Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, Republicans keep talking about lowering energy costs, but let's be honest with the American people. Right now, the price of oil is $50 per barrel less than its high last year. The price of a gallon of gasoline is $1.57 less than its high last year. The price of natural gas is 78 percent lower than it was at its high last year. Of course, we would all like even lower prices, but the bottom line is, this bill is misnamed. It will not lower energy prices. It would make natural gas more expensive by making Americans compete with consumers across the globe. It would make our electricity dirtier and more expensive. It would enrich the oil and gas companies that price- gouged American consumers last year. This bill is nothing but a handout to the fossil fuel industry that would drive prices higher for Americans. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto) a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Scholten).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Porter).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), Speaker Emeritus of the House.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster), who is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I keep hearing that Republicans want to lower energy costs with this bill and how important it is to export natural gas overseas. I want to take a moment to examine some history here. Back in 2015, with a Republican-controlled House and a Republican- controlled Senate, Congress passed a bill that repealed the crude export ban. Since then, crude oil and petroleum product exports to China have tripled, and the amount of refining capacity on the East Coast of the United States has decreased by 36 percent. This is not a coincidence. Lifting the export ban meant that oil producers saw more profits in sending their oil overseas, including to China, and little in refining it here at home. That led to 10 refineries closing in the intervening 7 years, destroying jobs. It tied the price of oil in the U.S. firmly to the price of oil on global markets, which has been responsible for the gas prices roller coaster we have seen for the past few years. Now, what that bill did was enrich a very small number of people who export oil at the expense of every other American who now has to pay a little bit more for gasoline. Republicans, with this bill, want to turn around and do this for the natural gas industry, too. This bill makes it far too easy to export LNG abroad--yes, including to China. This would mean the same process would repeat. You would pay more for energy. American factories and industries would pay more for energy. A very small sliver of natural gas businesses would profit. It is prioritizing the enrichment of the few over the needs of many Americans. The sheer gall of calling this the Lower Energy Costs Act, in my opinion, is insulting. It is insulting to refinery workers who lost their jobs. It is insulting to the frontline communities next to fossil fuel plants that suffer from dirtier air. It is insulting to the hundreds of millions of Americans who would have to pay more to keep their houses warm each winter. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, today, Republicans have completed the process of trying to determine what exactly their energy policy will be. It is not about energy independence. It is not even about an all-of-the-above energy approach. Instead, it is a return to the glory days for them of oil and gas running the show. Today's bill, however, does nothing to chart a course for American energy policy. Instead, it is a political messaging bill. Industry admits it. There was a Politico piece last week detailing how Republican industry allies feel about the bill. Rapidan Energy Group, which is run by Bob McNally, who testified at the Committee on Energy and Commerce's first hearing this year, sent an analysis note to their clients saying that H.R. 1 is doomed in the Senate. Several anonymous Republican Members have said the very same things themselves in press interviews. Let's be clear: Three months into their majority, instead of using their power to seriously tackle issues in a bipartisan manner--and many of my colleagues on the Democratic side said today they wanted to work with Republicans on real energy policy--Republicans have chosen to put forward a messaging bill that I think is really an insult to every single American that is not an oil or gas executive. It is a message bill, and the message is this: They want the energy your family uses to be dirtier and more expensive. It is a shame. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am calling this the polluters over people act because it eliminates the environmental protections that keep families and communities safe while doing nothing to lower energy costs. Everyday Americans need relief from high energy costs. Big Oil is still making record profits, and instead of cracking down on price gouging, House Republicans are handing giveaways to big oil and gas company CEOs without delivering any help to working families. The East Palestine train derailment and other recent catastrophes have shown just how dangerous putting profits before people can be. As the climate crisis accelerates, we need real action to support clean, secure, and affordable American energy. That is what House Democrats delivered last year with our historic investments that will help us lead the world in the transition to clean energy and will truly combat the worsening climate crisis. After all, extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and more extreme. Just last week, it was the devastating and deadly tornado that ripped through Mississippi. These horrifying extreme weather events are costing families their loved ones, their homes, and their livelihoods. House Republicans are attacking the very clean energy policies that hold polluters accountable, reduce costs for American families, and combat the worsening climate crisis. House Republicans have the wrong priorities, and we should defeat the polluters over people act today. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I hope after today we don't hear Republicans talk about States' rights again. Pipeline and LNG projects require both Federal and State permits. The spirit of the Clean Water Act clearly demands that States have a say in the requirements and permits that projects in their State are subject to. This amendment disapproves of the State of Oregon's decision to deny permits to the Jordan Cove LNG export project. Mr. Chair, who are we to disapprove of Oregon's decision? I don't live in Oregon. The distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado offering this amendment doesn't live in Oregon. Oregon decided in a democratic fashion what standards projects had to meet in order to build in the State. Jordan Cove didn't meet those standards and it didn't get the permits and it didn't get built. I don't see anything objectionable there. If Congress spent floor time debating every State decision that one Member of the House disagreed with, we would never get anything done. I just think this is a meaningless sense of Congress resolution. If this passes and the bill somehow becomes law, it won't bring the project back. It is really a messaging amendment, being added to, in my opinion, a messaging bill. I would also note that my colleague, Congresswoman Val Hoyle, staunchly opposes this amendment and has a long history of opposing the Jordan Cove LNG project. Unfortunately, she has come down with COVID and regrets that she is unable to be on the floor to discuss this amendment. Republicans promised when they took the majority that they were going to be serious legislators dealing with actual issues the country is facing. I don't see that here. Mr. Chair, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, the gentleman from Texas' amendment would undermine EPAs critical Underground Injection Control program and endanger the health of communities around the Nation, in my opinion. The Underground Injection Control program, or UIC, regulates injection wells to protect drinking water sources. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA implements the program, but can delegate primary enforcement authority, or primacy, to a State. To be granted primacy, States must demonstrate to EPA that they, among other things, have regulations in place that meet various minimum requirements. The point of this application and EPA approval process is to ensure there is a Federal floor to regulations so drinking water is protected across the country. This amendment seeks to expedite approvals of primacy applications by effectively rubber-stamping State UIC programs for class 6 wells, those used for carbon sequestration, if EPA hasn't acted on the State application within the review period. Just like other permit deadline provisions of the polluters over peoples act, this would be dangerous. While this amendment targets class 6 wells used for underground injection of carbon dioxide, the text, as written, would apply to State program applications or program revisions for all well types, including hazardous waste injection wells. UIC programs should be rigorous and protective. We should not gamble with people's drinking water. Once water is contaminated, we cannot easily reverse course. If Republicans care about the implementation of this program, they would support EPA as it works to ensure robust State programs are in place before granting primacy. In fact, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provided $25 million toward that goal. So if States want primacy, they should complete the application process and be held to the Federal standard so Americans know their water is safe. Circumventing this process will only put communities in jeopardy. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, frankly, I have no idea why this amendment is being offered. It would force the Department of Energy to ride the roller coaster that is the oil future's market, without any option to just pay a simple fixed price for a barrel of oil. If oil goes up $20 per barrel between when DOE purchases oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and when it is delivered, well, that is too bad. We are now paying $20 per barrel more, and we will have to buy less oil. This amendment unnecessarily restrains DOE and makes purchasing petroleum products to refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve more expensive. DOE recognized as much when it issued a rulemaking last fall clarifying that it could purchase oil at a fixed price, as common sense would dictate. There is no reason that it should be illegal for the Department of Energy to sign a contract saying that it will purchase oil for $70 per barrel. No reason that I can think of. Except, of course, if you are an oil company that wants the Department of Energy to pay more to refill the reserve. However, if you are an average American, then this amendment is a raw deal. It constrains the Department of Energy's usage of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is partially responsible for the tremendous over $1.50 per gallon fall in the cost of gasoline we have seen since last summer's peak gas prices. I will note that when the Department of Energy issued its notice of proposed rulemaking this last summer, industry did not object. In fact, the Department of Energy only received one comment on the rulemaking from Employ America, which was unambiguously positive. That comment stated that the rule change ``is an important step to reduce the volatility of oil prices over the short and medium term, improve our Nation's energy security, and a necessary step to ensure that acquisition procedures more fully align with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve's governing statute.'' This amendment will put the usage of index pricing on par with the Department of Energy's duty to acquire petroleum products for the reserve as cheaply as possible. I don't understand that mission. It will only serve to diminish the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, frankly, I could not disagree more with this amendment. It claims that President Biden's budget would repeal tax breaks that are ``vital to the oil and natural gas industry of the United States.'' This is the same Big Oil that last year saw just six companies make a shocking $200 billion in profit and then spend billions to enrich their shareholders with stock buybacks and dividends, all while gouging American drivers at the pump. So, I hope the gentleman will forgive me if I don't think that Big Oil needs a tax break. Mr. Chairman, I am glad the gentleman offered this amendment because I think it is very illustrative of how Democrats and Republicans are in different places. Democrats and President Biden are fighting every day to keep Americans' Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid safe. Republicans, however, apparently only value the tax breaks that their Big Oil friends love. Just yesterday, Speaker McCarthy sent President Biden a letter on the national debt, but I guess cutting tax breaks for fossil fuels is a real red line for Republicans. They would rather us default than impact their special interests. It is fitting that this amendment is being added to the polluters over people act. For all of my colleagues today, it is very simple. If you are on the side of the polluters, then support this amendment. If you are on the side of the people, then you must oppose it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, the Delaware River Basin Commission is made up of representatives from the States of New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and my home State of New Jersey. The commission oversees drinking water quality for the Delaware River Watershed, a vitally important role that impacts millions of people across four States. Congress created the commission over 60 years ago and gave it powers to regulate the Delaware River Watershed. Crucially, each State's democratically elected leaders signed up to join the commission, and each State receives a vote on the commission. Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago, the commission banned fracking in its watershed, and this wasn't a controversial decision. In fact, it was unanimous. It was a 4-0 vote to help protect the public health of the 13 million citizens in the watershed and to preserve the waters themselves. Today, Republicans want to retroactively take away the rights of the citizens of these four States and their elected representatives. They want to take away the powers that Congress gave the commission just because they don't like the outcome. I would suggest this: If you really care about clean rivers and waters, I urge you to oppose this amendment. If you care about people's rights to safe drinking water, I urge you to oppose this amendment. I would like to think that all my colleagues care about these things, so I urge opposition to the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.