[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]







                       BURNING THE MIDNIGHT OIL: 
                      WHY DEPLETING THE STRATEGIC 
                        PETROLEUM RESERVE IS NOT 
                        A SOLUTION TO AMERICA'S 
                         ENERGY PROBLEM, PART I 

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

 SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC GROWTH, ENERGY POLICY, AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

                                 OF THE

               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 8, 2023

                               __________

                            Serial No. 118-6

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability


                       Available on: govinfo.gov, 
                         oversight.house.gov or 
                             docs.house.gov 
                             
                             _________
                              
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                 
51-474 PDF               WASHINGTON : 2023
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman

Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking 
Mike Turner, Ohio                        Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Ro Khanna, California
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Katie Porter, California
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Cori Bush, Missouri
Byron Donalds, Florida               Shontel Brown, Ohio
Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota        Jimmy Gomez, California
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
William Timmons, South Carolina      Robert Garcia, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Maxwell Frost, Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Becca Balint, Vermont
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Greg Casar, Texas
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Dan Goldman, New York
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina        Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Nick Langworthy, New York
Eric Burlison, Missouri

                       Mark Marin, Staff Director
       Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
                     Daniel Flores, Senior Counsel
                          David Ehmen, Counsel
                Jeanne Kuehl, Senior Professional Staff
      Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5074

                  Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051

 Subcommittee On Economic Growth, Energy Policy, And Regulatory Affairs

                      Pat Fallon, Texas, Chairman
Byron Donalds, Florida               Cori Bush, Missouri, Ranking 
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania                Minority Member
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Shontel Brown, Ohio
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida               Columbia
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina        Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Nick Langworthy, New York            Ro Khanna, California
                                     Katie Porter, California  
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on March 8, 2023....................................     1

                               Witnesses

Mr. Alex Epstein, President, Center for Industrial Progress
Oral Statement...................................................     6

Dr. Ilia Bouchouev, Managing Partner, Pentathlon Investments, LLC
Oral Statement...................................................     8

Mr. Demond Drummer, Institute on Race, Power and Political 
  Economy, The New School
Oral Statement...................................................     9

 Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witnesses 
  are available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository 
  at: docs.house.gov.

                           Index of Documents

                              ----------                              


  * Article, Duke Review, ``Martin Luther King: Unworthy of a Day 
  Off Over Other Great Leaders''; submitted by Rep. Stansbury.

  * Article, Duke Review, ``Race Commission Findings: We Hope 
  They're Kidding''; submitted by Rep. Stansbury.

  * Letter from the Publisher, Duke Review, ``The Racism of 
  Reparations''; submitted by Rep. Stansbury.

  * Article, Documented, ``Prominent Climate Denier Authored 
  Controversial Articles as Publisher of Conservative Student 
  Newspaper''; submitted by Rep. Stansbury.


The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov.

 
                       BURNING THE MIDNIGHT OIL: 
                      WHY DEPLETING THE STRATEGIC 
                        PETROLEUM RESERVE IS NOT 
                        A SOLUTION TO AMERICA'S 
                         ENERGY PROBLEM, PART I 

                              ----------                              


                    Wednesday, March 8, 2023

                        House of Representatives

               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

                Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy 
                     Policy, and Regulatory Affairs

                                           Washington, D.C.

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:21 p.m., in 
room 2247, Rayburn Office Building, Hon. Pat Fallon, (Chairman 
of the Subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Fallon, Donalds, Perry, Boebert, 
Fry, Luna, Edwards, Bush, Norton, Porter, Brown, and Stansbury.
    Mr. Fallon. The Committee on Economic Growth, Energy 
Policy, and Regulatory Affairs will come to order. I want to 
welcome everyone for coming.
    Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any 
time, and I recognize myself for the purpose of making an 
opening statement.
    It is an honor to chair the Subcommittee on Economic 
Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs. I would like to 
thank the witnesses for their testimony today, and I look 
forward to working with Ranking Member Bush to provide 
necessary oversight on these critical sectors.
    Today's hearing will be on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, 
or the SPR for short. The decisions that led to the largest 
drawdown of our vital oil in history requires oversight.
    At its height, the SPR was at 695 million barrels under the 
previous administration. It now sits at 371 million barrels, 
which is a 47 percent reduction. It is nearly half.
    On the first day in office, Joe Biden canceled the Keystone 
XL Pipeline, killing thousands of high-paying American jobs and 
openly attacking the oil and gas industry.
    Less than a week later, Mr. Biden placed a moratorium on 
Federal on and offshore oil and natural gas leases. These 
actions increase the average price of gasoline to record highs 
by the summer of 2022, forcing Americans already struggling 
with out-of-control inflation to foot the bill for poor policy.
    In an attempt to hide the failed results of an all of 
government war on our domestic energy industry the 
Administration recklessly turned to the SPR.
    Joe Biden authorized the biggest drawdown in history, 
releasing more oil from the SPR than all other previous 
administrations combined. All other previous administrations 
combined.
    In the last two years more oil has been siphoned off our 
reserves than in the previous 46 years. For a quick bit of 
history, the SPR was founded in 1975 for national security 
reasons to protect our country in times of war, national 
emergencies, or severe acts of God.
    Now, seven months after President Biden authorized the 
first release of crude, gas prices reached an all-time high of 
just over $5 a gallon in June 2022. Then the Administration 
tried to claim it was Putin's fault.
    Well, news flash, it wasn't. Despite the Administration's 
flimsy claim of the, quote/unquote, ``Putin price hike'' that 
didn't necessitate the draw downs. The truth is Mr. Biden set 
up failure long before Russia crossed the border into Ukraine.
    Shockingly, instead of cutting red tape and allowing 
domestic producers to even the scales of supply and demand, 
which would have driven down prices for consumers not only here 
at home but also alleviated pressures on our European allies, 
Joe Biden instead attacked American companies. He asked mini 
Putins like Venezuela to increase production instead of 
unleashing the American energy sector.
    President Biden accused them of price gouging and demanded 
they ramp up production while refusing to acknowledge his 
Administration's role in the energy crisis.
    His cancellation of the Keystone XL Pipeline, the 
moratorium on Federal on and offshore oil and natural gas, and 
even attacks on the American energy sector have driven this 
crisis.
    Rather than lowering energy prices and encouraging domestic 
energy industry and supporting good-paying American jobs, the 
Biden Administration used the SPR as a stopgap to lower energy 
prices before the November midterm elections.
    Further, the Administration sold millions of barrels of our 
crude to companies controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. 
So, why is the Biden Administration depleting our own emergency 
stockpiles to benefit foreign adversaries?
    In fact, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin just issued a 
memorandum to his forces last week, which said, and I quote, 
``An increasingly aggressive China is trying to shape the 
international rules-based system to suit its authoritarian 
preferences,'' and I agree.
    So, why is President Biden draining our SPR to fill 
China's? China has nearly 1 billion barrels in their reserve, 
and we have just about a third of that. So, that is 
unacceptable.
    So, this hearing is going to examine why the Biden 
Administration is draining our SPR, the national security 
concerns with the depleted reserve, the long-term implications 
of renewables, exclusive--renewables exclusive political 
approach, and the practical policy solutions to ensure energy 
affordability and security for years to come.
    We know that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was formed to 
protect our country in what--remember, times of war, national 
emergency, and effects of acts of God.
    Did any of these happen in the last two years? No.
    Are we at war? No.
    Did we have a severe act of God? No.
    And did we suffer through a national emergency that would 
have necessitated tapping the SPR? No.
    So, why under this Administration were 267 million barrels 
of oil depleted from our emergency reserve? So, the fundamental 
question that this hearing must help us answer is this. Did Joe 
Biden risk our national security and deplete our reserves by 
over 40 percent in a vain attempt to curry short-term political 
gain before midterm elections?
    I want to thank you again very much, and I recognize 
Ranking Member Bush for her opening statement.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    St. Louis and I are here today to have a serious discussion 
about what energy security looks like for people, not 
corporations. This hearing is not that discussion. If House 
Republicans actually cared about preventing an energy and 
economic crisis from happening, they will commit to investing 
in renewable energy.
    Unfortunately, there are no serious proposals being 
offered. Rising inflation caused by Russia's violent invasion 
of Ukraine and COVID-19 pandemic-related supply chain 
shortages, combined with dangerous corporate greed and our 
reliance on fossil fuels, has left the United States in a 
tenuous position of expensive, unreliable, and unsafe energy.
    Let us be clear, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was 
precisely created to be tapped in emergencies involving severe 
shortages of oil. Of course, I believe that the best way to 
avoid similar challenges in the future is to end our reliance 
on oil.
    But there should be no doubt that President Biden employed 
it explicitly for its stated purpose, in an emergency when our 
Nation's families and people needed it most.
    According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 
gas prices peaked at $4.88 in the Midwest region last year and 
are now down to $3.24 as of this week. People were struggling 
to get to doctor's appointments or to keep their heat on, and 
the Republican Party would have loved to do nothing.
    While the drawdown of the SPR was necessary to bolster 
supplies in an emergency, future events can be best ameliorated 
or prevented by reducing our demand for and our reliance on 
fossil fuels.
    But my Republican colleagues have unironically invited for-
profit think tank and oil titans whose expertise is in 
maximizing profits, especially at the expense of our Black, our 
Brown, and our indigenous neighbors' health, safety, and well-
being.
    One of these so-called energy experts is a philosopher who 
has previously espoused white supremacist views. For instance, 
in his 2000 college newspaper he wrote, quote, ``The African 
and American Studies Department has 23 classes. In many of 
these classes, African culture is presented not as a----''
    Mrs. Boebert. Mr. Chairman, I demand the gentlelady's words 
be taken down. She just called the witness a white supremacist.
    Ms. Bush. No, I referred to the words, not to the person. 
Not to him, the words.
    Mrs. Boebert. The gentlelady is referring to the witness' 
statement and referred to him as a white supremacist. I would 
like a parliamentary inquiry----
    Ms. Bush. No, I did not.
    Mrs. Boebert [continuing]. Into having the gentlewoman's 
words taken down.
    Mr. Fallon. The Chair--excuse me. The Chair recognizes 
Congresswoman Boebert.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like a parliamentary inquiry into taking down the 
gentlelady's words--the Ranking Member's words--for insinuating 
that our witness made white supremacist statements using his 
words.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. The Chair cannot take down words that are 
directed to our witness, only to other Members.
    All right. The Chair recognizes Ranking Member Bush to 
continue her opening statement.
    Mrs. Boebert. Mr. Chairman, parliamentarian inquiry.
    Mr. Fallon. Say your inquiry.
    Mrs. Boebert. Is it appropriate for the Ranking Members to 
show respect to the witnesses who are here present in the 
committee room today?
    Mr. Fallon. I think it would obviously be warranted to show 
respect for any witness.
    Mrs. Boebert. I would like that sentiment to be expressed 
and the Members to be reminded to show respect to our witnesses 
who are here today.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Ranking Member 
Bush.
    Ms. Bush. As I was saying, ``The African and African 
American Studies Department''--this is the quote, ``has 23 
classes. In many of these classes African culture is presented 
not as inferior to Western culture but as on equal footing with 
it. In other departments the same is done with Latin American, 
Indian, and American-Indian culture,'' end quote.
    When confronted about these views over two decades later, 
rather than disavow them he doubled down on this narrative 
saying, quote, ``It has nothing to do with skin color. I was 
arguing that those cultures overall are inferior to Western 
culture.''
    We are not inferior to any culture, speaking as a 
descendant of one of those cultures. This is the witness the 
Republicans invited to discuss issues of energy security. He 
came here to promote fossil fuels, which we know are 
disproportionately harming and killing Black and Brown people.
    Last week, I joined Ranking Member Raskin and all of my 
Democratic Oversight colleagues in calling on Oversight 
Republicans to denounce white nationalism and denounce white 
supremacy in all its forms. Not one single Republican joined 
us.
    So, I ask again today will my Republican colleagues condemn 
white supremacy and work with us to ensure this Committee 
engages in advancing good and reducing harm rather than 
perpetuating it. That is respect.
    Our Committee needs to be focused on actions that will help 
people and prevent financial hurt and pain. Whether we deploy 
the SPR or we don't, the instability of our energy system will 
continue if we are reliant on oil.
    Our committees need safe, reliable, renewable energy and 
more investments in public transit.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. Ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to introduce 
our three witnesses today. I am looking forward to discussing 
the SPR and what policy initiatives should be implemented to 
ensuring Americans have access to clean, reliable, and 
affordable energy, and thank you all for your testimony.
    Alex Epstein is an author, commentator, and president of 
the Industrial Progress, which he founded in 2011. He is a New 
York Times bestselling author of the books ``Fossil Future'' 
and ``The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.''
    His research focuses on the global benefits of fossil fuels 
as reliable cost-effective sources for both developed and 
developing the world.
    And then we have Ilia Bouchouev is the former president of 
Koch Global Partners and is currently the managing partner at 
Pentathlon Investments and an adjunct university professor.
    During his 20 years in the global derivatives trading, he 
pioneered several energy derivatives products and is recognized 
as a pioneer in this space. He holds a Ph.D. in applied 
mathematics.
    And then we have Demond Drummer, who served as the managing 
director of Equitable Economy and was co-founder and executive 
director. He currently consults with the Institute on Race, 
Power, and Political Economy at the New School in New York 
City.
    I look forward to hearing from each of you on this 
important topic.
    Pursuant to Rule 9(g), the witnesses will please stand and 
raise their right hands.
    Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you 
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth so help you God?
    [Witnesses are sworn.]
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. Let the record show that the 
witnesses all answered in the affirmative. We appreciate all of 
you being here today and, once again, thank you for your 
testimony.
    Let me remind the witnesses that we have read your written 
statements and they will appear in full in the hearing record. 
Please limit your oral statements to five minutes.
    As a reminder, please press the button on your microphone 
in front of you so that it is on and the Members can hear you. 
When you begin to speak the light in front of you will turn 
green.
    After four minutes the light will turn yellow, and when the 
red light comes on your five minutes has expired and if you 
could then just wrap up your thought at that moment. We will 
give you a little bit of discretion.
    And then I recognize Alex Epstein to please begin his 
opening statement, and because you were directly mentioned, as 
the Chairman's discretion I want to give you an additional 
minute if you would like to address the allegations levied on 
you against the Ranking Member.

  STATEMENT OF ALEX EPSTEIN, PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR INDUSTRIAL 
                            PROGRESS

    Mr. Epstein. Yes, it would be great if they put up the 
cards again.
    So, thanks for giving me a minute to address the truly 
despicable and false attack on me, claiming that anything I 
have ever said is white supremacist and then trying to imply 
that somehow applies today.
    So, I don't know if you want to put those cards back up. 
But what I argued and what I have argued for my entire adult 
life is that Western culture is superior in the sense that it 
promotes individualism and freedom and I have fought my entire 
life for freedom around the world, including in Africa, 
including in Asia, including in India, and I want everyone 
around the world to have the same opportunities that I do in 
the United States.
    There are different places around the world that are in 
many ways inferior. They have female genital mutilation. They 
have slavery. These are not as good as not mutilating females' 
genitals and not enslaving people.
    And so, I make no apology and the idea that this is 
associated with skin color is despicable and racist. Skin color 
has nothing to do with ideas.
    Where you came from geographically is irrelevant. What is 
relevant is what is true. So, you can ask more about that. But 
that was an insane diversion from the truth.
    So, let us talk about the truth. The Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve is a crucial tool to protect America's oil security, 
which is the foundation of our national security, because oil 
powers our military, and economic security--oil powers modern 
mobility.
    The Biden Administration is, unfortunately, abusing the SPR 
and as a result they are threatening our oil security. So, the 
purpose of the SPR is to aid the U.S. in securing a reliable 
supply of oil and oil fuels by providing an emergency stockpile 
of up to one-tenth of U.S. oil consumption to be used during 
major interruptions of supplies such as sabotage or disaster, 
then refilled after.
    The SPR is only an aid to oil security. The core of oil 
security, which many here oppose, is facilitating a reliable 
affordable oil supply by protecting industries' freedom to 
invest in, produce, refine, and transport oil. Without oil 
industry freedom the SPR's modest stockpile can't make us 
secure.
    Now, instead of protecting our oil security by protecting 
oil industry freedom and backing it up with an ample reserve, 
President Biden has damaged it by, one, attacking the oil 
industry's freedom, then, two, dangerously depleting our 
reserve for political purposes.
    So, how President Biden has harmed oil security by 
attacking the industry's freedom? For over 15 years the global 
anti-fossil fuel movement with major leadership by Joe Biden 
has artificially reduced the supply of oil by opposing oil 
investment, production, refining, and transport. When global 
anti-fossil fuel policies make oil supply go down and oil 
demand goes up, oil prices go up. It is really that simple.
    Now, Biden blames Putin's war for today's oil prices. But 
the root cause is global anti-fossil fuel policies supported by 
Biden, which made oil and other fossil fuel prices artificially 
high prewar and prevented the free world from quickly 
increasing production in response.
    More broadly, had Biden and other Democrats spent the last 
four years liberating U.S. fossil fuel investment, production, 
refining, and transport instead of restricting and threatening 
them, America would produce significantly more oil.
    So, to summarize, instead of protecting the core of oil 
security, oil industry freedom, Joe Biden and other anti-fossil 
fuel politicians around the world have gravely harmed it for 
over 15 years by restricting oil investment, production, 
refining, and transport.
    How Biden--how President Biden has further harmed oil 
security by abusing the SPR. The proper response by President 
Biden to Europe's and our vulnerability to Russia and to rising 
oil prices should have been apologize--apologize for supporting 
anti-oil policies and then lead a reversal of them to minimize 
further damage to our security and economy.
    But instead of responding to artificially high oil prices, 
which are a consequence of anti-oil policies, with the reversal 
of those policies Biden chose to keep his anti-oil policies, 
but then lower short-term prices by depleting our SPR, which is 
now down to its lowest level since the early 1980's.
    Even when full at 714 million barrels the SPR contains only 
one-tenth of U.S. annual oil consumption and now at 370 million 
barrels, it contains one-twentieth. This means less oil for 
real emergencies such as wars, terrorist attacks, or cyber 
attacks on U.S. oil operations.
    Now, the Administration claims Putin's war is exactly the 
kind of emergency the SPR is designed for. This is totally 
wrong. Putin's war is not an oil emergency that justifies 
depleting the SPR now. It is a potential oil emergency that 
justifies keeping the SPR as full as possible.
    Now, Biden's main goal in dangerously depleting the SPR has 
clearly been to lower gasoline prices to help his party's 
election prospects. This is the same goal he had when he asked 
OPEC+ to delay production cuts for just one month so that 
subsequent price increases would happen post-election.
    Now, a president's discretion over the SPR gives them a 
sacred responsibility to use their best judgment about when to 
deplete it, doing so only when that is in their honest judgment 
what is best for the country's oil security, and President 
Biden failed to uphold this responsibility.
    So, the solutions to our crippled oil security are, one, 
focus on liberating the oil industry as much as possible, 
including withdrawing this Administration's many threats, and 
then, two, commit to using the SPR responsibly, not 
politically.
    Now, unfortunately, this Administration and some in this 
body are, one, continuing the attacks on the oil industry's 
freedom calling for less freedom--even less freedom, which is a 
total disaster--and then, two, taking no responsibility for the 
abuse of the SPR.
    So, I hope that this hearing is a step toward reversing 
this dangerous state of affairs and I welcome any and all 
questions.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you very much.
    I recognize Mr. Bouchouev. Sorry about that. Help me out 
with your last----
    Mr. Bouchouev. Ilia Bouchouev.
    Mr. Fallon. Ilia Bouchouev.
    Mr. Bouchouev. Yes. Thank you.
    Mr. Fallon. All right. Awesome. Thank you very much. You 
are recognized.

   STATEMENT OF ILYA BOUCHOUEV, MANAGING PARTNER, PENTATHLON 
                        INVESTMENTS, LLC

    Mr. Bouchouev. Thank you, Chairman Fallon. Thank you, 
Ranking Member Bush, and the Members of the Subcommittee for 
inviting me. It is my great honor to be here today.
    I am an academic and scientist even though I spent most of 
my career managing the trading business. I would like to share 
some thoughts on how the science of markets can help manage the 
SPR.
    The backbone of oil markets is storage. Storage, literally, 
buys time for the problem to go away. The problem of optimal 
storage management goes back to the very beginning of human 
civilization. It is a difficult problem to solve because a 
decision today depends on what might happen tomorrow, which, of 
course, we don't know for sure.
    Let me illustrate with a simple example of Robinson Crusoe. 
Robinson Crusoe lives on a remote island and he has a finite 
supply of food. Every day he needs to decide how much food to 
eat today and how much food to keep for tomorrow.
    If he decides to take his chances and eat the entire supply 
of food today, he will be risking his life. At the same time, 
not eating anything today is also suboptimal because he might 
get weaker and some food, like raw fish, may get rotten so you 
actually have to store it.
    So, the optimal decision between today and tomorrow is 
somewhere in between. If you are managing the oil storage you 
are conceptually facing the same problem. A naive strategy 
would be to take the chances and sell oil out of the storage 
with the hope to replenish it when the price is lower.
    This strategy is highly speculative, as the price of oil is 
unpredictable. A more prudent strategy, which is what 
commercial traders do, would be to lend oil to the market when 
the market needs it.
    For example, you can--if the oil price today is 20 percent 
higher than the price in the future, you can lend 100 barrels 
today and receive back 120 barrels, which generates you 20 
percent return for free.
    The same two strategy of selling oil or lending oil are 
also available for management of SPR. Last year, unfortunately, 
the strategy of selling oil was chosen.
    To put things into perspective, like the Chairman already 
mentioned, the magnitude was unprecedented. The sale not only 
exceeded all previous sales combined but it was three times 
larger than all of the emergency sales in the past 40 years.
    While the strategy of lending barrels generate return with 
no risk, the strategy of selling oil generate a lot of risk 
with no return and I say no return because in the absence of 
actual supply disruption SPR cannot have any impact on the 
price of oil. The oil price is determined in the futures 
market, not in the physical market between buyers and sellers.
    The world consumes 100 million barrels of oil per day. But 
on a daily basis, the daily trading volume of oil futures and 
options is 5 billion barrels a day, which is five times larger.
    So, when it comes to the direction of oil prices, financial 
market is always going to dwarf and determine the direction of 
prices. For example, the recent weakening of oil prices is not 
driven by SPR but it is driven by macroeconomic conditions such 
as rising interest rate and increasing probability of U.S. 
recession.
    One way to manage SPR more scientifically and efficiently 
would be setting up a rigorous rule-based nondiscretionary 
program of oil loans that takes advantage of market conditions 
and bring benefits to taxpayers. Essentially, there is no risk.
    However, such a problem can only be set up once all the 
previous barrels are repurchased. At the moment, SPR strategy 
is a speculative trade. Fortunately, this trade is currently in 
the money, but the ultimate outcome of this trade will not be 
known until the trade is closed and the barrels are bought 
back.
    This should be done sooner rather than later because the 
price of oil--before the price of oil rises again. All traders 
know that the risk can only grow in time. Waiting any longer 
would be similar to Robinson Crusoe playing with fire.
    Thank you, and I will be happy to take your questions.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, sir.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Drummer for his opening 
statement.

STATEMENT OF DEMOND DRUMMER, INSTITUTE ON RACE, POWER, AND THE 
               POLITICAL ECONOMY, THE NEW SCHOOL

    Mr. Drummer. Thank you, Chairman Fallon, Ranking Member 
Bush, and Members of the Subcommittee for the invitation to 
give testimony during this hearing.
    My name is Demond Drummer and I consult with the Institute 
on Race, Power, and Political Economy at the New School in New 
York City. The institute advances research to understand and 
ultimately undo the unjust identity group-based social 
stratification that harms individuals and communities.
    I will use my time to show that, in light of the global 
energy price shocks resulting from the war in Ukraine, the 
Administration's decision to tap the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve was the right decision in the short term to provide 
much-needed relief to the American people.
    This is especially true for the nearly one out of every 
three people in America who live in or near poverty and pay a 
disproportionate share of their limited household income to 
meet their energy and transportation needs.
    To be sure, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is not designed 
to offer a long-term solution to the problem with energy 
security. If our shared goal is to achieve true energy 
security, the path forward is clear--strategic and substantial 
public investments to accelerate our transition to a clean 
energy economy.
    During the height of the oil price spikes last year, energy 
costs alone accounted for approximately half of all inflation. 
One year ago this month, the price of oil--of fuel oil, rather, 
surged 70 percent and the price of gasoline was up 48 percent 
and natural gas 21.6 percent.
    Today, overall energy costs are still up 8.7 percent 
compared to last year, and while gasoline prices are up only 
1.5 percent, fuel oil is up 27.7 percent and natural gas is up 
26.7 percent.
    The evidence is clear. Whether for powering and heating 
their homes or refueling their cars, the economic costs of 
fossil fuel energy are unsustainable for American households, 
especially those who are paid the least.
    Energy is a nondiscretionary household expense. Households 
below the Federal poverty line spend 18 percent of their income 
on energy, nearly 10 times the energy burden of higher income 
households.
    Households at 200 percent of the Federal poverty line spend 
six percent of their income on energy. That is three times the 
energy burden of higher income households. This is despite the 
fact that lower income households consume less energy on 
average.
    Further, households in the bottom two income quintiles pay 
anywhere from 15 percent to 25 percent of their income on 
transportation costs alone. A high energy burden is not only a 
symptom of poverty, but in siphoning resources from other 
critical needs such as health care and childcare, it prolongs 
and exacerbates poverty.
    The evidence is clear. American cannot drill our way to 
energy security. The geopolitical turmoil of the last year 
highlights the myriad economic risks of U.S. reliance on fossil 
fuels. The Russian invasion of Ukraine sent global fossil fuel 
commodities prices skyrocketing.
    In light of the globalized market for fossil fuel energy 
commodities, the U.S. has very limited ability to insulate 
American households from the economic fallout of geopolitical 
conflicts.
    In this moment, it is critical to align monetary, fiscal, 
and regulatory policy to accelerate adoption of low-cost 
renewable energy and promote the development of high-wage 
sustainable industries. Wind and solar energy are by far the 
most cost-effective sources of power generation on the planet.
    However, in 2021, renewables accounted for only 20 percent 
of electrical power generation and only 12 percent of total 
energy consumption in the U.S., and beyond power generation, 
enacting an equitable and sustainable industrial policy that 
prioritizes people and the places where they live is the most 
effective way to insulate American households from fossil fuel 
price shocks while addressing the existential consequences of 
climate change that are being brought on by the fossil fuel 
industry.
    This requires leveraging the full suite of economic policy 
tools available to direct public and private investments toward 
developing America's productive capacity to deliver the goods 
and services that will power an equitable and sustainable 
future for us all.
    Thank you again for the invitation to testify. It has been 
an honor and I do look forward to your questions.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, all the witnesses, and just as a 
reminder to the Members, we are just starting out here. This is 
our first hearing, and the issues that we are debating are 
important not only to the Members but to the witnesses as well.
    And that said, this hearing and in future hearings we have 
in the Subcommittee aren't about levying accusations and 
insults at our witnesses, at each other. I think that is 
disrespectful to everyone and part of the process and folks 
that are here as well listening in.
    And quite frankly, it is a waste of time and I think it is 
unproductive. I ask the Members to please refrain from this 
kind of behavior and focus on the topic of the hearing, which 
today is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and its depletions.
    Thank you very much.
    I recognize myself now for five minutes.
    Mr. Epstein, does the decision to deplete the SPR to 
historically low levels mean the Biden Administration has no 
real plan for American energy policy?
    Mr. Epstein. I think saying no real plan is too charitable. 
I think they have a very bad plan. So, the basic plan is to 
rapidly eliminate fossil fuels as soon as possible and then 
pretend that they can be replaced by unreliable solar and wind.
    Unfortunately, I am seeing this advocated here today. But 
what the energy crisis should have taught us is that this 
doesn't work. You can only try to replace fossil fuels once you 
have truly cost-effective alternatives, which means reliable 
alternatives and which means replacing all uses of fossil 
fuels, including heavy duty transportation, industrial heat, et 
cetera.
    So, I mean, it is worse than no policy. I wish they had no 
policy.
    Mr. Fallon. Presidents have only declared emergency 
releases of the SPR on three previous occasions: Operation 
Desert Storm, Hurricane Katrina, and following the military 
intervention in Libya.
    Did the Biden Administration properly use, in your opinion, 
the SPR?
    Mr. Epstein. No. As I tried to indicate in my testimony, I 
mean, it is wildly improper, and I think particularly you hear 
this rationalization about the conflict in Russia.
    Whenever you have an escalating international conflict that 
is when you need to keep your reserve as high as possible. So, 
the idea of just depleting it to half of its level when we 
don't know what could happen, going forward, this is really, 
really precarious and I think it is pretty obviously 
politically driven.
    And, you know, the obvious thing to do--you know, we are 
hearing talks about, well, this oil price increase has hurt 
low-income families. This is absolutely true. But if this 
Administration cared about that, why did every action they took 
lead to higher prices?
    Why did they cancel the Keystone XL? Why did they threaten 
the industry--you know, I guarantee you we are going to end 
fossil fuel. Why have they been focused on having the SEC be 
sicced on fossil fuel companies? Why was there, you know, a 
leasing ban on Federal lands?
    Like, every action was directed at making oil more 
expensive and thus harming low-income families along with 
everyone else.
    Mr. Fallon. Well, you just answered my next question. So, 
thank you for that.
    Mr. Bouchouev, the witness--one of the other witnesses said 
that renewables are by far the most cost-effective source of 
energy. Do you agree with that?
    Mr. Bouchouev. Well, the sun doesn't always shine and wind 
doesn't always blow. As I said in my testimony, storage is the 
backbone of financial markets. You can get renewables, but 
renewables can't really do a whole lot without the storage.
    So, it is not a question about renewables. Renewables are 
great, but we need batteries. So, if you don't have storage, I 
mean, there is not a whole lot you can do.
    Mr. Fallon. And, sir, how has China benefited from the 
decision to deplete the U.S. SPR?
    Mr. Bouchouev. Well, I don't know if China benefited. But 
let us kind of--the data in China is very difficult to get to. 
Nobody really knows. But one thing that I know that we used to 
have a billion barrels in the reserves. Half of it was SPR. 
Half of it was private.
    Now we are down to about 800 million, and 10 years ago 
China had about one-fifth of what we had, about 200 million, 
and based on third party data, last year China surpassed a 
billion.
    So, we are kind of going down. China inventory is going up. 
Unfortunately, there is no clean data to put two graphs--two 
lines on the same graph. But based on what I have seen, they 
are really a mirror image of each other. So, as our inventories 
are depleting the China inventories are growing.
    Mr. Fallon. So, China used to have--we used to have five 
times the reserves that China had.
    Mr. Bouchouev. Correct.
    Mr. Fallon. Now they have three times--most likely three 
times what we have?
    Mr. Bouchouev. Not necessarily. As I said, our inventory is 
about 800 million. Three hundred seventy million is SPR and the 
rest is private. But private to what extent you can rely on 
them because they are held by a refinery.
    So, if there is a crisis refineries are going to use them. 
You are correct that China has three times more than the 
government stocked. That is accurate statement.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. And, Mr. Epstein, just a little off topic, 
but Western culture that you mentioned could exist in 
countries, let us say, in Japan and----
    Mr. Epstein. Well, yes, and it has proliferated to the 
great benefit of all, and it is really about--it is not really 
about the location. It is about individualism and freedom and 
reason.
    So, it is certain values that are universal human values. 
The idea that freedom and reason and individualism only apply 
to people of certain skin colors that is the actual original 
racist idea, versus no, no, no, whatever your skin color is 
these ideas are true and good for human flourishing.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. Thank you.
    The Chair recognizes Ranking Member Bush for five minutes.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    St. Louis and I are here today to talk about the impact 
that fossil fuels have on our community. Let me start by 
telling you what energy security looks like in my community. In 
my community, energy security looks like having the lights on. 
It looks like families being able to stay warm.
    It looks like children walking to school without 
contracting asthma from local air pollution. It looks like 
children being able to depend on stable internet to do their 
homework.
    Energy security looks like this and so much more, and to my 
Republican colleagues here today I want you to know that this 
is what energy security looks like in your communities as well.
    Energy security is about dramatically reducing our reliance 
on fossil fuels whose consumption disproportionately harms low-
income families and communities of color. It is our communities 
that suffer the most from instability in the energy market.
    Studies have repeatedly shown that Black and Brown 
communities pay a significantly higher share of our income in 
energy costs.
    We are also more likely to live in communities where fossil 
fuels are extracted, where they are burned, and in places where 
the climate crisis is causing dangerous floods, hurricanes, and 
wildfires.
    Mr. Drummer, can you tell us more about how the $2 price 
jump in gas following Putin's invasion of Ukraine exacerbated 
the disparities and energy burdens for Black and Brown in low-
income families?
    Mr. Drummer. Absolutely. Thank you, Representative Bush.
    We know that particularly in the larger metropolitan areas 
the lowest earners live the furthest away from the jobs. So, 
what does that mean? Those who make the least had to gas up and 
pay a very high percentage of their income just to get to work.
    And so, when we talk about energy security, we know in 2020 
when everybody was at home, fossil fuel prices, particularly 
oil prices, went through the--went down into the basement. They 
were in the gutter. What did that do? It put a lot of fossil 
fuel workers out of work.
    So, Vladimir Putin put fossil fuel workers in the U.S. out 
of work and Vladimir Putin made it unaffordable to get to and 
from work in 2022.
    And so, we cannot drill our way out of this situation. So, 
it is hitting folks' pocketbooks and that release was 
absolutely necessary.
    Ms. Bush. So, you describe that the price increases had a 
disproportionate effect on Black, Brown and low-income 
communities--families. How did the Administration's actions and 
the ensuring--the ensuing drop in gas prices--how did it help 
those same families?
    Mr. Drummer. While there are a number of factors that 
affect the price of oil, in an interview with Oxford, I 
believe, Dr. B did concede that the strategic use of SPR did 
have an impact. It is hard to quantify and hard to tell, but it 
definitely had an impact in the price of oil.
    Ms. Bush. We need to focus on making more public 
investments to lower our energy demand by taking actions such 
as expanding public transit and installing energy efficient 
technology like electric heat pumps.
    Mr. Drummer, how does making investments in people through 
safe energy systems and people benefit climate justice and 
energy security?
    Mr. Drummer. One of the exciting things from the Inflation 
Reduction Act are the domestic content requirements, so private 
capital can receive additional tax credits by paying prevailing 
wages for the construction of renewable energy and battery 
storage projects, as well as domestic sourcing of the 
components for these projects.
    That is what is exciting about our renewable energy future, 
which includes batteries.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you. We must make massive investments in 
climate jobs and environmental justice and, frankly, this is a 
need that is overdue. I believe that we are going to build 
high-speed rail.
    We are going to establish bus rapid transit systems in 
frontline communities. We are going to create green social 
housing running on renewable energy. We are going to win a 
green new deal that will benefit everyone and let me just say I 
cannot wait.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Donalds for his five minutes.
    Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Spirited committee 
already. A couple of things.
    Look, if you are going to look at the costs for any 
American, especially Americans on the lower end of the 
socioeconomic spectrum, rising energy costs cripple them more 
than anybody else. I would assume every witness can agree to 
that, correct? Can we all agree to that?
    OK. Mr. Drummer, I was reading through your testimony 
during all of the opening statements that we have in our 
committees. You say that fossil fuel--fossil fuel costs are 
unsustainable. Why is that?
    Mr. Drummer. It is the data that I just shared, right. And 
so, even today, yes, gasoline is--as of the latest February 14 
or so CPR report up 1.5 percent.
    But that is off of the historic high from last year, right. 
This is gouging folks' pocketbooks. Again, the bottom two 
quintile----
    Mr. Donalds. Mr. Drummer, I want to--I am going to reclaim 
time now because I am asking this question. Are fossil fuel 
costs more expensive in the United States just because of the 
costs of actually drilling for and refining fossil fuel 
products or is it also because of government regulation with 
respect to fossil fuel products?
    Mr. Drummer. The bottom two quintiles of earners pay 15 to 
25 percent of their income----
    Mr. Donalds. I am asking you what makes it--but I am asking 
you what makes it more expensive. Is it just purely the 
procurement costs of fossil fuel or is it also the regulatory 
burdens on fossil fuel?
    Mr. Drummer. It is the global fossil fuel market that we do 
not control. When there is chaos happening in Europe and 
Ukraine because of Russia's invasion that hits Americans' 
pocketbooks.
    Mr. Donalds. OK. But Mr. Drummer, people have been drilling 
for oil and using gasoline long before Vladimir Putin went into 
Ukraine. We have seen rises and falls in gasoline prices.
    Let me ask you this. You say in your statement that 
renewables are actually the most cost-efficient form of energy. 
That is what you say in your statement.
    Is that because renewable energy is largely subsidized by 
most nations in the world or is that because the actual per 
unit cost is being borne by the consumer? Is it the subsidy or 
is it the full cost? Which makes it most cost efficient?
    Mr. Drummer. This is a great point you bring up, 
Representative, because actually fossil fuels are heavily 
subsidized more so than renewables right now and still 
renewables are more price competitive.
    Mr. Donalds. I am not sure what you are talking about, Mr. 
Drummer. You need to go back and check your facts.
    Mr. Drummer. I will be happy to share the data with you 
after this hearing.
    Mr. Donalds. Real quick. Let us--I want to move on to a 
couple of things. Do you think we need more refineries in the 
United States, yes or no?
    Mr. Drummer. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Donalds. So, you do realize that without more 
refineries in the United States the cost of fuel for all 
citizens, especially those at the lower two quartiles of the 
socioeconomic spectrum, are going to suffer as a result? You do 
realize that?
    Mr. Drummer. Fossil fuel markets are a global market. We do 
not control the price of oil in the West----
    Mr. Donalds. But you do realize----
    Mr. Drummer. We cannot drill our way out of energy----
    Mr. Donalds. Hold on. But you do realize that the supply of 
oil that goes to refineries in the United States, if you limit 
the capacity of refineries or continue to not allow them to 
expand or to actually get the necessary maintenance they are 
going to have less output capacity in the United States, which 
means all the products we use with fossil fuels, not just 
gasoline--the very glasses you wear, the very contact lenses I 
am wearing those are derivatives of oil and petroleum as well.
    So, you do realize that by not allowing for new refineries 
you are going to increase the costs on the very people we are 
all trying to help?
    Mr. Drummer. I think, again, we are talking about energy 
security.
    Mr. Donalds. Well, I would agree. This is energy security--
--
    Mr. Drummer. Right.
    Mr. Donalds [continuing]. Because if you want to make sure 
that the costs for the people who have to buy products--you 
know, poor people, they don't have escape velocity. You know 
what I mean?
    They don't have that. So, is it prudent to not allow for 
the things necessary to keep costs low in the name of the green 
new deal? Is that prudence?
    Mr. Drummer. It is imprudent to double down on a losing 
strategy of drilling our way to energy security. It is not 
possible----
    Mr. Donalds. Mr. Drummer, do you realize that America was 
energy secure? Literally, four years ago America was energy 
secure?
    Mr. Drummer. America was not energy secure four years ago.
    Mr. Donalds. We were actually--Mr. Drummer, do you not--do 
you not acknowledge the fact that we were exporting oil to 
other parts of the world in the United States? We were 
exporting.
    Mr. Drummer. Absolutely. We were exporting----
    Mr. Donalds. Four years ago.
    Mr. Drummer [continuing]. Natural gas last year when prices 
were going through the roof. It did nothing for domestic 
consumers of that natural gas. This is a global market and to 
insulate American households and our country from all the 
vagaries and chaos of the world, the best thing we can do, the 
most prudent thing we can do, is invest in batteries, 
renewables----
    Mr. Donalds. Mr. Drummer, let me jump to batteries real 
quick because I am running out of time.
    Mr. Drummer [continuing]. To secure our energy future and 
not be reliant on the global supply chain.
    Mr. Donalds. Let me come to batteries real quick. Mr. 
Drummer, reclaiming my time.
    Batteries are made up with elements. You need elements to 
actually create batteries.
    Mr. Drummer. Rare earth minerals.
    Mr. Donalds. Do you acknowledge that most of the rare earth 
minerals and cobalt are being mined in other parts of the 
world, mostly with African child slave labor by the Chinese? Do 
you acknowledge that?
    Mr. Drummer. I am crystal clear, and do you acknowledge 
that----
    Mr. Donalds. Do you think that is OK? Do you think that is 
OK?
    Mr. Drummer. Absolutely--that is absolutely not OK.
    Mr. Donalds. You think it is OK for child slave labor----
    Mr. Drummer. It is not OK.
    Mr. Donalds [continuing]. In Africa to provide batteries 
for us here in the United States?
    Mr. Drummer. It is not OK.
    Mr. Donalds. So, which one is it? I am asking you. You just 
said it is OK.
    Mr. Drummer. I didn't say it was OK. Let the record reflect 
I did not say it was OK. I said it is not OK.
    Mr. Donalds. Well, let me set the record straight because I 
am over my time. I don't think it is OK. I think it is wrong, 
especially considering----
    Mr. Drummer. And I agree with you that it is not OK.
    Mr. Donalds [continuing]. That fossil fuels provide more 
than enough that what we need for our economy to survive.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Donalds.
    And Ms. Brown is recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to use my 
five minutes to highlight what an excellent job the Biden 
Administration has done in lowering gas prices on behalf of the 
American people.
    With the legitimate tools at his disposal, President Biden 
effectively addressed the severe energy crisis sparked by 
Vladimir Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine.
    Facing uncertainty related to oil production in Russia, the 
world's second largest oil exporter, in addition to the 
aftershocks of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Biden Administration 
worked with the international partner--energy partners to 
release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve on an 
emergency basis.
    That is precisely why the reserve was designed, to bolster 
American energy in times of need. In Cleveland alone gas prices 
have fallen by nearly $2 a gallon since their peak last year.
    To my Republican colleagues, I would argue that is a good 
thing. When gas prices are lower working families can focus on 
the things that really matter and worry less about paying at 
the pump. To further elaborate on the reserve, I will turn to 
you, Mr. Drummer.
    Mr. Drummer, why was the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
created in the wake of the 1973 energy crisis?
    Mr. Drummer. It was created for exactly this type of 
situation, to secure availability of oil for the American 
people in times of crisis.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you for that.
    And Mr. Drummer, how did President Biden's efforts to lower 
gas prices benefit Americans, especially those most vulnerable 
among us?
    Mr. Drummer. Right, and as even Dr. B concedes, the release 
from the Reserve did have an impact and, of course, the passage 
of the Inflation Reduction Act along with the others' packages 
are the long-term investment to really secure the energy 
security for this country and for households all across the 
country.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you so much. And I noticed one of our 
panelists didn't answer the question. So, I will ask you if you 
care to elaborate on your statement as highlighted by my 
colleague on the other side of the aisle.
    The most cost-effective source of power generation on the 
planet is renewable energy. Would you care to explain that?
    Mr. Drummer. Yes, we know--I mean, there is no argument 
that in terms of energy density nothing beats oil, right. But 
when it comes to the cost of drilling and the cost of pipelines 
and all that infrastructure it becomes less competitive with 
pointing what is literally a sheet of glass--it is not that, I 
am being simplistic here--to the sky and using the sun that God 
has given us and drawing down all that energy, converting it to 
electrons and sending it where it needs to go and then storing 
the energy when it gets dark. The same for the wind.
    And so, just dollar for dollar, renewables are the most 
cost-effective form of energy, period. That is established 
fact. Notice Dr. B. said, but you need batteries, and yes, the 
Inflation Reduction Act does bring the batteries.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you for that.
    So, I think we can agree that President Biden's decision to 
release oil from our Strategic Reserve was not only critical in 
a time of need but was perfectly suited to the Reserve's 
mission and if he had not done so, if President Biden failed to 
take decisive action when gas prices increase wouldn't we be 
here criticizing that decision?
    On behalf of the folks back home in Ohio's 11th 
congressional District who can now more easily afford to fill 
up their tanks, I commend the President for his swift action.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. The Chair recognizes Mr. Perry.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Drummer, you just kind of mentioned your--first of all, 
were you alive during the 1970's era gas crisis? Just out of 
curiosity. I don't know. So, I am just asking.
    Mr. Drummer. I wasn't born yet.
    Mr. Perry. You weren't. But you do acknowledge that that 
was the reason for the construction and the development--the 
advent of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, right? You will 
acknowledge that, right?
    Mr. Drummer. Yes.
    Mr. Perry. And do you know what caused--what precipitated 
that? Why did we do it? Why did America do it?
    Mr. Drummer. I would like to follow your point here. Would 
you like to elaborate? I mean, it is--why did we do what?
    Mr. Perry. Why did we create a Strategic Petroleum Reserve? 
What was happening at the time?
    Mr. Drummer. There was an energy crisis that was outside of 
our control.
    Mr. Perry. OK, and who was controlling it?
    Mr. Drummer. The cartel that--of states that are the 
primary energy producers.
    Mr. Perry. In the Middle East, right?
    Mr. Drummer. Right.
    Mr. Perry. The cartel states in the Middle East.
    Now, they said there was an energy crisis. I was alive at 
the time, and they said there was an energy crisis and we were 
actually running out of oil. That is what they said. There was 
a limited supply and it was all going to run out and the prices 
were going up and you couldn't get it. You could only buy gas 
on odd and even days based on your license plate.
    I lived through the whole thing. And so, we created the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve to counteract the global market's 
control over it, right. Would you agree?
    Mr. Drummer. I am following you.
    Mr. Perry. OK. You are following me. OK. So, and I would 
acknowledge you say it is a global market, which you said it is 
a global market, right?
    But you just said with the last--with the last--my 
colleague from Ohio you just said that when the President 
released oil from the SPRO that it actually reduced cost, did 
you not?
    Mr. Drummer. I am citing the Majority's witness on--who 
acknowledges that of all the factors that definitely did play a 
role. Not an outsized role, but it played a role.
    Mr. Perry. Did it reduce--did it reduce the cost or not? 
That is what I am asking. Did it reduce the cost or not?
    Mr. Drummer. It did. But the Majority is arguing that that 
should not have been done.
    Mr. Perry. OK. So, it reduced the cost. But prior to this 
with Mr. Donalds you said it is a global market and there is 
nothing we can do to control it. If there is nothing we can do 
to control it how did releasing oil from the SPRO reduce the 
cost?
    Mr. Drummer. It reduced the cost marginally. But the price 
was at an elevated level.
    Mr. Perry. I don't care if it is marginal or not. But it 
reduced the cost. The point is, is that we can do something 
about it because, sir, in your testimony you say that we can't 
drill our way to energy security.
    But clearly, clearly, we can because we can influence the 
global market. That is exactly what just happened and you just 
admitted to it.
    So, what we are here to talk about is the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve and what it is used for. Do you know what it 
is used for? Do you know why it was designed? Do you know the 
definition why we have a strategic petroleum reserve?
    Mr. Drummer. We have the reserve to insulate the U.S. from 
these types of energy shocks in times of crisis.
    Mr. Perry. In times of crisis. Emergency--national security 
emergency and natural disaster. What national emergency was 
occurring that required the release of so much, or literally 
any, of the SPRO? What national emergency was occurring during 
the Biden Administration that required us to do that?
    Mr. Drummer. If I recall, there was a war in Ukraine.
    Mr. Perry. And that is a national emergency for the United 
States of America? Did it imperil the United States of 
America's ability to drill its own oil, produce its own fossil 
fuels, refine them, and get them to market?
    Mr. Drummer. The President made a judgment that----
    Mr. Perry. Did it make--just answer that question.
    Mr. Drummer. The war in Ukraine--what is driving up costs 
for oil to the extent to which it would mandate or even lead 
him to make the decision to make the release?
    Mr. Perry. Was it an emergency?
    Mr. Drummer. It was a global--it was a global energy 
crisis. This is well established. Are we debating the facts 
here?
    Mr. Perry. No, it is not. Sir, you cannot say it was well 
established when it is not well established.
    Mr. Drummer. There was global--record costs in energy 
globally, record costs in food prices globally.
    Mr. Perry. You also say--sir, reclaiming my time. What 
established facts do you have? You say that wind and solar are 
by far the most cost-effective sources of energy on the planet 
and you say it is an established fact. What are those 
established facts and who established them?
    Mr. Drummer. I invite you to read the footnote and source 
for that claim in my testimony.
    Mr. Perry. Just tell me. This is your testimony. You just 
tell me and tell us what the established facts are.
    Mr. Drummer. Renewables, particularly wind and solar, are 
the most cost efficient and cost-effective means of producing 
energy on this planet?
    Mr. Perry. Says who? Says who? Says who?
    Mr. Drummer. Says physics. Says scientists and engineers.
    Mr. Perry. No. No. Who is the person? Name and cite the 
study, sir.
    Mr. Drummer. Give me a moment. I am going to look at the 
report that I cited and give you the name of the report that--
--
    Mr. Perry. Sir, have you ever worked in the energy 
securities market?
    Mr. Drummer. I have worked at the grassroots levels. I have 
worked at the national level----
    Mr. Perry. The energy securities market. The energy 
securities market. Have you advised----
    Mr. Drummer. I have not worked in the energy securities 
market, but it doesn't take an energy trader. It doesn't take--
--
    Mr. Perry. Sir, you have got as much experience as I do, 
and I pump gas for a living.
    Mr. Drummer. It doesn't take an energy trader to see----
    Mr. Perry. That is what this is about. I yield the balance.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you.
    The Chair recognizes Representative Holmes Norton.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me just say it is not surprising that during the Trump 
Administration my Republican colleagues had no problem with 
President Trump's authorizing releases from the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve in response to an attack on oil refineries in 
Saudi Arabia.
    This is pure public opportunism. Let me get to my question. 
I have a question here for Mr. Drummer. Last year, we tapped 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to prevent a global economic 
crisis and temper the spike in the price of oil caused by 
Putin's invasion of Ukraine. I think that has been established.
    But the Biden Administration's swift action revealed a key 
lesson about how to achieve energy independence. It is just not 
the lesson my Republican colleagues think.
    After expanding--after years of expanding production, the 
U.S. is the world's largest oil and natural gas producer but we 
still we are still not energy secure. More oil and gas 
production has not led to energy security. American consumers 
fell victim to the global price shocks that came from the 
Ukraine war.
    Mr. Drummer, I want to drill down, forgive the pun, on a 
point you made and ask can we drill ourselves out of global 
price shocks like my Republican colleagues are suggesting?
    Mr. Drummer. Thank you for the question, Representative.
    Again, I want to remind the Committee--let us recall 2020 
when people were driving less, right. We were shut down for the 
pandemic, quarantining and whatnot, and the price of global oil 
went to the basement, and around then you needed about $60 a 
barrel for it to be profitable to drill in the U.S.
    It was down to, like, $15, $16 a barrel, which means there 
were fossil fuel workers who were put out of work, not because 
of some law or regulation, but because at this point a king in 
Saudi Arabia and an autocrat in Russia could not agree on the 
production reductions. And so, there was a disagreement within 
OPEC and that drove fossil fuel workers in the U.S. out of 
jobs.
    The reality is that this market is bigger than the U.S. We 
can be a player. We are a player. It doesn't matter. Folks are 
still paying 15 to 25 percent of their income to commute to and 
from work.
    So, we cannot drill our way out. The best way forward is to 
turn to renewables and make the massive public investments we 
need to achieve true genuine energy security, which is not 
vulnerable and prone to any foreign interference.
    That is what is being argued here.
    Ms. Norton. Exactly. The prices are determined by global 
demand. We can never drill enough to insulate ourselves from 
Russian invasions, of Saudi production cuts.
    Mr. Drummer, why do renewable energy sources provide more 
price security for American consumers?
    Mr. Drummer. It is the same argument for onshoring supply 
chains. The same can be said for onshoring energy. And when 
backed with batteries, we know with solar the highest costs 
with solar are--once it is built in and you are paying down, 
you know, your investors and creditors, it doesn't take much to 
maintain.
    It is very inexpensive to provide solar energy, and so with 
battery storage with wind we are really positioned to drive 
down the costs. And not just--and I didn't put this in my 
report, but we add renewables--we add energy efficiency 
insulating homes and all the jobs that we created from that 
work as well.
    So, there is a path forward with renewables because they 
are not vulnerable to the same geopolitical shocks that we are 
experiencing today.
    Ms. Norton. OK. As we can see from the chart behind me, if 
I can have that chart up, of the 10 congressional districts in 
the country with the most clean energy projects being developed 
right now, nine are Republican districts, including Speaker 
McCarthy's, Mrs. Boebert's, and Mr. Sessions' districts because 
investing in clean energy is a matter of good business and 
common sense. Just ask your own constituents.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. The Chair recognizes Mr. Fry for his five 
minutes.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having this 
hearing today and thank you for the witnesses for taking your 
time.
    I am struck a little bit by the purpose of the hearing, Mr. 
Chairman, that we are here to discuss Joe Biden's withdrawal of 
the SPR inappropriately, in my opinion. But we seem to hear a 
lot, unfortunately, I think, about distractions. Obviously, we 
have already attacked some witnesses.
    Mr. Epstein, I am sorry about that. But, you know, the 
definition of the SPR is that it is intended as a cushion to, 
quote, ``diminish the vulnerability of the United States to the 
effects of a severe energy supply interruption and provide 
limited protection from the short-term consequences of 
interruptions in supplies of petroleum products.''
    To me, if you look at the history of this, Mr. Chairman, we 
have only done this since its inception in the--before my time 
in the 1970's--we have only done this three times. We have only 
withdrawn from the SPR three times.
    Mr. Epstein, in your opinion have you ever seen this level 
of withdrawal in any president?
    Mr. Epstein. Nobody has because it is unprecedented.
    Mr. Fry. Right. So, we have three presidents that have 
tapped it for a limited purpose when there has been a 
disruption in the marketplace--for a limited purpose.
    And now, under this President we have seen 226 million 
barrels. In your opinion, do you think that that was an 
appropriate use of the SPR?
    Mr. Epstein. I think it was wildly inappropriate because 
the underlying cause was the anti-fossil fuel policies that Joe 
Biden has supported for 15-plus years.
    So, the solution was, obviously, to correct that root 
cause, which we could have encouraged production around the 
world and the shale revolution showed us that we can make a big 
difference in global production ourselves.
    And then, in particular, because there is a lot of 
uncertainty about Russia, we need the SPR as full as we can 
get. It doesn't make any sense to drain it before a potential 
catastrophic conflict arises.
    Mr. Fry. Dr. Bouchouev--help me here.
    Mr. Bouchouev. That is good.
    Mr. Fry. That is good. Can you explain the magnitude as 
well to the answer the same question? In theory, I guess 
presidents can authorize emergency releases to buffer the 
market and also replenish an oil stockpile.
    Why might have the Biden Administration acted improperly in 
2022?
    Mr. Bouchouev. Well, there was really no emergency 
disruptions. There was plenty of oil. The price was high for 
sure. But as I stated in my testimony, the price could be high 
for a bunch of different reasons.
    I think sometimes there is a misconception that as there is 
more demand than supply--price go up. Not always the case. The 
rule No. 1 of free markets price goes up because there are more 
buyers and sellers and there are more buyers and sellers for 
totally unrelated reasons such as inflation or interest rate 
hike, trying to control the price. That is very irrational 
decision.
    As I said, you cannot do that. If I were making such a 
decision in private practice, I would have probably lost my 
job, and there were no actual disruptions in the physical 
market at the time.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you.
    Mr. Epstein, you tweeted last week on March 3, stating, 
``As I have documented extensively, had Biden and other 
Democrats spent the last three and a half years, including two 
of the Biden Administration, liberating U.S. oil and gas 
investment, production, and transport instead of strangling 
them energy would be far cheaper.''
    Mr. Epstein, has the Biden Administration offered any 
realistic solutions to bring the price of gas down?
    Mr. Epstein. No, they have been in total denial, and they 
are compounding the problem. I mean, this is a president who 
ran on, I guarantee you we are going to end fossil fuel.
    The U.S. is the leader of the world. Again, we have huge 
capacity ourselves. We can also lead the world. Imagine instead 
of going to--you know, going to Egypt and saying, hey, let us 
all get rid of oil as quickly as possible, Biden had said, 
look, this energy crisis shows we are crazy--we need to reverse 
course, we should be leading the world on policy.
    And just, by the way, in terms of security, I keep hearing 
this and it drives me crazy. People are talking about 
renewables as secure.
    The entire supply chain is dependent on China. It is true 
that it is nothing like oil. It is incredibly more insecure 
than oil. China controls renewables far more than Russia 
controls oil or natural gas.
    Mr. Fry. What do you see as possible solutions to creating 
more affordable energy, particularly more--or cheaper energy 
prices for consumers?
    Mr. Epstein. I mean, the main thing is you have to have 
actual free markets, not subsidize things that are unreliable 
and can't survive on their own, and I think we need--we have a 
whole of government attack on fossil fuels.
    The first thing we need is a whole of government support 
for all--for freedom for all forms of energy. And until that 
stops the energy industry is going to be terrified. Many 
executives have spoken up and said, hey, it is the whole of 
government attack on our industry. That is the reason we are 
afraid to invest.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Ms. Stansbury 
for five minutes.
    Ms. Stansbury. All right. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    And I also want to take a moment to congratulate you as 
Chairman of this Committee. This is, of course, our first 
Subcommittee hearing this morning and I do want to welcome our 
witnesses.
    I do feel like some of the behavior of our colleagues and 
how they have addressed our witnesses has been unbecoming of 
this institution. So, we try to welcome folks who come before 
us. But it is important, of course, to reveal, you know, what 
is going on here and I want to really take this opportunity to 
talk about what exactly this hearing is.
    I think we have seen some interesting and bizarre theatrics 
this afternoon and some challenges in really understanding the 
basic facts of how the global energy market works, and leading 
the American people astray.
    So, I want to just take a couple of minutes here and also 
ask our witnesses some questions and establish, you know, what 
is actually driving energy inflation and energy prices in the 
United States, namely, oil prices at a global level, and this 
last year the war in Ukraine and also, which we haven't spoken 
about as much, Putin and OPEC+'s actions in the middle of last 
year to constrain global production, which highly impacted our 
economy and which the President took emergency action to 
address--the issues of how Democrats and the President are 
trying to address these energy security issues here in domestic 
markets and, of course, the talk about the action that we have 
taken as a body here in this Congress and the President to 
address our energy security long term, namely, global climate 
change.
    But I think it is important before we kind of dive into the 
details of these issues to talk a little bit about the spin of 
this hearing and some of the misinformation that we are hearing 
and I think it is important for us to acknowledge, as the 
Chairman himself said, that actually two of our witnesses here 
today are actually fossil fuel industry folks.
    And in fact, Mr. Bouchouev, I know we have already 
established this, but you worked for the Koch Brothers 
organization for more than 20 years. Is that correct?
    Mr. Bouchouev. I worked for the company called Koch Supply 
& Trading.
    Ms. Stansbury. Yes, which is the global partnership and 
industry operated by the Koch brothers, correct?
    Mr. Bouchouev. It is a trading company that is owned by 
Charles and David Koch--majority owners, yes.
    Ms. Stansbury. Yes, of course. OK.
    And Mr. Epstein, I do--you know, I know it is difficult and 
we had some, you know, bizarre commentary, I think, in this 
hearing. But it is important for us to really understand who 
the people are that are coming before us.
    Mr. Epstein. Sure.
    Ms. Stansbury. And is it not true that one of your clients 
is actually a coal trade association? Just a--just a----
    Mr. Epstein. So, I just want to correct--so you falsely 
said I was a fossil fuel industry member. That is what you 
are----
    Ms. Stansbury. Just a yes or no answer. Do you work for the 
coal----
    Mr. Epstein. No, I can't give a yes or no answers to a 
loaded question. So, you can--you can ask me----
    Ms. Stansbury. Do you--do you--do you--Mr. Epstein----
    Mr. Epstein [continuing]. And you get a real answer or you 
can just----
    Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. Do you work for a coal trade 
association, yes or no?
    Mr. Epstein. I don't work for anybody. I have dozens of 
clients whom I advise. I do not follow them.
    Ms. Stansbury. OK. Mr. Epstein--Mr. Epstein, do you advise 
a coal trade association, yes or no?
    Mr. Epstein. Proudly. I advise many people and I am proud 
of it.
    Ms. Stansbury. Yes. OK. OK, great. So, we have already 
established that two of our witnesses are here on behalf of the 
fossil fuel industry.
    Mr. Epstein. Not true. That is not true. I am not on behalf 
of them. I am here on behalf of myself. So, you are lying.
    Ms. Stansbury. I am reclaiming my time. Thank you.
    So, you know, I think it is important to establish that two 
of our witnesses who are here--they have been called by the 
Majority--really lack just basic credibility around the facts. 
But to add insult to injury we have also got this issue about 
these past comments about racial superiority of Western 
cultures. And so, obviously, I think we are all very disturbed 
that the----
    Mr. Epstein. It wasn't racial superiority.
    Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. That the Majority would stoop 
to this level to call witnesses who are not fit to actually 
testify on these very important issues.
    And as a representative for New Mexico, which is one of the 
major energy producers in the United States, I want to just be 
clear on the facts. So, let us talk about the facts.
    Last year, Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine. Months later, he 
went to Saudi Arabia and OPEC. They constrained oil production, 
it jacked up global oil prices, and President Biden and his 
Administration took an emergency action to lower gas prices.
    The U.S. Treasury studied it. It lowered gas prices up to 
$.38 at the pump per gallon. It actually helped alleviate a 
massive economic crisis in the United States at the end of the 
summer as we were facing fuel and food shortages, and American 
production is at an all-time high.
    So, those are the actual facts and I am deeply disturbed to 
see that the Majority is holding a false hearing to spin 
misinformation to the American people about what is actually 
happening in energy markets, the ways in which we have lowered 
prices, and our efforts to make America and the planet more 
secure by passing the largest single piece of legislation to 
address the global climate crisis not only in American history, 
but in the history of the planet.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you very much.
    We are going to have a second round of questions. Each 
Member will get five minutes if they choose to take them and, 
as such, I recognize myself for my five minutes.
    So, let us talk--you know, we heard about facts. So, let us 
talk about some facts--indisputable facts. January 20, 2021, 
the price--the national price for gasoline on average was 
$2.39. That is when this Administration began. That is a fact.
    How about another fact? On February--I believe it is 
February 24, 2022, Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine. That was the 
Putin price hike, except to an inconvenient truth, to quote 
someone that wrote a book about that about 20 years ago, was 
the fact that the price of gasoline at that time was $3.52 
national average.
    It was 47 percent higher before Vladimir Putin crossed into 
Ukraine. So, who is going to own up on that? And at its peak it 
was $5 and a penny, which was 110 percent increase from what he 
inherited. And today, even today, after all this miraculous 
intervention by the Biden Administration, it is still $3.41. It 
is 38 percent higher.
    So, another thing--another fact, an inconvenient one--this 
is why we are having a hearing about the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve--is it was only drawn down three times and when it was 
drawn down--Desert Storm, 1991, 17 million barrels; 2005, 
Hurricane Katrina--that was a catastrophe in Louisiana--21 
million barrels. And then the military intervention in Libya in 
2011 was 31 million barrels.
    And then Joe Biden, it is not 16 or 17 or 20. It is 227 
million barrels. That is a multiply--10 times multiplier in the 
reduction.
    And then this interesting question about how there are--the 
energy security can be best achieved with renewables. I have no 
problem with renewables. I don't know any of my Republican 
colleagues that do.
    I am all for wind and solar. I am for a comprehensive, 
realistic approach. Because I can tell you that I am going to 
get on my unicorn and ride it to a pool to visit my mermaid 
that was financed by a leprechaun because that is pie in the 
sky and it is not reality.
    The fact that the President of the United States in his 
State of the Union said, we are going to need fossil fuels for 
maybe 10 more years, well, heck, I would love to say that we 
are not going to need them next year.
    But that is not the reality, and I can't wait if we are 
here 10 years from now because it is going to be--very little 
is going to change, and even when you make a transition that 
takes a decade or two. There is 200 countries on the planet.
    Mr. Drummer, why isn't any of them doing what you just 
said? If it is more efficient and more cost affordable 
shouldn't--renewables should be dominating the industry right 
now--dominating the energy sector. Why aren't they? Yes.
    Mr. Drummer. It is, honestly, because there is too much 
money to be made. It is why my co-witnesses are here. It is why 
you are holding the line that you are holding.
    Mr. Fallon. Whoa. Whoa. No, no, no, no. That is--that is--
--
    Mr. Drummer. There is too much money to be made in the 
short term and that is what it is. That is just reality.
    Mr. Fallon. Oh, that is going to--hold on--hold on. I 
reclaim my time. I reclaim my time.
    That is absolute leftist bunk and this is why, and 
respectfully, because not everybody is in the oil and gas 
industry. If you are in the energy sector and you can make 
dough on providing wind and solar, why wouldn't you do it? That 
is a rhetorical question. That is obvious.
    Mr. Epstein? Mr. Epstein?
    They do it when they have incredible subsidies. If they 
would just do it with their own money that would be one thing. 
Energy security--renewables are going to do it for us? We are 
going to be relying on China?
    Mr. Epstein. I mean, it is just crazy that we can talk 
about solar and wind being incredibly energy secure when the 
supply chain is just completely dominated by China, which at 
this--they can cut it off at a moment's notice. So, they can 
destroy the whole thing. So, that is one.
    And then two is--this is very important when we hear these 
bizarre claims of cheapness--solar and wind cannot replace 
fossil fuels. So, solar and wind are unreliable intermittent 
sources of electricity. Not all energy, electricity. They can 
go to near zero at any given time, which is why they need near 
100 percent backup.
    So, when you have solar and wind you can't just look at the 
price of the panels and the wind turbines. You have to look at 
the price of the backup and this is why in California where I 
live, in Germany and Denmark, you see skyrocketing electricity 
prices the more solar and wind you use.
    So, they don't replace costs on the grid. They add costs to 
the grid. So, it is just a total--it is a proven fiction that 
solar and wind are cheaper and replacements for fossil fuels.
    Mr. Fallon. Mr. Drummer, do you recognize that to move an 
18-wheeler there is only two things that can do it right now, 
natural gas or diesel fuel? Do you agree with me on that? The 
only way it is going to move some big rig like that.
    Mr. Drummer. I disagree with you on that. But I am 
following the line of questioning.
    Mr. Fallon. What--oh, you could make a billion dollars. How 
do you move an 18-wheeler?
    Mr. Drummer. So, there is a thing called research and 
development and there are companies----
    Mr. Fallon. Does that exist right now?
    Mr. Drummer [continuing]. Working--human ingenuity is 
something that we need to lean in on. There are companies 
developing----
    Mr. Fallon. No. Can we--can we move an 18-wheeler right 
now? Sir, can we move an 18-wheeler right now?
    Mr. Drummer [continuing]. Battery powered, electric powered 
rigs----
    Mr. Fallon. Are they on the road right now en masse?
    Mr. Drummer. There are companies developing a range of 
technology----
    Mr. Fallon. Oh, they are developing. They are not on the 
road right now?
    Mr. Drummer. It is a thing called research and development.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. So, they are not. Thank you. I yield.
    OK. Ms. Stansbury, I recognize you for five minutes. Go 
ahead.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Well, just on that last point we should clarify that yes, 
in fact, there are electric freight vehicles on the road and it 
is anticipated over the next 10 to 20 years our entire vehicle 
fleet will be electrical, and that that is one of the necessary 
steps that we have to take in order to address the climate 
crisis.
    And so, I want to just use this second round to talk some 
more about the climate crisis specifically and the things that 
we are doing through the Inflation Reduction Act and talk to 
you, Mr. Drummer, about some of the work that you have done 
around climate justice and building more equity into the kind 
of clean energy economy that we are building.
    So, I want to just reiterate that this August, Democrats 
here in the House of Representatives and in the U.S. Senate 
passed the largest single piece of legislation not just in the 
history of the United States but in the history of the world to 
address our climate crisis, and I think some of the factual 
challenges that folks are having in this hearing today is that 
to address the climate crisis we have to address it across all 
sectors.
    That is correct, Mr. Drummer, right?
    And so, we have to do it across the electricity sector. We 
have to do it across vehicle sectors. We have to do it in terms 
of our emissions, our building materials, things like that, and 
the Inflation Reduction Act is the most comprehensive piece of 
legislation to ever be created to help invest in all of those 
sectors so that we can actually avert passing a tipping point 
in our global carbon emissions and we can make this transition 
that will be necessary so that our communities do not suffer 
more.
    And I mentioned in my comments a few moments ago I am from 
New Mexico. This summer we just had the largest wildfires ever 
in the history of our state. Our state is experiencing a 
millennial drought right now.
    So, climate change is already here. We are already 
experiencing it. I am a water resources manager. I have worked 
on these issues for many, many years and we already see the 
signature of climate change.
    And what we know is that if we don't implement the IRA and 
the 40 percent emissions reductions that are in it, we will see 
even more catastrophic impacts for communities, which is why we 
are seeing such industry resistance and, of course, these 
strange attacks here.
    So, Mr. Drummer, I wonder if you could talk to us about 
what exactly is meant by the idea of a just transition and how 
do we build equity into this movement?
    Mr. Drummer. Right. The idea of a just transition is about, 
one, the places who are most affected and first impacted not 
only by the fossil fuel infrastructure. The emissions, the 
extraction--you know, it is a product that poisons people and 
our environment across its entire product lifecycle.
    So, the folks who are most affected by that should be 
prioritized in how we transition, which is why the Inflation 
Reduction Act gives additional tax credits to private 
investors, right, who are siting renewable energy and battery 
storage projects in those types of communities.
    A just transition also acknowledges that there are many, 
many people who work in the fossil fuel sector. I was talking 
to one the other day who put his family--all his children 
through college welding pipes on--it might not be the technical 
term but that is what he did--and the idea is that they should 
have a way into the clean energy economy.
    And, by the way, there is a lot of work to be done to wind 
down this infrastructure, to seal this infrastructure, and to 
maintain this infrastructure safely so it doesn't leak and 
start poisoning our environment when it is no longer in use.
    And so, that is the idea of a just transition that we can 
bring everybody along and everybody can be part of this clean 
energy economy.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Drummer.
    And I personally really appreciate that, and some of some 
of the folks who are here on the Committee today know because I 
serve on the Natural Resources Committee and have talked about 
my family's story.
    But my parents were both energy workers. My mother was a 
crane mechanic who helped build a coal-fired power plant in 
northwestern New Mexico. My father was a boilermaker and a 
welder in the oil fields working for one of the major global 
oil companies.
    And so, a just transition isn't just for communities who 
are living in natural, wild, beautiful places. It is for the 
communities that are really at the heart of this transition to 
make sure that they have dignity, that they have jobs, that 
they are able to build communities and economies that really 
reflect their values, their cultures, their languages, and 
their needs.
    And so, I am really grateful that you are on the front 
lines of this effort as a thought partner to us and just 
appreciate the opportunity to have the conversation about it.
    So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Representative 
Boebert for five minutes.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, obviously, the 
day that he took office Joe Biden unilaterally declared an all-
out war on American energy production, from shutting down the 
Keystone XL Pipeline, which has been mentioned, on day one, 
imposing new rules to block pipeline projects, canceling oil 
and gas leases on millions of acres in Alaska and the Gulf of 
Mexico, imposing moratorium on new Federal oil and gas leases 
on Federal lands, and he single-handedly regulated our 
communities into poverty.
    We want to talk about lifting people out of poverty, well, 
my communities in my district that I am proud to represent have 
been regulated into poverty because these good-paying jobs are 
no longer there. Now we are talking about affordable housing 
and childcare because the good-paying jobs are gone. They are 
not in my district anymore.
    And so, what did Joe Biden do? He helped lead these record 
high gas prices right before an election by draining the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserves. He depleted them. He begged our 
enemies for oil.
    Now, a lot of this has been brought up today and, Mr. 
Epstein, I would love to get to you. The Inflation Reduction 
Act--the IRA--was recently brought up, which is really the 
green new deal.
    And, Mr. Epstein, I am curious, would the Inflation 
Reduction Act with its billions of dollars, hundreds of 
billions of dollars, going toward green new deal energy 
policies, is that going to protect us from a climate emergency?
    Mr. Epstein. Thank you. So, if you are thinking about 
emissions,--we will talk in a second about whether there is a 
climate emergency--but if you are thinking about emissions 
there is obviously only one way to reduce emissions if you are 
talking about CO2 emissions because this is a global issue, and 
that is to make low carbon energy globally cost competitive.
    So, anything you are doing just to randomly subsidize the 
U.S., fleece taxpayers to make things more expensive, or to do 
these things that can't work on the market, that doesn't 
accomplish anything at all.
    So, what we need to do is things like liberate nuclear, 
liberate natural gas, liberate development so we can have 
things like deep geothermal. But you need real market things.
    So, first of all, the IRA doesn't accomplish anything in 
terms of globally cost competitive solutions and, in fact, it 
keeps over subsidizing solar and wind into the indefinite 
future. So, it is a total mess.
    Also, this idea of a climate emergency is a falsehood. 
There is a difference between climate impact and climate 
emergency. This idea that we are all going to die very soon 
from climate is empirically false.
    We are actually safer than ever from climate-related 
disasters. Fossil fuels have helped us do things like alleviate 
drought, heat our homes when it is cold, cool our homes when it 
is hot.
    Like, fossil fuels have actually made the climate far safer 
for human beings. So, any concern with emissions should be long 
term and nonemergency.
    It is actually this emergency mentality that led Biden to 
say, I guarantee you we are going to end fossil fuel, and led 
to all of these catastrophic policies that you are referring 
to.
    So, what we need is energy freedom where all forms of 
energy can compete, and insofar as solar and wind can be cost 
competitive and actually provide reliable electricity, great. 
But forcing inferior energy on us is a disaster and it causes 
an energy emergency in the name of a phony climate emergency.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Epstein.
    And I have a simple question for you. Was America energy 
independent under President Trump's Administration?
    Mr. Epstein. So, it was much--I would put it as much, much 
more energy secure. That is how I would put it, much, much more 
energy secure, and in part because President Trump was saying 
to the industry, we are going to leave you free in the future, 
whereas I want to quote one of America's leading oil 
executives, Cody Campbell, who said, ``yes, Biden's war on the 
oil and gas industry is driving shortages and high prices,'' 
and he cited specifically the Democrats' idea that the need for 
oil and natural gas is soon coming to an end.
    Mrs. Boebert. And, Mr. Epstein--Epstein, excuse me--would 
you say then America is not energy secure now or is less energy 
secure?
    Mr. Epstein. Yes. We are less energy secure because we are 
more and more dependent on unreliable forms of energy, 
specifically electricity, and we have threatened the fossil 
fuel industry going forward, and where I live in California is 
the perfect embodiment where we said no more internal 
combustion engine vehicles and then five days later Newsom 
said, don't charge your electric car.
    Mrs. Boebert. Correct.
    Mr. Epstein, what should the Federal Government do to help 
increase our energy security as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Epstein. So, the first thing is just to apologize. 
Like, it is really, really important to say, we have been in 
the wrong, and I know that that is difficult, but it needs to 
happen.
    And then this whole of government thing needs to change 
because the root cause is the whole of government attack on 
fossil fuels and the net zero commitment.
    I think a first really good action would be to immediately 
withdraw from the Paris Climate Accords and encourage every 
other country to do the same. That would be a great action.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you. I think an apology is necessary to 
the American people because I do see this as sabotage.
    But, Mr. Epstein, you have illustrated the dangers of 
energy insecurity and abusing the SPR. Are we making other 
areas in addressing energy security?
    Mr. Epstein. Yes. So, we are making many. I know we are 
about to be out of time. We are making many, many other errors, 
and I would like to offer particularly to Representative 
Stansbury, who told several lies about me, if you want to know 
the truth about me in this issue, I will sign a copy of 
``Fossil Future'' for you so you can learn the facts.
    Mrs. Boebert. Great book. Thank you, Mr. Epstein.
    Mr. Epstein. Thank you.
    Mr. Fallon. The gentlelady's time has expired. A very 
generous offer, by the way.
    Mr. Epstein. Thank you.
    Mr. Fallon. The Chair recognizes Ms. Luna.
    Ms. Luna. I actually want to see if Mr. Epstein wanted to 
use some of my time to address some of the lies that Ms. 
Stansbury told about you.
    Mr. Epstein. Oh, sure. Yes, that is great. So, the--so 
there is an argument that I--and I don't have the exact 
transcript but the basic ideas that I am bought----
    Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise a point 
of order, please.
    Mr. Fallon. OK.
    Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman----
    Mr. Fallon. The gentlelady will state a point of order.
    Ms. Stansbury. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire 
about the Chair's read on the rules for this Committee pursuant 
to what we adopted in terms of name calling and correcting----
    Ms. Luna. Can I--can I take back some of my time right now? 
Because I am interested in the facts.
    Mr. Fallon. No, you are--we are going to----
    Ms. Luna. OK. I just want to get the facts from you.
    Mr. Fallon. OK, hold on one second. There is a point of 
order. Ms. Luna, your time is frozen.
    Ms. Luna. Thank you.
    Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that the 
words be taken down by the gentlelady from Florida regarding 
her name calling of me and the assertion that somehow the 
factual exchange that I had between myself and the witness were 
somehow other than a normal asking of questions to a witness.
    Mr. Fallon. All right. Just give me one second. Thank you.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you.
    [Chairman reviewing the rules.]
    Mr. Fallon. So, what I want to do is real quickly read our 
rules of witness decorum and I would remind them that this is a 
violation of the rules of the House of Representatives to 
engage in personalities regarding the President or make 
statements that are personally offensive to him, that the rules 
govern Members in debate and also applies to us as witnesses 
deliver their testimony.
    And so, what I would ask is if Ms. Luna could perhaps 
rephrase to say maybe some untruths that were spoken. I think 
that would be fair and part of decorum, because we are going to 
disagree all day long on certain topics as the two parties and 
sometimes we do agree and then many times we don't.
    And so, perhaps just rephrasing the question would satisfy 
everyone. And Ms. Luna, you are recognized for your full five 
minutes.
    Ms. Luna. Mr. Epstein, would you please correct some of the 
mistruths spoken about you? I would like to hear your 
perspective on what is factually accurate.
    Mr. Epstein. Sure. So, there are two things that 
Representative Stansbury brought up. So, one I think I 
addressed very clearly, this idea of any kind of racism, and 
she attributed--this as almost an exact quote--me talking about 
the racial superiority of Western culture and I clarified 
probably five times that Western culture has nothing to do with 
race and it is about ideas, particularly individuals and 
freedom and reason.
    So, it didn't seem very honest to me to portray me as 
saying racial superiority. It seemed like another attempt to 
discredit me, and I think there is an inability to actually 
refute any of my arguments.
    And I think the same thing is true with the attack that I 
am somehow representing and paid for by the fossil fuel 
industry. First of all, if I were, which I am not, we need 
representatives of the fossil fuel industry here because they 
have expertise on this issue, which is about oil. So, that is 
one thing.
    But it is just factually false. So, I came to all of my 
ideas independently and I said, I--once I came to the 
conclusion that fossil fuels are good, of course, I proudly 
tried to advise fossil fuel companies, including coal 
companies, how to tell their story better.
    But to use my expertise and my convictions and to claim 
that I am dishonest and should not be listened to, and I made a 
compelling case, I didn't think that was appropriate.
    Ms. Luna. Mr. Epstein, I just wanted to ask you real quick, 
is China somehow protected by an invisible shield that prevents 
their carbon emissions from escaping?
    Mr. Epstein. No.
    Ms. Luna. OK. So, if we have the ability to produce clean 
energy here or at lower carbon emissions versus China, don't 
you think that that would be better for the climate?
    Mr. Epstein. Yes, but I think the main thing is the world 
needs far more energy and if you care about emissions you need 
to find truly cost competitive ways to do that and the best way 
to do that is through freedom, through liberating nuclear, 
through liberating natural gas.
    And, unfortunately, this Administration is focused on 
limiting the freedom of certain industries, namely, fossil 
fuels, including natural gas, and then imposing extremely 
expensive things that the market won't choose on its own, which 
is the whole IRA, which is just a total subsidy fest that does 
nothing to make alternatives truly cost competitive.
    Ms. Luna. No, I agree with you. I think from a perspective 
on also national security to say that somehow the United States 
is going to go to completely electrical grid would actually 
pose a massive threat to us----
    Mr. Epstein. Yes.
    Ms. Luna [continuing]. Because if you have a hacker they 
could shut down an entire first world country and, obviously, 
that is something that we don't want.
    My final question for you is--first of all, thank you for 
coming to testify before Congress.
    Mr. Epstein. My pleasure.
    Ms. Luna. I appreciate you being here. But with everything 
that we just heard, I mean, what is the best way that we as a 
country can really prevent China from essentially owning us? 
Because as you had stated earlier, the Paris Climate Accord--I 
mean, us even engaging in that is hindering us while they are 
polluting and destroying our planet.
    And I hear a lot about climate change but, you know, few 
people of action that are willing to actually address that.
    Mr. Epstein. Can I just comment on the grid, which you also 
mentioned?
    Ms. Luna. Yes, of course.
    Mr. Epstein. Because you mentioned the security threat of 
the grid and it is vulnerable to these kinds of attacks. I 
think the number-one thing that it is vulnerable to is we are 
catastrophically reducing the supply of reliable electricity 
and then catastrophically increasing the demand for reliable 
electricity.
    And so, California, where I live, is a perfect example. We 
have attacked fossil fuels, we have attacked nuclear, so we 
have less reliable electricity, and then we are trying to 
mandate electric everything.
    And this is why, as I mentioned, Newsom had this 
announcement, no more internal combustion engine vehicles, and 
then five days later he had to say, don't charge your EV, and 
we have signs all over the place saying don't use your 
electricity. We only have three percent penetration of EVs.
    So, we are talking about this catastrophic, unthinking 
increase of EVs, and we are actually threatened--I have this 
documented--we are threatened to go to lose 20 percent of our 
reliable electricity in the next seven years under the Biden 
EPA.
    So, that is a catastrophic threat. I can also answer about 
China, if you would like.
    Ms. Luna. Yes, please.
    Mr. Epstein. So, I mean, with China is China actually cares 
about energy and they are doing what is good for their people 
and also the power lust of the government in terms of energy.
    So they, for example, use five times as much industrial 
electricity as we do, overwhelmingly coal, and the only way for 
us to be secure and out compete them is to have a very 
aggressive energy freedom policy and that includes--one, is 
liberating domestic development from things like NEPA, which, 
unfortunately, this Administration has done nothing to do and, 
in fact, reversed the good Trump Administration things on NEPA.
    We need to end preferences for unreliable electricity and 
actually have all forms of electricity compete, so we can 
actually have a stable grid. We need to reform the EPA, so it 
stops shutting down reliable power plants.
    We need to what I call `decriminalize nuclear', not just 
subsidize it and this kind of thing, and in general we need an 
emissions policy of long-term reductions, not catastrophic 
emergency reductions through liberating American innovation, 
not punishing America.
    What the IRA does is it punishes America and accomplishes 
nothing globally because, as you said, Chinese emissions 
influence the global emissions picture just as much as American 
emissions do.
    Ms. Luna. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Obviously, 
that was very factual, and I think you are very well qualified 
to be here. Thank you.
    Mr. Epstein. Thanks.
    Mr. Fallon. The Chair recognizes Mr. Edwards for his five 
minutes.
    Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Epstein, first of all, I want you to know that on the 
recommendation of a previous energy secretary I have read your 
book----
    Mr. Epstein. Oh, wow. Thanks.
    Mr. Edwards [continuing]. And it is a pleasure to see the 
author of such a piece of work here with us today.
    Mr. Epstein. Thank you.
    Mr. Edwards. So, thank you.
    President Biden, in his recent State of the Union address, 
called out corporations for being profitable--energy 
corporations for being profitable and he called for additional 
taxes on oil and gas companies.
    Are higher taxes on corporations a path forward, in your 
opinion, for American energy producers to increase production?
    Mr. Epstein. So, this is an example of the tragedy I 
mentioned toward the end of my testimony, which is that this 
Administration has, unfortunately, learned nothing and 
apologized for nothing, because the root cause is--of the 
problems is global anti-fossil fuel policies and that is what 
artificially suppressed the supply and drove prices up.
    And so, what is the Administration's response besides 
dangerously depleting the SPR? It is to threaten even more 
punishment. So, what more taxes says is if you manage to 
succeed through the gauntlet of factors that we are using to 
restrict you we are going to make you pay even more.
    Does anyone think that is attractive to oil investors? What 
we need is a free market that oil investors have confidence in. 
So, this is 180 degrees wrong policy.
    Mr. Edwards. Thank you for that. And my follow-up question, 
which you might have answered but I ask you to elaborate if you 
can, is how are those Biden Administration policies and actions 
toward oil and gas companies discouraging future investment?
    Mr. Epstein. I mean, we could spend all day on this. But 
the high level is that--the high level is what they call the 
whole of government approach to climate change. But climate 
change just means--in practice it means attacking fossil fuels.
    So, there is a whole of government approach to attacking 
fossil fuels--and I think there should be a hearing on this 
because this is just the root of all the destruction--is that 
every agency, you can go to every agency, subagency, they are 
trying to figure out a way to attack fossil fuels.
    So, look at the SEC. The SEC has climate disclosure rules. 
That is just basically designed to intimidate companies into 
agreeing to get off fossil fuels as quickly as possible. You 
have pressure on investment institutions through different ESG 
policies, and you have the signal sent by opposing the Keystone 
pipeline by the leasing ban.
    And so, what this says to investors and companies is if you 
pursue this space of oil and gas, in particular, you have a 
high likelihood of being punished.
    Investors are investing because they want to make a profit, 
and if you are increasing the risk you are going to decrease 
investment. So, that is why we need an apology, and we need a 
reversal of the whole of government approach.
    And this Administration or future administrations need to 
give long-term security to all forms of energy.
    Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
    And still Mr. Epstein--is there a physical reason that the 
oil industry can't meet rising demand?
    Mr. Epstein. Thank you for asking that. I wish I had 
thought to bring that up. No. So, why are prices going up? Is 
it--do we have a physical limitation?
    No, we have endless oil in the world for the foreseeable 
future. Do we have a know how limitation? Did the industry 
forget how to produce things cost effectively? No.
    It is obviously a political limitation and the obvious--it 
is bigger than an elephant in the room, it must be, like, a 
dinosaur in the room--is that we have a global anti-fossil fuel 
movement that has been for years suppressing investment, 
production, refining, and transportation.
    This is obvious. This is what every country in the world is 
committing to under the Paris Climate Accords. This is what the 
investment institutions are committing to.
    So, what happens is they have suppressed the supply of 
fossil fuels. That makes prices go up. That is what they 
wanted. But what they didn't want is for the electorate to get 
angry.
    So, they want this consequence. They just don't want the 
political results, and the SPR is a way of hiding it. 
Basically, if you release oil from the SPR prices go down 
temporarily so people don't see the damage you have inflicted 
on the global economy and on Americans in particular.
    Mr. Edwards. So, thank you for that.
    Also, Mr. Epstein, I know this may seem like an elementary 
question, but I believe it is important for the American people 
to know the answer.
    Can you explain why price increases exist when you restrict 
the supply of a valuable resource?
    Mr. Epstein. Sure. I mean, just if you are thinking about 
anything--I mean, if you think about the price of apples and 
you take half the apples away from the world, well, that is the 
supply, and then the demand is people still have the same 
proclivity toward wanting apples.
    And so, what happens is there are fewer of them, so the 
people who are willing to pay more, those are the only people 
who are going to pay--be able to pay for it. And so, the price 
is going to go up.
    So, it is just--you know, there is the details but it is 
the basic supply/demand dynamic and it is very important. The 
world, particularly the Biden Administration, have committed to 
restricting the supply.
    They promised us the demand would go away because 
unreliable solar and wind would replace fossil fuels, the same 
promise we are hearing today from others. It was a false 
promise. Demand went up, so supply went down. Demand went up, 
prices go up.
    Mr. Edwards. Thank you. Thank you for being with us. Thank 
all of our visitors for coming and sharing with us this 
afternoon.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you.
    In closing, I want to thank our panelists once again for 
their important insights and testimony today. The most valuable 
resource any of us have are time. So, we thank you for your 
time.
    And I would like to yield to Ranking Member Stansbury for 
her closing remarks.
    Ms. Stansbury. All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It 
has been an interesting adventure today, I will say that.
    So, welcome to the Subcommittee. I am sure we are going to 
have lots of vigorous debate this Congress on these issues.
    I do feel bad that we didn't get to ask Dr. Bouchouev more 
questions. I could see him shaking his head in disagreement 
with many of the comments that Mr. Epstein said, and it is 
unfortunate because he is a--while a former Koch Brothers 
employee, he is an energy economy expert and there is a lot of 
misinformation that was shared in the name of--as testimony 
today.
    So, I apologize that we didn't have the opportunity to 
actually hear the facts about global energy markets. And I do 
thank Mr. Drummer for joining us today to talk about and share 
your perspective on these issues.
    Mr. Chairman, obviously, there is nothing more important 
than addressing our global energy security and the climate 
crisis. It is something that the Biden Administration and 
Democrats understand very well.
    It is part of why the Biden Administration has aggressively 
pursued energy policies that are both lowering prices, 
protecting American access to energy of all kinds, and took 
emergency action to take down the SPRO.
    There is discussion about what that impact has about 
overall energy market stability. We understand that. But it was 
an emergency measure that was taken at the time in order to 
address gas prices at the pump at a time when we were 
experiencing record inflation and food shortages here in the 
United States.
    It was an energy crisis, just as the SPRO was designed to 
do, which was to address issues when OPEC, other cartels, and 
global energy prices impacted the American consumer.
    So, we are grateful for the Biden Administration's 
proactive effort, the impact that it had for communities. But 
most importantly, I want to really emphasize the incredible 
action that we have taken here in Congress this last year to 
pass the Inflation Reduction Act to do as we heard today, to 
address climate change across all aspects of our economy, to 
invest in our communities, and to ensure that this energy 
transition that we are going through is not only good for 
business, good for America, good for our energy security that 
ultimately is just and equitable for our communities as we are 
trying to navigate through this global crisis.
    So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate it and 
look forward to working with you.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. I am going to yield back your two 
minutes.
    No, thank you all again for coming.
    Just a couple of things to point out. The United States is 
not a planet. We live on a planet. We are part of it. But we 
have issues with China and the coal plants that they are 
opening. They are increasing their emissions.
    I am very proud of the fact that our country has reduced 
our emissions dramatically over the last 20 years and we have 
India as well has a growing economy that has also contributed, 
and I think it is fascinating to know that it is projected that 
coal--global coal use will never be higher than this year, 
which is really not, I don't think, good news for anyone. But 
it is interesting to know.
    We haven't talked a lot about and we should have future 
hearings about nuclear energy. I want to focus on solutions, 
not just rhetoric, but the carbon that is already in the 
atmosphere. Trillion Tree project, things like that, that will 
filter it. Carbon capture--there is ideas with putting it in 
concrete and limestone caves and things like that that are 
solutions that we should all get behind, particularly, again, 
with nuclear. I think a lot of folks that were on the political 
left have seen the light with nuclear energy of late. Not all, 
but many.
    Also, the electric grid. Can it handle the capacity of 
hundreds of millions of cars? It was never designed for that, 
and so that is an issue that we are going to have to discuss, 
moving forward.
    And now--and I recall, like, these almost Thomas Malthus 
type--Thomas Malthus exaggerations that some folks have said in 
the public sphere and Members of this chamber as well.
    One said that--not in this hearing but another one that I 
attended, that by 2026 there is going to be large swaths of the 
United States that will be uninhabitable, and I believe it was 
by 2034 we are going to major famines in the United States.
    And former President--Vice President Gore said that global 
sea levels are going to rise by 20 feet and the--you know, 
there was going to be millions of people displaced. And even 
the U.N.'s own IPCC said that it could--global sea levels may 
rise as little as four inches in the next hundred years. So, 
interesting to know former presidents have purchased properties 
at zero sea level on the coast. So, the coastlines aren't being 
threatened right now at all.
    So, it is going to be interesting over the next eight to 10 
years to see the realities of what happens. Are all or some 
tractor trailers going to be electric? I don't know. But we are 
going to find out.
    I don't know if I will be here in 10 years or not. But so, 
take note of what is being said. Take note of what was said in 
2000. Take note what was said today, and we will see where we 
are, moving forward. I think that is very important.
    But we, again, need to recognize the realities, and this 
Administration did not lower prices. We have empirical data. 
Everybody can agree the price of gasoline was $2.39 when Mr. 
Biden took office. Today it is $3.41. It is 38 percent higher, 
despite the fact that we have drained the SPR to historic 
levels.
    Seventeen million in 1991, 21 million in 2005, 31 million 
in 2011, and then 227 million over the last year and change. 
That is remarkably different.
    So let us just, again, talk about and focus more on 
empirical, undeniable facts. That is why we had this hearing 
and that is why we can conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt that 
there was no national emergency.
    The price of gasoline was already up prior to Putin's 
invasion. It wasn't his fault. It was bad policy. If you want 
to reduce the costs of energy, then make more of it.
    Yes, it is a global market. We are a major player in that 
global market that can affect the price. It is a supply and 
demand issue, at the end of the day.
    So, I want to thank everybody for coming. I appreciate our 
first hearing and I look forward to many more.
    And in closing, with that, and without objection, all 
Members will have five legislative days within which to submit 
materials and to submit additional written questions for the 
witnesses, which will be forwarded to the witnesses for their 
response.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 4:09 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]