[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 154 (Wednesday, October 21, 2015)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1498]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            H.R. 702--TO ADAPT TO CHANGING CRUDE OIL MARKETS

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. EARL BLUMENAUER

                               of oregon

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, October 21, 2015

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I voted against H.R. 702--to adapt to 
changing crude oil markets--on Friday, October 9th. This legislation 
will broadly remove almost all restrictions on crude oil exports from 
the United States. It was ill-advised and represented a huge missed 
opportunity to address our energy needs comprehensively.
  Right now, we export limited amounts of crude oil from the United 
States, and this policy is working. There may come a time when it would 
be strategic to make an adjustment on our export strategy, but right 
now we are awash in oil in this country, gasoline prices are low and 
the President already has the latitude to help some of our strategic 
partners with limited U.S. exports if he deems it in the national 
interest.
  Those in favor of exporting more crude tout benefits of job creation 
and lower gas prices. This is dramatically overstated. If some jobs are 
created in the oil fields, other jobs will be lost in refineries. The 
Energy Information Administration estimates that exporting more crude 
now would either have no impact on the cost of gasoline or only 
slightly reduce the price of gasoline. The real benefactors of this 
policy change would be large oil companies.
  If Congress is going to provide yet another benefit to oil companies 
who don't need it, at the very least it should be part of a larger 
energy package that would actually help the American people and further 
our domestic energy security needs. We need to extend tax credits that 
support the wind and solar electricity sectors, industries that 
actually create far more jobs than would come from exporting more crude 
oil. We need to end some of the more egregious subsidies for the oil 
and gas sector, subsidies that cost the taxpayers billions of dollars 
every year. We need to reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
which supports important conservation projects in every community in 
America. Instead of passing an isolated giveaway to big oil, we should 
take any energy legislation that comes to the floor as opportunity to 
look at energy comprehensively, with the ultimate goal of transitioning 
away from fossil fuels while keeping energy affordable and reliable for 
the American people.
  If Republicans were actually serious about pursuing a bipartisan 
agenda, they would not have included provisions that broadly prevent 
the federal government from imposing any restriction on the export of 
crude oil under other authorities. They would not have included non-
germane, vote-buying provisions such as the last-minute addition of 
funding for the Maritime Security Program (MSP). That is why I voted 
for an amendment offered by my colleague, Representative Amash, to keep 
MSP at its currently authorized level, instead of the $500 million 
increase included in this legislation. There's no doubt that the 
sustainability of the MSP program is in question without increased 
funding. That is sadly the case for many federally-supported programs, 
all directly impacted by a Congress unwilling to provide additional 
revenue or compromise on an effort to finally eliminate the reckless 
sequestration caps that I've voted against since day one. Even if MSP 
were to receive the relief they need ahead of many others hurt by 
budgetary brinksmanship, the funding level ought to be carefully 
scrutinized. The highly debated, amended, and conferenced fiscal year 
2016 Defense Authorization did exactly that, and concluded that the 
annual subsidy for MSP participants should increase from $3.1 million 
per vessel to $3.5 million per vessel--a 12.9 percent increase, not the 
40 percent increase included in H.R. 702.
  Overall, H.R. 702 was bad policy and represented a huge missed 
opportunity to address our real energy needs.

                          ____________________