Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. PALLONE. Yes, I withdraw the reservation of a point of order.

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.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I do support the amendment.

Mr. PALLONE. Yes.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I insist on the point of order.

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.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Ocasio-Cortez).

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

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating the gentlewoman from Washington State on her election as the chairwoman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. I rise in opposition to H.R. 22, the Protecting America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve from China Act. First, let's take a moment to remember how we got here. In 2015, when Republicans last controlled Congress, they lifted the 40-year ban on crude oil exports at the urging of their Big Oil friends. This irresponsible policy change allowed companies to export American- owned barrels of oil to our adversaries, including China. Again, that was a Republican policy pushed by House Republicans 8 years ago. As a result, our crude oil exports to China surged, averaging a half million barrels every day during the last year of the Trump administration. China hoarded these barrels to build up its own petroleum reserves. Back in 2015, I strongly opposed this Republican bill out of concern that it would harm our energy security and, ultimately, lead to increased prices at the pump for hardworking American families. It turns out I was right. Now, Republicans seem to be complaining about the very circumstances that they created, all to reward their Big Oil friends. Lifting the export ban damaged our economic security. Refineries across the country, including in my home State of New Jersey, have closed since the export ban was lifted, in no small part due to oil companies' desires to seek greater profits abroad rather than send their oil to refineries here at home. A GAO analysis in 2020 showed that domestic refineries suffered because of the export ban being lifted, a suffering that was then inflicted on the thousands of hardworking Americans whose jobs were destroyed. If Republicans were serious about addressing this issue, they would have brought forward a bill that banned all exports of crude oil to China. SPR barrels sold to Chinese firms represented only 2 percent of all the oil we sent to China last year--only 2 percent from the SPR. If we truly want to address China using American oil to build its reserves, let's actually take a serious look at that rather than skirt around the issue because Republicans are scared of Big Oil's wrath. Why are Republicans only banning SPR sales to China? Representatives Houlahan and Bacon introduced a bill last Congress that prohibited SPR sales to Russia, North Korea, Iran, and any country under U.S. sanctions. That bill had 37 bipartisan cosponsors. Are my Republican colleagues okay with exporting oil to Putin's Russia in the midst of a war on Ukraine? It also speaks volumes, Mr. Speaker, that this is their first energy priority after regaining the House majority. Over the last 2 years, Democrats passed the most significant climate law in our Nation's history. We also passed the bipartisan infrastructure law that will modernize our energy infrastructure. Republicans' first energy bill this Congress isn't about investing in the resiliency of our electric grid or making American energy cleaner and cheaper. Instead, they are just recycling an old one-page bill that takes a minor step in undoing the damage that they themselves created. Republicans are here today denying their own history and muddying the truth by trying to place the blame on President Biden, but President Biden successfully used the SPR to lower prices at the pump and provide relief to American families. When gas prices increased last year, the Biden administration took decisive action to bring gas prices back down by releasing oil from the SPR. The administration released an unprecedented 1 million barrels of oil a day, providing critical domestic supply to make up for shortages in the aftermath of the war in Ukraine. This was a commonsense strategy that worked, and thanks largely to President Biden's actions, gasoline prices have fallen an average of $1.90 per gallon nationwide since their peak in June. One thing that episode underscores is that fossil fuel prices are volatile. As long as we rely on gasoline and other fossil fuels to meet America's energy needs, our country's energy security and affordability remain at the whims of dictators like Putin on the other side of the world. While I agree, just like I did back in 2015, that we should not export U.S. crude oil to China, I want to stress that this bill could have been improved through bipartisan cooperation, regular order, and committee consideration. If Republicans hope to actually enact legislation, this is not a pathway to success. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), who chaired our Select Committee on the Climate Crisis in the last Congress.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters), a member of our committee and a leader on environmental issues.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan), who has been working on this issue for some time.