Strategic Production Response Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 21.
President Biden, true to his word of a war on fossil fuels, sold off an unprecedented 250 million barrels of oil in less than 2 years, which is more than 40 percent of the stockpile. Two of the four SPR sites along the Gulf Coast are now dangerously low on oil, leaving America more vulnerable to a true energy supply disruption caused by hurricane or natural disaster.
Mr. Chairman, this issue is very personal to me and to my Gulf Coast district. We house 60 percent of the Nation's SPR. So when I say ``personal,'' I mean it.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill to prevent further abuse of the SPR.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment fails to see that depleting our strategic reserve for nonemergent reasons hurts our ability to help hurricane victims.
The Gulf Coast of Texas, District 14, where I am a Member of Congress, suffers all the consequences of hurricanes. We need to have the stability of a strong SPR. America needs that ability.
Downplaying the role of domestic supply--as it seems the other side is intent on--guts the legislation in several ways.
First, it treats swaps of oil out of the strategic reserve that were not done--were not done--Mr. Chairman, for emergency reasons--as an emergency. For instance, we could lend oil to China for any reason for an indefinite period without a need to explain how we are going to make ourselves whole in the interim, a/k/a, keep our country safe and keep District 14 safe in Texas. This is extremely personal to me.
Second, it takes the lawmaking role from Congress and gives it to the executive branch. Mr. Chairman, I have read the Constitution. I don't think the President is supposed to make laws. I think it is supposed to be up to us in Congress. It gives the DOE, the Department of Energy, power to decide whether or not the law takes effect. That is not their role.
Finally, even though it conditions the effective date on a finding by the Department of Energy, in no way does it require the Energy Department to make a finding of one way or the other.
So this amendment would make this bill worse--absolutely worse. So we would love to see our colleagues say ``no.'' This amendment is not something that we need.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 36.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the comment that apparently I didn't understand the last amendment. Having grown up on the Gulf Coast of Texas, first, Hurricane Carla, in 1961, I went through that. I think I understand the Gulf Coast of Texas, and I think I understand hurricanes. I have been there a long time.
So I have to rise in opposition to this amendment.
Why?
This amendment fails to see that depleting our strategic reserve for nonemergency reasons could actually hurt our ability to help the American people exactly in those times and those events of a real supply interruption like a hurricane or natural disaster. Lord knows I have lived and been through a lot of them.
This amendment would jeopardize Americans' energy security and energy jobs in several ways. First, it actually creates a loophole to allow ``test sales,'' Mr. Chairman, of oil out of the strategic reserve to be exempted even when it is not an emergency like we talked about on the Gulf Coast of Texas, my home area.
How do we know this?
History teaches us a valid lesson.
For instance, under this amendment, the Biden administration could abuse its authority by using, again, a ``test sale'' to fund a new government program just like President Obama did in 2014.
Second, again, it takes the lawmaking role of Congress and gives it to the executive branch.
I have read the Constitution, too. I have read the Constitution.
It gives the Department of Energy the power to decide whether the law takes effect. That is unbelievable to me, Mr. Chairman.
Finally, even though it ``conditions'' the effective date on a finding by the Department of Energy, the DOE, in no way--in no way-- does it require the Energy Department to make a finding of one way or the other. We could be stuck in limbo for Lord knows how long.
This amendment would make the bill worse, and, indeed, it is a poison pill. For this I urge my colleagues to make a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment goes beyond the status quo in even existing law by creating new barriers to oil exploration and development. It is funny because the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is about storing that same oil for our Nation for what is strategic. It is funny that they want to actually put in new barriers.
H.R. 21 is about strengthening that Strategic Petroleum Reserve and our Nation's very energy security by requiring any nonemergency use to be accompanied by a plan, I don't know, to actually produce more American oil reserves.
Why wouldn't we want to do that to make our Nation safe and energy dependent on nobody? That is why we have the SPR, Mr. Chair.
This amendment undermines the purpose of this legislation, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to hear this isn't really about energy or we would be talking about more than just a few tanks in the country. That is a really interesting phrase.
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is put in for strategic reasons for the entire country, not for political gain.
This amendment would prohibit oil and gas companies from producing on a lease outlined in the leasing plan unless the fossil industry entity submits to the Secretary of Energy a plan to reduce its global warming pollution.
This amendment is simply nothing more than to delay the implementation of H.R. 21. That is all this is. Let's call it what it is. It is not about a few tanks in the country. Really? It is not about that.
Americans are suffering under record-high gas prices that hurt low- income Americans the most, and they want to call that, oh, a discussion about a few tanks in the country. Really?
Families can't put food on their tables. They can't put gas in their tanks. They are struggling to get by. Oh, this is just a discussion about a few tanks in America, that is all.
Mr. Chairman, we have the strongest environmental and safety standards in the world, bar none. Let's let American energy workers do their job, make America safe, and make the world cleaner. Let's pass H.R. 21. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, what can I say? To block exports of oil from America--we just reinstated them in December 2015, if I remember correctly. This is nothing more than a delaying tactic to delay and defeat H.R. 21. It is just that simple. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chair, it is kind of funny that our friends across the aisle don't understand that natural gas burns so clean, and that is one of the reasons America produces energy cleaner than almost every other country in the world.
Now, Democrats are waging war on natural gas. There is no shock, right?
This amendment would limit the leasing plan to only considering oil production, not gas. We have two LNG plants in my district. We ought to be producing as much gas in every facet that we can to help bring down CO
Here is a news flash for my friends across the aisle: Oil and gas production are linked. Increasing both oil and gas is imperative.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment blocks energy production on Federal lands that are not subject to any restrictions.
This is nothing other than another messaging amendment, which is meant to undermine H.R. 21, quite frankly, quite simply stated.
Mr. Chair, we need to be focused on ways to make America more energy. That needs to be our focus. We want to make America more energy secure and lower gas prices for the American people. They want to know Congress is doing that. That is a good message for the American people.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chair, the diversions, the deflections, and the dereliction of congressional duty by the other side is getting increasingly disappointing, if I can use the ``D'' words.
Congress' duty is to protect Americans and help them with energy prices. The legislation we are considering today is a national solution for a national challenge to prevent national energy emergencies.
We can't arbitrarily remove places from consideration if the best science, technology, and practices can safely and responsibly obtain the energy Americans need to survive through an emergency.
H.R. 21 does not require the Secretary of Energy to drill any specific area. We shouldn't take items off the table before a considered review by the experts has been done.
There is a novel thought. Let the experts look at it, review it. How about that?
Moreover, a plan can be changed as new information comes along, while the mandate in this amendment is inflexible to facts, science, and needs arising from national emergencies.
For that reason, Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. This amendment severely limits the potential for energy production by prohibiting lands within the Outer Continental Shelf from being included in the leasing plan.
Here is a factoid that my colleagues across the aisle need to understand: virtually all oil and gas leasing in the OCS occurs in the Gulf of Mexico. Oil and gas exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf accounts for roughly 15 percent of all domestic oil production and 2 percent of domestic natural gas production.
By actually further limiting this vast resource, are they going to bring American energy prices down?
No way.
If we limit this vast resource we will not--I repeat, we will not--be able to meet the demand for oil and gas.
For that reason, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition.
The Acting Chair. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chair, this bill does not require a leasing plan if the Secretary of Energy determines that delaying a drawdown would increase gas prices.
As has been previously stated, the SPR is not supposed to be used to lower gas prices. It is supposed to be used in case of emergencies, for reasons that, I don't know, might be strategic; thus, the name: Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
It is supposed to be used for our national security, another very important strategic reason.
Our friends across the aisle, the Democrats, say they want to lower gas prices when nearly every single one of their energy policies does exactly the opposite.
The way to lower gas prices and keep them low--and I applaud their apparent want and desire to lower gas prices--their aim is a little off target.
The way to lower gas prices, when nearly every single one of their energy policies is exactly the same, is to change that focus.
Because the way to lower gas prices and to keep them low is to increase American energy production at home, right here at home. That is exactly what H.R. 21 does.
If the Democrats want to support lowering gas prices, I urge them to support this bill. I am glad they want to.
They should support this bill, H.R. 21, to require the Secretary of Energy to develop a plan to actually increase energy production for those working Americans that they cited.
For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment and a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 21 to decrease energy costs for all Americans.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chair, this amendment precludes land that has ``no or low potential for oil and gas development'' from being included in the production plan.
I have got news for my friends across the aisle. If lands have ``no or low to no potential for oil and gas development,'' the private sector likely would not seek a lease for that land in the first place.
Regardless, it is not the government's job to make that decision. The government shouldn't be in the business of choosing winners and losers.
Didn't we see that with some other industry out in California a while back?
If it were the government's job to choose winners and losers, we would not have had the Shale Revolution. Look at what that has done for America.
This amendment is unnecessary, and it is vague enough to be abused as a political tool, as we have seen with the current administration with the SPR. We don't want that to keep happening.
Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits the leasing plan from providing a financial benefit for any entity that is allowed to make gross income or take a tax deduction on an oil depletion.
Really? They are really going after the companies that are providing energy for Americans, lowering the price of energy?
This amendment is not only punitive; it is literally aimed to hurt American energy and the American energy workers, the families who are working and striving hard to make America energy independent.
Mr. Chairman, the left needs to stop trying to punish the oil and gas industry for trying to produce and unleash American energy independence so that we can increase the supply, which helps American families.
For this reason, Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chair, this amendment is simply another delaying tactic to delay the effects of the bill until after the Secretary of Energy publishes a report exposing how backlogged the Department of the Interior is on drilling permits. It is nothing more than a delaying tactic that is going to simply hurt American families, American workers.
We already know the answer, Mr. Chairman. There are thousands of permits awaiting action from the Department of Energy for wells that could actually come online and help respond to the energy crisis and help American workers and American families.
There is no need to wait for DOE to issue a study. That is a delaying tactic, especially on matters at the Department of the Interior. It is nothing but a delaying tactic.
For that reason, Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chair, plain and simple, plain and simple, this amendment is unnecessary and misguided and, not to mention, oh, it strikes the whole bill.
Maybe a lesson is needed for our friends across the aisle. The United States is the world's largest energy producer, in case y'all didn't know that; and combined with our allies, Canada and Mexico, North America is the world's largest energy superpower.
Our network of pipelines, production platforms, and refineries span our borders, providing the American people with energy security that is absolutely unmatched around the world. Let me repeat that: Absolutely unmatched around the world.
Our refineries along the Gulf Coast, which I have the third upper part of the Gulf Coast in the State of Texas, are the most complex and technically advanced in the entire world, bar none. We take crude oil of all grades from around the world and make valuable fuels and refined products that actually drive our entire economy.
This amendment would cut off a valuable source of energy, just like when President Biden canceled the Keystone XL pipeline.
I think I heard them say that they were about helping American workers, and how many jobs were lost when he canceled the Keystone pipeline.
For that reason, Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment because it will make America less energy secure, the exact opposite purpose of H.R. 21, the bill before us.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source