Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains on each side?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Porter).

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 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Sykes).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.'' Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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

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----

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

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.

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

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. Mr. Chair, I ask all of my colleagues to support this important amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. PALLONE. I would like to reserve a point of order.