Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jackson).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, 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, I listened to the gentlewoman from Georgia, and to me, this amendment is unbelievable. I mean, she says that you can't draw down or sell petroleum products under this amendment for political and nonemergency purposes. Well, I mean, everything around here is political, so I don't know how you would define that. What the President has been doing is using this Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help bring down the price of gasoline at the pump, or in other cases, to increase supply because of the supply shortage due to Russia's action in the invasion of Ukraine. These are, in my opinion, totally legitimate emergency purposes to help the American people and help the supply chain. What the bill does is to say: Well, if you want to do that--if you want to use the reserve--then you have to drill for more oil on public lands. Well, isn't that political. A decision is made to say that you can't use the reserve unless you help the oil companies and let the oil companies take more of our public lands. That is about the most political thing that I can think of. In addition to that, was it not political when the Republican administrations in the past released and sold oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? What did they do it for. Well, they did it for deficit reduction. They did it to pay for different items, like the 21st Century Cures bill that came out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Were those emergencies? Were those not political? I would argue that using the reserve for those purposes was not an emergency at all and certainly was incredibly political. This is just another example of what the Republicans are doing. They are politicizing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve because they want to make message points. They know that this bill isn't going anywhere. The President already said that he will veto it, and the Senate won't take it up. They are being so political. They are talking about situations that have nothing to do with an emergency. I really don't know what to say. The whole process here is very political, oriented toward messaging, oriented toward going on TV, I guess, to appeal to base voters. It is just incredible to me that this amendment is being offered. Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. PALLONE. 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 introduces a new subject matter to the bill by requiring a plan for drawdowns that have already occurred. Because the pending amendment is on a different subject than that of the underlying bill, I urge the Chair to hold this amendment as not germane.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think the gentlewoman's previous amendment was about the policies of the President being political. And I think this amendment is more political than anything. First of all, as we know, what the underlying bill does is it says that if the President wants to release crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, then he has to put together a plan that would require more leases on public lands. What the gentlewoman's amendment says now is that she makes this retroactive and goes back to the day of the President's inauguration-- again, a very political decision to use that date--and says that any releases from the reserve beginning on the day of the President's inauguration, we would also then have to go back and make sure that we sell or lease additional leases on public lands to cover those releases from the reserve back to the inauguration. So, the bureaucracy of all this in itself I think is absurd. But the point is that she is essentially saying that now we have to lease more public lands when, in fact, there are about 9,000 leases already on public lands, half of which are not being used. The oil companies do not want to pump more oil because that brings down the price. They don't want any releases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve because that brings down the price. So all that the Republican majority is doing here is trying to help the oil companies, trying to make sure that there are no tools on the part of the administration to increase the supply, to bring down the cost of gasoline at the pump. Whatever the oil companies, which are making huge profits, want to do, that is what they want to do, as well. So I would just again say that this amendment may be germane but it is certainly detrimental to what the President and the Democrats are trying to do to help people deal with affordability.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment which would add the text of my Buy Low and Sell High Act, which I reintroduced last week along with my colleagues, Representatives Craig, Crow, Kuster, Spanberger, and Trone. Mr. Chairman, we heard quite a bit earlier today, as well as yesterday, on how problematic the underlying bill before us is, how it does not represent a serious attempt to tackle the challenges and opportunities that come with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to make sure it can be put to work for all Americans while helping fuel transition to a 21st century clean energy economy. Now, unlike my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, even when Democrats are in the minority, we do not become a Party of No. We stand ready to work on ideas that will seriously improve this country and to propose our substantive ideas to improve bills brought before the House, and that is what I am doing today with this amendment. The Buy Low and Sell High Act is a serious bill that takes the Strategic Petroleum Reserve seriously. It doesn't use it as a political football, but instead, regards it as a valuable tool to our arsenal of energy security. The amendment would create an economic petroleum reserve within this reserve that would be specifically to sell crude oil when prices are high and buy crude oil when prices are low. Some of the profits for that would then be reinvested into the American economy, accelerating the electrification revolution that everyone from President Biden to the CEO of every automaker can tell us is happening, not in the future, but right now. It would also create a network of regional product reserves, so we have a full national network of crude and petroleum products. The Colonial pipeline hack nearly 2 years ago was illustrative of the need for regional product reserves. Crude by itself doesn't do us any good without refining capacity and the infrastructure to take it across the country. Regional product reserves can fight local shortages immediately. My amendment also includes Ms. Houlahan's important bill, which goes further than our Republican Chamber did 2 weeks ago, in preventing barrels from our strategic reserves from going not just to China, but also not going to Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Unlike our colleagues, Mr. Chairman, Democrats are not soft on Russia. We are not soft on Iran. We are not soft on North Korea. Finally, the bill would build on the work in the fiscal year 2023 omnibus bill that this Chamber passed last month to give the Department of Energy further flexibility with congressionally mandated sales from the reserve and required the Department of Energy time those sales to maximize revenue back to the American taxpayer. Now, these are all commonsense ideas. They should be bipartisan ideas. They are certainly more serious than the bill before us today. Unfortunately, it seems that Republicans aren't willing to engage in a serious endeavor like this. They are not willing to hear our dissenting views on this. In any case, I would ask this amendment be adopted so we can take a serious look at what needs to be done to address the energy crisis. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, the amendment meets the germaneness requirement of clause 7 of rule XVI. The amendment is germane because the amendment does not introduce a new subject of the text proposed to be amended. The subject of the introduced bill is applying certain requirements to drawdowns from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The subject of the amendment also applies certain requirements to drawdowns. Again, Mr. Chairman, I have to stress that the reason that this amendment is germane is because we are trying on the Democratic side to seriously address the energy crisis and the energy future of this country. The Republicans are not doing that. They are simply using political points and trying to prevent the use of the reserve to actually help reduce the cost of gasoline at the pump.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I know we are closing the debate now on the underlying bill, but I will say one more time, we have been at this 2 days now. We have had a lot of amendments. I certainly appreciate the fact that we have had an open rule and that Members on our side of the aisle have had an opportunity to present amendments and speak. A lot of our new Members have had that opportunity. The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is that this underlying bill makes no sense, and it is strictly a political message. It is going nowhere. The President has already said that he would veto it, and the Senate won't take it up. The bottom line is that as Democrats what we are trying to do is address affordability issues for the American public in the context of gasoline prices. We knew as prices went up that we should use every tool in our arsenal to try to bring them down. That is what President Biden did. He decided to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to provide more supply and bring down prices. It succeeded in doing that. His actions did that. From the price in June at a high, it went down about $1.69 per gallon. Why would the Republicans want to deny the President--not just President Biden, but any President--that opportunity? We are just trying to address the concerns that the American people have. We did it on drug prices by saying we are going to negotiate drug prices. We did it on insulin by saying we wanted to cap it at $35 a month. Democrats are constantly trying to address these affordability issues, many of which resulted from the COVID crisis. The bottom line is, I don't understand why the Republicans would suggest that the President not be able to do that. They talk over and over again about how it is necessary to lease more public lands at a time when over half the leases that are out there are already not being used by the oil companies because the oil companies don't want more oil. They don't want more supply. They want to keep the price down. If there is more supply and more pumping of oil domestically or internationally, they lose those huge profits that they have made in the last few years. Please, don't hamstring this administration. Let us use the reserve in part to try to bring prices down and let the President continue to have that option. Mr. Chair, I would urge opposition to H.R. 21, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I reserve a point of order.

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

Mr. PALLONE. I withdraw the point of order, yes.

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.

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.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher), another member of our Energy and Commerce Committee.

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.

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.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

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.

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.