[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 100 (Wednesday, June 25, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H5752-H5757]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LOWERING GASOLINE PRICES TO FUEL AN AMERICA THAT WORKS ACT OF 2014
General Leave
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 4899.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 641 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4899.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1649
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4899) to lower gasoline prices for the American family by
increasing domestic onshore and offshore energy exploration and
production, to streamline and improve onshore and offshore energy
permitting and administration, and for other purposes, with Mr. Collins
of Georgia in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Americans are all too familiar with the economic hardships caused by
$4 a gallon gasoline prices. I routinely hear from families in my
central Washington district whose budgets are already being stretched
thin and who can't afford the rising prices at the pump. Commuting to
work, running the kids to after-school activities, and putting food on
the table are all becoming increasingly difficult to afford. Yet the
pain is not only being felt during trips to the gas station--high
gasoline prices are a drain on our entire economy. That means that
school districts juggle to operate bus routes, that cities grapple with
the cost of sending police cars on patrol, and that businesses adjust
budgets that can affect the hiring of new employees.
The good news is that $4 gasoline does not have to be our reality.
The U.S. is blessed with an abundance of oil and natural gas resources
that can lower energy prices and grow our economy. H.R. 4899, the
Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel an America That Works Act, is
commonsense legislation to responsibly harness the American energy
resources that we have right here at home.
Mr. Chairman, the Obama administration has spent the last 5\1/2\
years placing our energy resources on Federal lands and waters under
tight lock and key. Offshore areas have been placed off limits.
Scheduled exploration off Virginia was canceled, and over half of the
National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, or NPR-A, has been closed to energy
production. That is why it is no surprise that, since President Obama
took office, total Federal oil production has dropped 6 percent and
total natural gas production has dropped 28 percent. That is on Federal
lands, Mr. Chairman. Meanwhile, gasoline prices have doubled during
this Presidency. H.R. 4899 would reverse this trend and unlock our
American energy.
The bill would implement a drill smart plan that would expand
offshore energy production and safely open new areas that contain the
most oil and natural gas resources, such as the mid-Atlantic, the
southern Pacific, and the Arctic. It would require the Secretary to
conduct specific oil and natural gas lease sales, including offshore
Virginia, which was delayed and then canceled by the Obama
administration. The bill would also establish fair and equitable
revenue sharing for all coastal States and improve safety by
reorganizing the Interior Department's offshore energy agencies.
[[Page H5753]]
In addition to increased offshore energy production, the bill would
help expand onshore oil and natural gas production on Federal lands. It
would reform the leasing and streamline the permitting process,
encourage the development of U.S. oil shale resources, expand the
production of the NPR-A, and much more.
While these policies will help lower gasoline prices, they will also
create over 1.2 million new American jobs and generate over $1.7
billion in new revenue. In other words, Mr. Chairman, this bill is a
win for our economy and a win for jobs.
It is also important for our national security. The current turmoil
in Iraq has already caused the price of gasoline to increase, and it
serves as an important reminder of why we need to increase production
here at home. The best way to protect ourselves from price spikes
caused by international conflicts is to increase the production of
American energy resources.
As The Wall Street Journal reported last week, the recent energy boom
here in the U.S. is ``putting slack in the global oil market.'' A
senior petroleum analyst noted in regard to the recent conflict in
Iraq: ``If this were 2005, we would have seen a 20-30 cent jump in gas
prices, but it's lower today because domestic energy production is much
higher.''
However, all of the increase in U.S. energy production is happening
on State and private lands. Mr. Chairman, let me repeat that. All of
the increase in U.S. energy production is happening on State and
private lands. As I previously noted, oil and natural gas production on
Federal lands has declined under President Obama. We can and we should
be doing so much more when it comes to American-produced energy, and
doing so will further strengthen our energy security and reduce our
reliance on foreign imports and on OPEC.
Finally, we need to take action now because the Obama administration
just announced the start of work on the next 5-year offshore drilling
plan. With this bill that we are considering today, Congress can
advance a responsible plan for developing America's resources. The
President's plan, on the other hand, closes over 85 percent of offshore
areas to energy production and includes the lowest number of lease
sales ever offered in a 5-year plan. The administration's restrictive
policies should not continue for another 5 years. That is why there
needs to be a new plan, as outlined in this bill on the floor, that
opens new areas and helps to put more than a million Americans back to
work.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4899 will ease the pain at the pump for American
families and small businesses and eliminate Federal Government hurdles
that keep American energy locked up. It is good for our economy; it is
good for jobs; and it strengthens our national security. I urge my
colleagues to support this commonsense bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We have before us two bills which have previously passed the House
but that have been merged into one bill and that will again pass with a
Republican majority.
It mandates offshore oil drilling from Maine to the southeast coast.
It mandates offshore oil drilling off of South Carolina. This would all
be done under expedited or potentially nonexistent environmental
reviews if they didn't meet extraordinarily brief timelines, and they
would not be allowed to evaluate any options that did not include
drilling. As the Republicans are extremely fiscally conservative, this
would double the revenue sharing for offshore oil drilling, creating a
$30 billion loss for the Federal Government and benefiting a few
southeast States.
As for the onshore portion of the bill, every permit for drilling on
Federal lands in the United States would have to be issued within 60
days, and the concept of multiple use, which is hunting, fishing,
recreating, mountain biking, horseback riding--go on down the list--and
other activities, are all subsumed to energy development, which becomes
the big--oh, wait. What? I mean, really. This is my June 2013 speech. I
mean, this is last year's speech. Who gave me last year's speech?
Really. Oh, guess what? It really doesn't matter, because this is the
same bill from last year--two bills into one. Exactly the same bills
passed the House last year and the year before that and the year before
that. Every year since the Republicans have taken over, when gas prices
spike up, they pass imaginary legislation and pretend they are doing
something about high gas prices instead of tackling the real causes,
which I will get to in a moment.
{time} 1700
So many people have heard about Christmas in July. We now have a new
tradition here, which is Groundhog Day in June for energy bills, in a
faux sort of attempt to pretend we really care about the extortionate
prices that people are paying because of Big Oil in the United States
and speculation on Wall Street.
God forbid we should take on either of those very powerful and
generous forces, generous to some, not to others. Does anybody believe
this?
I guess there are a few people who believe anything, but since they
first brought this bill to the floor in 2011, U.S. oil production has
gone from 5.6 million barrels a day to 8.4 million barrels a day--not
shabby, basically a 50 percent increase.
Let's look at another chart. Exports--we are talking about--now, we
have a new theory. This isn't about lowering prices in America; it is
about avoiding even higher prices in America because we are stabilizing
the world markets.
Well, I have had a lot of complaints from truckers. Look at how much
diesel we are exporting. Since the Republicans started this campaign,
the combined exports of refined gasoline--remember the shortages, that
is why we are paying higher prices, supply and demand--have gone from
700 million barrels a day to 1.5 billion. We have doubled our export of
refined product, and the truckers are really getting stuck here.
Look at this line. You want to know why diesel prices are up? Because
diesel exports are up phenomenally--phenomenally. So we can blather on
about: Gee, all we need is more production, more production--so we can
export more?
In fact, now, the oil industry is pushing to end our ban on the
export of crude oil. Now--right now, at least--we get some value added,
and we get a few more jobs by exporting refined products.
Now, the industry wants us to lift the ban and say that we will
export crude oil from the United States of America, I guess, so that we
can prevent bigger price spikes if there are future crises because this
is the new theory promulgated by The Wall Street Journal.
We hear a lot about the President. Here is a reality check on that
issue: Federal onshore production is up 30 percent under President
Obama. In fact, President Obama is providing over record production
levels and plummeting imports, while the exact opposite happened under
the Bush-Cheney energy policy, which actually was designed to make us
more dependent upon foreign oil, and that did happen in spades during
the Bush-Cheney administration.
The Energy Information Administration, they are right, there was a
blip in our production offshore. It had to do with a little oil spill
called Deepwater Horizon, and there was a temporary suspension of
drilling and new permits. That is history now, but that does make your
average look lower over time.
The Energy Information Administration says that offshore production
will reach record levels--that is, all Federal offshore oil production
will reach record levels by 2016; but that is reality that doesn't
matter.
Now, we have a really nifty title, and that is something that they
spend lots of money on consultants around here--both parties do--to
come up with nifty little sayings. The nifty title is Lowering Gasoline
Prices to Fuel an America That Works Act of 2014.
Well, since we started this argument with the Republicans on this
issue about increased oil production leading to lower gas prices--well,
2008, when we had drill, baby, drill, in order to lower gas prices that
were $3.50 to $4 a gallon--and guess what?
They haven't gone down, so that argument kind of doesn't work
anymore, but now, they are saying: well, they would have been higher if
we weren't producing more oil.
[[Page H5754]]
If we produce just more, they might not have been even more higher,
or maybe they would be lower because that is what we said for the last
4 years, that they would be lower.
Since we are exporting a whole heck of a lot of it, they are not
because we are paying a world price for oil, and now, they want us to
pay a world price for natural gas, one place where we do have an
advantage, so the prices don't go down.
There is such an abundance of oil, as I mentioned earlier, the
American Petroleum Institute wants to lift the ban on the export of
crude oil from the United States. Wouldn't that be great?
The U.S. can export crude oil to China. China can use it to run their
electrical generating facilities, which supply their manufacturing
facilities, which will produce value-added products, things that we
formerly used to make here in the United States, and they will sell
them back to us.
We get to sell them a raw material, kind of like a colony, and they
sell us back sophisticated materials. That is kind of like something we
fought a revolution over a couple of hundred years ago, but now, that
is okay with some on the other side.
This is both coasts and Alaska and tremendous degradation of
environmental protections on the inland areas, as I mentioned earlier.
This will really do away with multiple use.
Now, we heard from the chairman, who is an esteemed colleague, that
the spike in Iraq would have been worse if we weren't producing so much
and exporting so much.
Actually, I just saw the statistics yesterday. Oil production hasn't
dropped at all. The other OPEC companies are putting more oil out, and
Iraq is at 95 percent of where they were before this, so actually,
there has been no reduction anywhere, but somehow, prices are up about
20 cents a gallon at the pump.
Now, if we just produced more oil, that wouldn't happen. No, that is
not true. We are producing more oil.
If we just exported more refined oil and diesel and gasoline, that
wouldn't happen. Well, no, because we are. What happened?
Wall Street is speculating on the price of oil. We had sworn
testimony from the CEO of ExxonMobil 2\1/2\ years ago, before the
United States Senate, when gas was getting to 4 bucks a gallon, and he
said, hey, don't blame me, this isn't ExxonMobil doing this, it is Wall
Street--because of the deregulation of Wall Street, the fact that we
haven't yet implemented position limits on speculators, on commodities,
as we were supposed to do under Dodd-Frank, which they want to repeal.
He said 60 cents a gallon. Drive up to the pump, and you are sending
60 cents a gallon to Wall Street speculators.
So if they wanted to do something today or tomorrow or yesterday or
last year--or maybe next June--about spiking oil prices, it would be to
go after the speculators on Wall Street. That is the quickest relief
that we could provide.
Mandate position limits--or even better--repeal the provisions of the
Commodity Futures Trading Modernization Act--which I voted against,
which was a Clinton-era Republican bill--that actually allowed massive
new speculation by nonconsumers, nonproducers, something that we never
had, never needed, and don't need today.
So next time you go to the pump, say, oh, well, if we just drill
right here off of Maine or right here off of Massachusetts or right
here, I would pay less; or think, wow, if they wanted to really give me
relief, they would take on the big oil companies, they would take on
Wall Street--but they won't do that.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), a member
of the Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank
Chairman Hastings for his work on H.R. 4899, a bill that actually will
ease the pain at the pump for moms and dads. There is no doubt about
it.
Just since President Obama has taken office, gasoline prices have
more than doubled, and I am not telling the American people anything
they don't know because, when they reach in their wallet and take out
money to pay for that gas--just to go back and forth to work or take
the children to their sporting events or to school--they realize that
more of their discretionary income is going to pay the fuel that runs
the cars and the trucks that they drive.
I drive a diesel truck. I am paying--what--$3.69 a gallon, most
recently. I took this picture at a pump there in South Carolina, $3.69
a gallon for on-road diesel fuel. Now, on that on-road diesel fuel is
factored in all the highway taxes, but there was another pump right
beside that one. It was for off-road diesel fuel.
Now, historically, off-road diesel fuel is a lot less than on-road
diesel fuel. Why? Because there are no Federal taxes involved. It is
not going to run on the road, so they are not going to collect taxes
for that.
Where is that fuel used? It is used on farms. If you look at the
price, it is $3.54 and 9/10 cents a gallon. What does that mean? Well,
that means farmers that are just finishing putting their crops in the
ground across this Nation paid $3.54 a gallon for off-road diesel fuel.
Their input costs have gone up.
What does that mean? If this remains the same at harvest time, guess
what? The commodity prices in this country will go up. We are already
seeing historically high milk prices, historically high beef prices.
You can try to blame the commodity prices in the fall on the drought
in California. Some of that will be the fact, but I can tell you that
the input cost for fertilizer and for diesel fuel to put the crops in
the ground and harvest those are definitely a factor.
Moms and dads know what is going on. We can increase production in
this country offshore and onshore through this bill. The President
takes credit for increased production onshore, and I will give him
this: production has increased onshore, but it has nothing to do with
the policies of this administration.
It has everything to do with the private and State-owned land in
South Dakota and places like Eagle Ford, Texas, where production is up.
That State and private land has nothing to do with the administration's
policies over the last 6 years.
Him taking credit for increased production is like the rooster taking
credit for the sunrise every morning. Moms and dads in this country
know you are spending more money for fuel costs.
The other side seems out of touch with America, about as out of touch
as Hillary Clinton is, the pain you are feeling when you go to the pump
to fill up your tank to provide for your family, going back and forth.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, as a Nation, we must work together if we are
ever going to get a realistic energy policy that will provide clean,
reliable energy for all America, that will reduce our dependence on
foreign energy sources and preserve the beauty of our land.
We need a comprehensive energy plan for a country that includes not
only the conventional resources like oil and gas, but also takes
advantage of the new and renewable resources such as wind, solar,
biomass, and geothermal energy.
At the end of the day, I don't believe we can simply afford to take
any of these energy resources off the table. I, for one, am a firm
believer that using all the energy tools in our energy tool box is the
way that we must go forward.
In the San Joaquin Valley of California that I represent, we have
shown that we can take an all-of-the-above approach. We have oil
production taking place just down the road from our solar fields and
our wind farms; yet, of course, we are all concerned about the rise of
gas prices, but as the gentleman from Oregon said, there are multiple
factors that are causing those rising gas prices.
I represent one of the newest University of California campuses in
Merced, and it is blazing a trail for energy efficiency, crafting
technology necessary for the next generation of solar energy
production.
Conventional energy, together with renewable resources and a strategy
for energy conservation--which we do quite well in California--I think
will best serve our long-term energy needs. That is why I have
cosponsored the
[[Page H5755]]
American energy opportunity act of 2014.
We must create a viable energy policy that not only acknowledges our
short-term challenges, but our medium and our long-term challenges as
well. We must enhance our path toward energy independence--which we
have made remarkable progress in the last 4 years--from over 60 percent
of importing our energy needs, now down to less than almost 40 percent.
We can do more. Expanding responsible domestic energy production on
the Outer Continental Shelf, advancing alternative energy, including
wind, solar, biomass, wave, geothermal, and other clean alternatives.
Developing clean coal technology, developing additional nuclear
energy technology, expanding the energy of efficient products and
alternative fuel vehicles, and restoring and protecting our Nation's
wildlife refuges and national parks and lakes and waterways are not
mutually exclusive with a good energy policy; and if we do this, we can
also pay off our national debt.
Again, that is why I am a cosponsor of H.R. 4956. This bill does all
of those things. It could do them in different ways, though, because
clean energy is a critical component of our future.
Before we debate any energy legislation, I think we must acknowledge
that a green energy supply is not happening as fast as we might like it
to.
However, this transition must happen in order to address the
continuing impacts brought on by climate change--yes, climate change--
and regardless of whether or not one acknowledges the human
contributions of climate change, it is a fact.
As a matter of fact, it has been changing for millions of years.
{time} 1715
A combination of increasing our own domestic supply of natural gas
and oil as well as reducing demand will lower energy costs, create
jobs, and allow us to transition to cleaner fuels.
It also has another important factor. As we know, our European allies
are focusing and refocusing after the events of Ukraine and Russia,
which seems to be here and there about focusing as a responsible energy
supplier.
H.R. 4899 is an important measure that we are discussing. I agree
with my colleague from Washington, Representative Doc Hastings, when he
said that the ``best way to create jobs and help address rising prices
is to develop the American energy resources we have right here at
home.''
And there are beneficial provisions within this bill, such as
expanding domestic energy production on the Outer Continental Shelf,
expanding domestic energy production on our Federal lands, directing
the administration to complete an energy strategy every 4 years, and
reducing the Federal debt, which are all good, commonsense public
policies.
Unfortunately, this bill is not perfect. No bill ever is. The bill
prioritizes--and I am concerned about this--extractive energy policies
and fails to take into account the need to diversify our energy
portfolio.
I voted in favor of both the offshore and onshore provisions of this
bill because I think we need to expand their utilization for domestic
use.
But it is clear that this bill will not become law as it is, as my
colleague from Oregon has indicated. We have previously voted on these
measures before in other bills in this Congress, and the United States
Senate has failed to take them up, nor will they take this bill up.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. COSTA. So if the Senate is not going to take up this bill and our
constituents are counting on us to create legislation that, in fact,
will solve problems and, therefore, truly make a positive impact in
their lives, then we cannot continue to push talking points over well-
crafted, thoughtful public policy. The only way to accomplish that is
for us to start working together and stop talking past one another,
which is what we must do.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), a subcommittee
chairman on the Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the chairman for his great leadership on energy
in the Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4899, the Lowering
Gasoline Prices to Fuel an America That Works Act of 2014.
The offshore and onshore provisions in this bill will create American
jobs, contribute to economic growth, and increase revenue to both State
and Federal Governments. This legislation takes steps to move our
country forward on a path towards energy independence.
This legislation will streamline the onshore permitting process and
ensure that energy projects can be permitted in a timely fashion. It
will instill regulatory certainty into the leasing process by ensuring
that BLM, the Bureau of Land Management, leases a minimum number of
acres annually, and it will allow energy developers to move forward
with energy production.
It also requires the Secretary to develop a 4-year plan for energy
development, opens up the national petroleum reserve in Alaska for
production, and modernizes the leasing process by allowing BLM to
conduct lease sales through the Internet.
The Obama administration has made energy production on Federal lands
so burdensome that companies are avoiding Federal land in favor of
State and private lands. Both oil and gas production on Federal land
are down under Barack Obama, by 6 percent and 28 percent respectively.
In a State like my home State of Colorado, with a significant amount of
Federal land, this is a problem because less energy production means
less jobs and less growth.
This bill injects much-needed certainty into nearly every step of the
energy production process. It will ensure timely permit approvals,
ensure that BLM field offices have the funds they need to process
permits, prohibits the Secretary from changing lease terms, and ensure
that our Nation has a plan for an energy future.
I urge all my colleagues to support this critical legislation.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I have no further requests for time and reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), another member
of the Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. TIPTON. I thank the gentleman from Washington, Chairman Hastings,
for yielding time and for his leadership on this critical matter. I
appreciate the opportunity to be able to work closely with him on this
legislation and am pleased my Planning for American Energy Act was
incorporated as part of the Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel an America
That Works Act of 2014.
Mr. Chair, this final commonsense package seeks to put in place a
responsible energy plan that reduces gas prices and other energy costs
for consumers, while also spurring economic growth and job creation.
Unlocking our vast natural resources right here at home will lead us
closer to energy independence. The legislation before us today would
unleash the potential for thousands of new jobs and establish a
reliable, affordable, and secure source of American energy through
responsible production.
As Americans make plans to celebrate our Nation's independence next
week and prepare for summer trips, they are noticing that gasoline
prices are rising. Many people are facing gas prices above $3.50 a
gallon to $4 a gallon at the pump. These rising fuel costs have a
ripple effect across our economy. But, sadly, this upward trend has
been steady for the last several years. Fortunately, this doesn't have
to be the case.
Nature and entrepreneurial ingenuity have created the potential to
allow America to take complete control of its energy future. This
legislation will enhance the value of our energy reserves by removing
overly burdensome, redundant bureaucratic barriers that stand in the
way of responsibly developing our Nation's energy production
infrastructure.
Incorporated in this vital legislative package, my Planning for
American Energy Act seeks to establish commonsense steps to create an
all-of-the-above American energy plan for using Federal lands to meet
America's energy needs. Under title II of this legislation, the
nonpartisan Energy Information Administration would be required to
provide the Secretaries of the
[[Page H5756]]
Interior and Agriculture the projected energy needs of the United
States for the next 30 years. The Secretaries would use this
information to establish environmentally responsible 4-year energy
production plans.
The bill allows for energy development on public lands in order to
promote the energy and national security of the United States, in
accordance with the multiple-use management standard established by the
Federal Land Policy Management Act. It requires that all energy
resources, including wind, solar, hydropower, geothermal, oil, natural
gas, coal, oil shale, and minerals needed for energy development, be
included in the plan. These goals would be accomplished responsibly,
without repealing a single environmental regulation or review process.
Since President Obama took office, energy production on Federal lands
has declined significantly. Additionally, the drastic increase of
burdensome Federal regulations imposed by this administration is having
a detrimental effect on small businesses, jobs, and consumer prices
across the board. A recent study showed that the regulatory burden on
Americans is costing our economy about $1.8 trillion annually.
Colorado and our Western neighbors are home to vast energy reserves
that, if tapped and developed responsibly, could fuel our Nation's
economic recovery and ensure the United States remains competitive in
the world market. By promoting a commonsense regulatory framework,
embracing domestic energy research and development, and applying
environmental and safety standards already on the books, rather than
adding costly new mandates, we can help meet America's energy needs
right here at home, providing energy and economic security that will
benefit American families.
America's energy capabilities are being strangled, and rising gas
prices is one of the consequences. This doesn't have to be. A true all-
of-the-above energy strategy that unleashes our abundant resources will
lead to affordable energy for our families and small businesses for
years to come. Our nature and the future prosperity of our citizens
requires a true all-of-the-above domestic energy plan that responsibly
increases production on Federal lands while streamlining efficiencies
and reducing red tape.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. TIPTON. That is exactly what H.R. 4899 will accomplish. This
legislation puts people to work, putting people in America first,
keeping energy costs low for families and businesses, and strengthening
our national security.
I urge immediate passage of this bill.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, nothing I have heard has refuted the
points I made earlier.
In fact, the gentleman from South Carolina made the point about high
diesel prices. Well, if he was harking back to a time when diesel was
actually cheaper than gasoline, well, back then, we didn't export much
refined diesel. Now we are exporting in the vicinity of 1 million
barrels a day of diesel. So the price of diesel is up because we are
paying the so-called world price. And if we exported 2 million barrels
a day, the world price wouldn't go down.
And then you have the issue with the speculators on Wall Street, as I
mentioned earlier. According to the head of ExxonMobil, 60 cents a
gallon--and that would be diesel and gasoline--goes directly to
speculators on Wall Street, those high-frequency traders who are so
vital to our economy.
We do have a few statistics just to keep it straight. Gasoline
production was at a record high in May, but unfortunately, gas prices
were pretty darn high. This is from the Energy Information
Administration, and they quote the American Petroleum Institute, which
is the group that wants to begin to export crude oil. So if we produce
more crude oil, we will put it in the world market or sell it to China
so they can refine it. And that will somehow insulate us against price
spikes because we will be flooding the world oil market with oil that
is produced more cheaply here but sold more expensively over there. But
unfortunately, that means that we pay the same price here that gets
paid over there. That is another problem.
But anyway, the chief economist for API, John Felmy, said: ``We've
developed a good export market for distillates. So we produce more
gasoline than demand warrants.'' Yet the price is up. Go figure.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
I will make a couple points here, Mr. Chairman. My good friend, the
gentleman from Oregon, was right, that we have debated these issues on
the floor before. We passed the bills--the offshore bill and the
onshore bill, two separate bills--with bipartisan support. But there
seems to be a pattern in this Congress that we are trying to break
because we know that any legislation cannot become law until the House
acts on it and the Senate acts on it. And those bills are over there
awaiting action in the Senate. So hope springs eternal. Maybe if we put
these things together and then have some reforms on the offshore
regulation, maybe, just maybe, the Senate will come to some sort of
epiphany and say, we will pass these bills together. So that is the
hope that we have here, and hopefully that will happen.
Now, I want to make a couple of other points that have not really
been made here in the debate today. We need to understand that crude
oil is a global product and, therefore, is subject to global price
pressures. But there is also one other factor that is rarely mentioned,
and that is that the global market is largely controlled by one cartel,
and that is OPEC. The last figures I have is that they control roughly
40 to 45 percent of the world market.
Now, we know from basic economics, where you are talking about other
commodities where there is a cartel holding prices up, the best way to
beat cartels is to out-supply the cartels. When you out-supply the
cartels, you have less speculation in the marketplace, as has been
proven over time. And the point that we are making here with the
potential resources we have in America, we have the opportunity to
start the process of out-supplying cartels. That is what is so
important in this debate. And that is why we should act on these bills,
and that is why the Senate should act on these bills.
And finally, the last point: when we do have leases in this country,
it takes a long time, from the standpoint of when the lease is let,
until you produce oil or produce any product whatsoever.
At the start of this administration, back in 2009, this
administration had the benefit of the lease sales that went into place
under the Bush administration. So this administration had the benefit
of high production on Federal lands because of the work of the Bush
administration for the 8 years before that.
But as I mentioned in my opening remarks, lease sales have gone down
now, production has gone down, the fact that this 5-year plan that was
just introduced by the President will probably take more time. I think
we are going to see more of a decrease in production on Federal lands.
That is why this bill is needed so much.
{time} 1730
So, Mr. Chairman, this is legislation that the House has faced in the
past and has passed with bipartisan support. We need to do it again
because, with rising gas prices, this is an answer to the long-term
rising gas prices and energy prices in this country.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
The legislation before us today is hardly worth debating, not because
these issues are unimportant, but because these are the same tired pro-
big oil and gas bills that we have debated over-and-over again.
H.R. 4899 is a combination H.R. 2231, Offshore Energy and Jobs Act
and H.R. 1965, Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act of 2013.
Both these bills have already been passed by the House in the First
Session, over my objections, and in the 112th Congress we similarly
considered nearly identical bills.
The White House threatens to veto these bills, the Senate will never
bring them up, but here we are again, on the week before the July
recess, in another attempt to score political points by pushing
policies that harm our
[[Page H5757]]
environment and ignore the threat of climate change.
I know my friends on the other side of the aisle wouldn't consider
themselves environmentalists, but I'm glad to know that at the very
least they support recycling.
I think this has been said before but there are three Rs to recycling
and one of them is reuse.
However, another recycling-R is to reduce but we certainly are not
making an effort to limit how many times we can bring the same bill to
the floor. And the bill before us absolutely does not recognize that
our domestic demand for oil has decreased in recent years even as
production has continued to rise.
I'm opposed to H.R. 4899 for the same reasons I have opposed H.R.
2231 and H.R. 1965.
This bill would require a new outer continental shelf leasing plan,
even though the Department of Interior has already begun the process of
writing a new plan. It would require leases of offshore areas that have
been excluded from leasing previously because of lack of infrastructure
and environmental concerns.
The bill cost the federal government money by providing more offshore
revenue to a handful of coastal states.
The bill prevents coordination of agencies with coastal management
responsibilities by prohibiting the National Ocean Policy. This will
create more offshore conflicts and likely limit the ability of energy
companies to operate safely and effectively in coastal areas.
And all of that is just offshore.
Onshore H.R. 4899 irresponsibility and unnecessarily would expedite
the approval of drilling, while limiting judicial review.
The bill would also require a plan to lease an ever increasing amount
of area onshore, in part by requiring a plan to cover the National
Petroleum Reserve-Alaska with a spider web of roads and pipelines.
In closing, oil and gas production is up, thanks in part to the
policies of the Obama administration, and as a result energy imports
are down.
This bill will not lower energy prices, and it will not help us
develop new sources of clean energy. These are the same policies and
the same talking points we have heard again-and-again.
And again, I am strongly opposed to this bill and I urge my
colleagues to oppose H.R. 4899.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee
do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Tipton) having assumed the chair, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4899) to
lower gasoline prices for the American family by increasing domestic
onshore and offshore energy exploration and production, to streamline
and improve onshore and offshore energy permitting and administration,
and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________