower prices at the pump.
This is not serious legislation, Mr. Chair, but instead a political stunt. Republicans are just upset that President Biden stood up and actually used all the tools at his disposal to fight back against high gas prices for American families.
This bill actually fights against American families and against addressing affordability.
The Secretary of Energy was clear in a letter she wrote to Chair Rodgers and me last week.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the text of that letter. The Secretary of Energy, Washington, DC, January 18, 2023. Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Chair, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chair Rodgers and Ranking Member Pallone: Congratulations again on your re-elections to Congress and selections as Chair and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. I look forward to working closely with you in the 118th Congress.
I write to express the Department of Energy's serious concerns about H.R. 21, the Strategic Production Response Act. From responding swiftly to natural disasters to executing a historic release of oil in response to Putin's invasion of Ukraine, the Administration's use of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) has been critical to ensuring adequate oil supply and lowering gasoline prices for American families. This bill would significantly weaken this critical energy security tool, resulting in more oil supply shortages in times of crisis and higher gasoline prices for Americans.
Putin's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine created the worst global energy crisis in decades. The President took unprecedented action with allies and partners, releasing oil from our strategic reserves, to stabilize global oil supply and gasoline prices. We have heard directly from industry over the last several months that these actions were essential to maintaining supply.
And Americans see the results for themselves at the pump. Today, gasoline prices are down by $1.70 per gallon from their peak this summer. In fact, gasoline prices are now below where they were before Russia's invasion. That was far from a foregone conclusion a year ago. The Treasury Department estimates that the Administration's SPR actions reduced prices for American consumers at the pump by as much as 40 cents per gallon. In addition to saving Americans money, the SPR releases should provide a good deal for taxpayers, by selling oil at a high price, with a planned refill of the SPR at lower prices.
If enacted, H.R. 21 would make it harder to take such action quickly to increase supply when the market needs it most--driving up prices during crises. H.R. 21 would significantly interfere with the United States' ability to release oil collectively through the International Energy Agency during an emergency supply shortage, as was done in early March 2022. And H.R. 21 would severely restrict the Department's ability to lend oil when disruptions occur due to natural disasters or pipeline outages. Just last month, when the Keystone Pipeline was suddenly shut down, refiners in Texas and Louisiana were sent scrambling to keep facilities running. This Administration--like those of both parties have previously--quickly lent out oil to help maintain operations, avoid shortages, and prevent further price spikes. H.R. 21 would undermine our ability to take such decisive action in response to future disruptions.
I believe it is essential that the SPR can continue to address supply disruptions by rapidly providing oil in response to emergencies. Arbitrarily requiring the completion of reports related to energy production on Federal lands--a matter which the Department of Energy does not control--would only delay such critical action and increase prices for Americans when energy disruptions occur.
Today, there is nothing standing in the way of domestic oil production. In fact, oil production is up by 1 million barrels per day under President Biden and is on track to reach a new record high this year. Oil and gas companies are currently sitting on approximately 9,000 approved but unused permits to drill, and billions in record profits. They do not need another giveaway.
I appreciate your consideration of these concerns, and I hope we can work together on strategies to ensure American energy productivity, security, and affordability. Sincerely, Jennifer M. Granholm.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, in that letter, Secretary Granholm wrote that by hamstringing the administration, this bill will result in ``more oil supply shortages in times of crisis and higher gasoline prices for Americans.''
The President also recognizes this bill is a bad deal for the American people, and that is why he said that he would veto it if it ever got to his desk.
Mr. Chair, I also include in the Record the text of the Statement of Administration Policy. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 21--Strategic Production Response Act--Rep. McMorris Rodgers, R-WA and 31 Cosponsors
The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 21, the Strategic Production Response Act. The bill would significantly weaken a critical energy security tool, resulting in more oil supply shortages and higher gas prices for working families.
This Administration's use of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) has been essential to protecting our energy security and to lowering gas prices for Americans. Following Putin's further invasion of Ukraine last year, President Biden authorized the largest-ever emergency release from the SPR, in coordination with historic releases from allies and partners. The results speak for themselves: today, gasoline prices are $1.60 per gallon lower than their peak this summer and below their pre-invasion levels. That was far from a foregone conclusion: the Treasury Department estimates that SPR actions reduced prices at the pump by as much as 40 cents per gallon.
If enacted, H.R. 21 would significantly weaken America's ability to take such decisive action to increase supply and lower prices in times of crisis. Putin has tried to use energy supply and high prices as a strategy to weaken the United States and Europe's resolve to defend Ukraine. By interfering with the United States' ability to release, oil collectively, this legislation would help Putin's war aims. In addition, H.R. 21 would severely restrict the Administration's ability to increase oil supply and prevent price spikes in response to natural disasters or pipeline outages-as Administrations of both parties have done.
By arbitrarily requiring completion of a report related to energy production on Federal lands, H.R. 21 makes it harder to provide relief to Americans during energy disruptions globally and at home. Moreover, there is nothing currently standing in the way of domestic oil production. Production is up by more than 1 million barrels per day under President Biden and is on track to reach a new record this year. Oil and gas companies are currently sitting on thousands of unused but approved permits that they can use to further increase production right now.
Because H.R. 21 will jeopardize our energy security and increase gas prices for working families, the Administration strongly opposes the bill.
If Congress were to pass this bill, the President would veto it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, it is, frankly, stunning that after about 2 years of Republicans talking such a big game on energy security and energy independence, that one of the Republicans' first bills this Congress is a proposal that would seriously undermine both.
The truth is that Republicans' decades-old drill-baby-drill mentality is outdated, it is reckless, and it simply cannot and will not protect Americans from the volatile price movements of a global commodity. Our country has adopted this mentality for decades, and it just doesn't work.
The United States is already the world's top producer of both oil and gas, and the fossil fuel industry already controls large portions of U.S. public lands and waters, and it isn't using most of it. Right now, fossil fuel companies control over 26 million acres of U.S. public lands, half of which is going unused.
The problem is not a shortage of land or leases.
Republicans only want the American people to think that that is the case because they want to keep doing the bidding of Big Oil. But the bottom line is, Big Oil doesn't want to pump oil because that would lower prices. They don't want to do it. They don't want to address the issue of affordability with gas prices. They don't want to pump more oil.
No matter how much we drill anyway, doubling down on our fossil fuel dependency is exactly what has kept us dependent on the global market, and this global market where we have oil from other countries is largely controlled by dictators and adversaries on the other side of the world.
So, Mr. Chair, this bill is not serious. It is yet another old, tired, one-page bill that shows just how antiquated and misplaced Republican priorities are. We should be spending our time on serious, thoughtful proposals that actually address our energy challenges and opportunities, that lower gas prices as opposed to raising them, and to ensure that Americans and their jobs don't get left behind as the rest of the world transitions to clean energy.
Mr. Chair, if you really care about bringing down gas prices, you would oppose this bill.
Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), who is the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee and who has worked so hard on clean energy issues.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), the former chair of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis who has done so much on clean energy issues.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher), another member of our Energy and Commerce Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains on each side?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Porter).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Sykes).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
I can't help but comment on the fact that my Republican colleagues continue to get up and criticize President Biden for releasing crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
I have to point out that Republican Presidents have done this many times in the past, and I think the only reason why they are criticizing President Biden is because they know it worked.
We know that since last June, when the gas prices were at their high for the season, since the release, the prices have gone down by $1.50 per barrel, with all kinds of evidence to show that a significant reason for that was because of releasing crude oil from the reserve.
Now, if you don't feel that is something that we should do, you can say it, but the bottom line is, as Democrats, we were trying, and the President was trying, to address an affordability issue.
The American people don't want to have to pay high prices for gas, and they should not have to if we can do something about it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, again, in response to the previous speaker who criticized the President, the President successfully used the SPR to lower prices at the pump and provide relief to American families. Now, Republicans want to take away the strategy, which will only result in higher gas prices for Americans.
The President's strategy worked, and thanks largely to his actions, gas prices have fallen an average of $1.50 per gallon nationwide since their peak in June.
President Biden's actions also made money for American taxpayers. A Wall Street Journal analyst found that the United States made nearly $4 billion in profit from Biden's sale from the reserves, receiving an average of 96 cents per gallon of oil sold from it, well above the current market price of approximately $82 per barrel.
The Department of Energy has already announced plans to purchase oil to refill the reserve and will begin making those purchases at a low fixed price later this month.
They have actually made money, lowered prices for the American consumer, and are going to be able to fill the SPR at a lower cost.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
The previous speaker prior to the ranking member mentioned supply, and I want to read sections of the letter from Secretary Granholm about this that everyone received. She says:
``Putin's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine created the worst global energy crisis in decades. The President took unprecedented action with allies and partners, releasing oil from our strategic reserves, to stabilize global oil supply and gasoline prices. We have heard directly from industry over the last several months that these actions were essential to maintaining supply. . . . If enacted, H.R. 21 would make it harder to take such action quickly to increase supply when the market needs it most, driving up prices during crises. . . . I believe it is essential that the SPR can continue to address supply disruptions by rapidly providing oil in response to emergencies. Arbitrarily requiring the completion of reports related to Federal lands, a matter which the Department of Energy does not control, would only delay such critical action and increase prices for Americans when energy disruptions occur. Today, there is nothing standing in the way of domestic oil production.''
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, today's bill shows that there is no real vision for Republican energy policy. They don't have a path forward.
This was their chance to engage meaningfully on energy policy, to set the tone for a new Congress, where we would work together to protect American energy interests. Instead, they are reduced to defending their oil and gas interests and attacking President Biden's successful efforts to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower gas prices for Americans.
I have said it before: Republican administrations, Republican Presidents have released oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the past. I am sure that if we had a Republican President now, they would be heralding the fact that he released oil from the reserves in order to bring down gasoline prices at the pump.
I want to mention, again, this letter from Secretary Granholm, our Energy Secretary. She states her Department's position on the bill. According to her, this bill would severely restrict or threaten the administration's ability to respond to emergency situations, such as the emergency supply shortage from the one triggered by the war in Ukraine. This bill would not only make it so that gas prices go higher but make it more difficult for us to address supply problems.
The Secretary identifies, in my opinion, in irrefutable terms, the Biden administration's successful use of the reserve to lower gas prices for Americans.
Now, understand what this bill does. It prohibits the Department of Energy from releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve until it expands oil and gas drilling on Federal lands by the same percentage that it releases oil from the reserve.
The previous speaker, Mr. Soto, pointed out that the fossil fuel industry already controls large portions of U.S. public lands and waters, and it isn't using most of it. The problem is not a shortage of leases or land. The problem is a fossil fuel industry more interested in keeping supply artificially low so that prices stay artificially high.
They don't want to pump oil because if they do so, then the gas price goes down. That is not what they want. They want to make greater profits.
Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues, please, the House Republicans are doing the bidding of their Big Oil friends at Americans' expense while threatening the President's ability to take timely actions to lower prices for American consumers at the pump.
This bill is a giveaway to Republicans' fossil fuel friends, who already received billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded subsidies and enjoyed record-shattering profits last year at the expense of working families.
Releasing oil from the reserve in response to Putin's invasion of Ukraine was a critical, commonsense strategy that helped lower gas prices for American families by a $1.69 per gallon since their peak.
Restricting the Federal Government's best tools in the middle of a global energy crisis with no benefit other than increasing the profits of the fossil fuel industry is extreme, and I don't use that word loosely.
This bill is an extreme policy that is going to make it so much more difficult for the President to act to deal with the supply chain problems and to try to lower prices for average Americans. It is extreme in the real sense.
Mr. Chair, for that reason, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 21, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I don't disagree with the gentleman from Florida in terms of prohibiting offshore drilling because I think that we should not have any offshore drilling for oil and gas off the eastern coast of the United States in the Atlantic and even in some other areas.
I may have been mistaken, but I did not hear him mention the fact that his bill also prohibits offshore wind and renewables off the coast of Florida. I am totally opposed to the bill for that reason.
What we need to be doing is to be discouraging fossil fuels and encouraging renewables. That is exactly what Democrats did in the Inflation Reduction Act when we provided all kinds of incentives for renewables, including solar and wind power, including offshore.
To have an amendment that says that offshore wind is not acceptable or should be prohibited flies in the face of what we should be doing to address the climate crisis.
For that reason, even though I may agree to the idea that----
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I reclaim my time.
There is a very easy way, in my opinion, to manage and regulate offshore wind. Certainly, it has to be regulated, but the gentleman's amendment prohibits it and treats it the same way as he treats offshore oil and gas drilling. Those two should not be equated.
We need to move forward, and we need to encourage, as we do in the Inflation Reduction Act, offshore wind and use of renewables around the country.
Mr. Chair, for that reason, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an amendment that would exempt from the plan any oil and gas drilling in the North Atlantic planning area which extends from New Jersey to Maine.
I opposed the underlying bill. I think it is poorly drafted and extremely problematic, but I must make a point that in the incredibly unlikely event that this bill would make it into law, we cannot have any plan that considers offshore drilling in the North Atlantic.
An oil spill off the Atlantic Coast would be devastating to coastal communities in New Jersey and up and down the Atlantic.
The Jersey Shore is home to over $700 billion in coastal properties and the tourism industry generates almost half a million jobs, nearly 10 percent of my State's entire workforce. New Jersey's commercial fishing industry generates over $7.9 billion annually and supports over 50,000 jobs.
Fortunately, there is widespread consensus that the Atlantic Ocean should not be open to oil and gas drilling and put at risk of an oil spill.
There are 259 Atlantic Coast municipalities on the record saying they don't want drilling. In addition, 42,000 businesses represented by the Business Alliance for Protecting the Atlantic Coast and 500,000 fishing families from Florida to Maine are on record opposing offshore drilling. They are right to support a ban. As you know, our coastal communities depend upon healthy ocean ecosystems.
It is vital that the Federal Government protect the roughly 1.75 million American jobs and $137 billion in GDP that come from activities along the Atlantic seaboard in industries such as tourism, recreation, and fishing. It would be wrong to risk Atlantic coastal communities' key economic engine--a clean ocean--for a roughly 7-month supply of oil and a 6-month supply of gas when a spill would leave permanent damage.
I have been fighting to exempt the waters off the Jersey Shore from oil and gas drilling for decades. It was the first bill I introduced in Congress when I was first elected.
While I don't support the bill we are considering today, it certainly cannot include any effort to open up our Atlantic Coast to drilling.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. I would like to reserve a point of order.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Yes, I withdraw the reservation of a point of order.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I do think actually that any amendment that comes from either side of the aisle that would prohibit offshore drilling off the coast of the Atlantic I would support. I think it makes sense.
We have had this policy now in terms of the moratorium for a number of years along the Atlantic and it should continue.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I reserve a point of order.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. I withdraw the point of order, yes.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I can only characterize this amendment as extreme.
If adopted, this amendment would make an already reckless bill even more careless and would weaken our national energy security.
Now, let me say that I totally disagree with what the gentlewoman just said. First of all, what President Biden has done, as we have said repeatedly today, is to release crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to bring down gas prices. And he actually accomplished that goal. It worked by bringing down prices about a $1.50 per gallon since the peak last June.
In addition to that, we have set forth that this was to address the supply chain because we know that with the war in Ukraine, the supply chain was severely limited, and one of the purposes of releasing oil from the reserve was to have more in the supply chain.
The gentlewoman also suggested that this administration is restricting the use of public lands for drilling. That is simply not the case. One-half of the public lands are available for drilling. As I have said before, the oil companies simply don't want to drill because they want to keep the prices artificially high.
Now, what the gentlewoman has done--and I just want to explain this in a little detail. Right now, the bill before us does have an exemption that says that you don't have to drill or put forth a plan to drill on public lands if certain criteria are met.
It says that during a severe energy supply interruption, if the President determines that an emergency situation exists and there is a significant reduction in supply, a severe increase in the price of petroleum products and/or such price increase is likely to cause a major adverse impact on the national economy.
So even under this underlying bill, if those criteria are met, then the President can use the SPR and release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for these reasons.
What the gentlewoman has done--or tries to do--in this amendment is eliminate those exemptions. So essentially what she is saying--this is why this is so extreme--is she is saying it doesn't matter if there is a problem with high prices. It doesn't matter if there is a problem with the supply chain. We are not going to let the President release oil from the reserve for any reason whatsoever unless a plan is put forward to allow for more drilling on public lands.
That is extreme. Even the Republican leadership doesn't support that. She is saying no exemptions whatsoever.
Imagine what this would do if we had no flexibility whatsoever no matter what the price was, no matter what the supply was, and no matter what the emergency is, not allowed. You have got to put together a plan which could take years to put forward a way of drilling more on public lands before we would be able to use this tool which is so important for national security.
This is really, in my opinion, outrageous and extreme.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose the amendment for this reason, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I reserve a point of order.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I do support the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Yes.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I will be brief. As I said before, I am supportive of any amendment that would prohibit oil and gas drilling off the coast of the Atlantic as long as it does not also prohibit the use of renewable resources such as wind. For that reason, I support the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, again, I don't know how to characterize this but to say it is extreme. The gentlewoman's amendment would provide an even bigger handout to Big Oil, trading away our precious Federal lands.
Now, just so we understand, right now, there is a limitation in the underlying bill which, of course, we still oppose because the underlying bill says that the plan--in other words, I think we all know that this underlying bill says: You can't use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve unless you open up more Federal or public lands to oil and gas drillings.
But it does have a cap that says the plan required shall not provide for a total increase in the percentage of Federal lands described, lease for oil and gas, in excess of 10 percent.
Let me just give you an idea. In the underlying bill, it could result in over 300 million acres of Federal lands being opened up for new oil and gas drilling, an area equivalent to three times the size of California and eight times the amount of Federal lands and waters currently available for oil and gas development.
But the gentlewoman from Colorado says that is not good enough. The government has to allow for another 5 percent beyond that, another 50 percent more than what I described in order for us to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Again, the fossil fuel industry already controls large portions of U.S. public lands and waters, and it isn't using most of it. Right now, the fossil fuel industry is sitting on approximately 9,000 approved but unused permits for drilling on public lands.
In total, the fossil fuel industry controls over 26 million acres of U.S. onshore public lands, half of which is going unused.
Offshore, the fossil fuel industry has over 2,000 active leases, covering 12 million acres of Federal water, 75 percent of which is not being used to produce oil or gas.
So the gentlewoman says that she wants clean air and clean water. Well, the consequence of this would be just the opposite. We would be polluting the air and probably polluting the water as well, so it makes absolutely no sense.
I mean, right now, there is nothing to stand in the way of production, which is up 1 million barrels a day under President Biden, not to mention oil and gas companies are sitting on billions of dollars.
They are making huge profits. The oil and gas companies don't want to produce more oil here in the United States because that would lower the price.
They are about profits. They are about raising the price of gasoline at the pump. By using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, President Biden has reduced the price at the pump.
So what the gentlewoman is proposing is extreme because this even allows more public lands to be leased, or require it, that is not going to be pumped anyway because the oil companies don't want it, and at the same time, prohibit this administration from actually helping the American consumer by lowering prices. It is extreme.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment which would expose historic ranching lands in Colorado to oil and gas extraction, extraction the community simply does not want.
Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill we are considering today makes clear that some in this Chamber want to see our public lands, lands owned by all Americans, open to extensive new oil and gas extraction.
As we have already heard, the bill risks opening an area more than three times the size of California to new oil and gas development; and this, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans, including more than two-thirds of western voters, consistently say that they would prefer to see public lands protected rather than opened to new degradation.
Protecting these lands supports the climate, outdoor recreation, and local economies.
In the case of this particular amendment, the community in Thompson Divide has already been fighting for more than two decades to protect this area from new oil and gas drilling.
Since the early 2000s, the local community, including ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, businesspeople, and community leaders, worked together to fight for intact forests, big game and endangered species habitat, and the region's ranching history.
Now the people of Thompson Divide have also opposed extraction because they have seen its effects firsthand. They have seen how companies more concerned with profit than public health polluted their streams, leaking toxic chemicals into the groundwater.
The gentlewoman from Colorado, in the previous amendment, said that she wanted clean air and clean water, but that is not the case. That is not what is going to happen here with this amendment.
To stem these impacts, Democratic Members, including my good friend and public lands defender, Representative Joe Neguse, has long championed protections for the Thompson Divide.
Because of these longstanding efforts from the community and those who represented them, just last year, President Biden took action to protect this landscape from new extraction for the next 20 years. His decision to protect the Thompson Divide was cheered by citizens across the State of Colorado as an essential protection for an irreplaceable landscape.
This amendment before us would reverse these protections, exposing this community again to poisoned wells and degraded forests. It goes against the interests of the Thompson Divide community, against the interests of Coloradans, and against the interests of the American people.
So I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I heard my colleague from our committee say that this was a perfecting amendment, and what I see it as is just a more bureaucracy amendment.
The problem here with the underlying bill is that it basically makes it impossible for the President to use--to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when there is an emergency in order to lower prices or to increase the supply.
What this amendment does is to put even more restrictions or make it even more likely that a delay would occur because the gentleman says that the plan required would include a list of parcels planned to be offered for lease, including for each parcel, the size of the parcel by acre, the location of the parcel, any permits and approvals necessary to access the parcel, and produce oil and gas on the parcel.
Look, the bottom line is what it appears the sponsor wants is for the Federal Government to spend its limited time during a crisis looking over maps of critical public lands and drawing arbitrary lines instead of taking rapid actions to lower gas prices for everyday families.
The underlying bill doesn't work because it puts all kinds of restrictions on the President's ability to use the reserve, either to lower prices, or to increase the supply in an emergency, and this amendment only makes it worse.
It would throw more barriers to the Secretary using the reserve to protect American families and businesses. It is so shortsighted, considering how critical the Biden administration's use of the reserve has been following Putin's invasion of Ukraine and subsequent global gas shortages.
For a minority so concerned--I should say in this case, for a Republican majority so concerned with cutting red tape, this amendment would create quite a few unnecessary hoops for the Secretary to jump through before taking swift action to help Americans. It just makes no sense.
Again, over the past year, the Biden administration has demonstrated that in an emergency, in an energy crisis, strategic use of the reserve can bring relief to the pump for millions of Americans, and this amendment puts that record of success by the Biden administration in jeopardy.
So I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment and, of course, a ``no'' vote on final passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I insist on the point of order.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, the pending amendment violates the germaneness requirement of rule XVI, clause 7. That rule precludes amendments ``on a subject different from that under consideration.''
The subject matter of the underlying bill is a requirement that the Department of Energy issue a plan related to the leasing of Federal lands for oil and gas drilling before certain first drawdowns from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
However, the subject matter of the pending amendment is different. The pending amendment requires the suspension of certain financial regulations limiting access to financing for oil and gas companies until certain conditions are met.
Now, this places an unrelated condition on the drawdown of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that expands beyond the development of the plan required by the underlying bill. Because the pending amendment is on a different subject from that of the underlying bill, I urge the Chair to hold this amendment as not germane.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Ocasio-Cortez).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source