[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 196 (Thursday, November 20, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H4835-H4841]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RESEARCHING EFFICIENT FEDERAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR NECESSARY ENERGY
REFINING ACT
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 879, I call up
the bill (H.R. 3109) to require the Secretary of Energy to direct the
National Petroleum Council to issue a report with respect to
petrochemical refineries in the United States, and for other purposes,
and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 879, the bill
is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3109
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Researching Efficient
Federal Improvements for Necessary Energy Refining Act'' or
the ``REFINER Act''.
SEC. 2. REPORT ON PETROCHEMICAL REFINERIES.
Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this
section, the Secretary of Energy shall direct the National
Petroleum Council to--
(1) submit to the Secretary of Energy and Congress a report
containing--
(A) an examination of the role of petrochemical refineries
located in the United States and the contributions of such
petrochemical refineries to the energy security of the United
States, including the reliability of supply in the United
States of liquid fuels and feedstocks, and the affordability
of liquid fuels for consumers in the United States;
(B) analyses and projections with respect to--
(i) the capacity of petrochemical refineries located in the
United States;
(ii) opportunities for expanding such capacity; and
(iii) the risks to petrochemical refineries located in the
United States;
(C) an assessment of any Federal or State executive
actions, regulations, or policies that have caused or
contributed to a decline in the capacity of petrochemical
refineries located in the United States; and
(D) any recommendations for Federal agencies and Congress
to encourage an increase in the capacity of petrochemical
refineries located in the United States; and
(2) make publicly available the report submitted under
paragraph (1).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour,
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie) and the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).
General Leave
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on this
legislation and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3109.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the American economy is fueled by petrochemical
refineries
[[Page H4836]]
providing affordable diesel and gasoline to families, critical inputs
for our manufacturers, and products imperative for the maintenance of
our defense systems.
The national security component of a viable refining industry cannot
be overstated, and we must not forfeit these essential supply chains.
Under the previous administration, we saw the impact of an energy
retreat: higher prices for families and businesses, emboldened
adversaries, sluggish economies, and increasing reliance on other
nations.
Unfortunately, this is still the case in States like California,
where a hostile regulatory environment has forced refineries to reduce
operations. In fact, the Golden State is expected to lose 17 percent of
its capacity in the next year. This has led to an average gasoline
price of nearly $5 per gallon, an increased fuel dependence on Asian
producers, and jeopardizing the fuel supply chain of military
installations in their State.
We must not let this become status quo across the country. H.R. 3109
requires the National Petroleum Council to collect and examine
information regarding the role of petrochemical refineries in the
United States and their contributions to affordability, security, and
reliability. The report will assess opportunities to expand capacity as
well as current risks to refineries.
H.R. 3109 will provide the Committee on Energy and Commerce the
information we need to enact policies to deliver affordable, reliable,
and clean energy to all Americans.
I thank Representative Latta, the chairman of the Energy
Subcommittee, for his leadership on this issue.
I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 3109, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, which is a complete
and utter waste of the House of Representatives' time.
It asks the National Petroleum Council to do a study, and that is it.
That is the entire bill. In my opinion, to ask the National Petroleum
Council to do something it can already do on its own makes absolutely
no sense.
The House was out of session for over 50 days because Speaker Johnson
refused to bring Congress back to resolve the healthcare crisis created
by Republicans and to reopen the government. Now, Speaker Johnson
claims we will be working day and night on important problems. I
certainly agree that we should be doing that. We should be working on
problems that Americans care about, but millions of Americans are
seeing their healthcare costs skyrocket because the President and
Republicans refuse to extend critical tax credits that make healthcare
more affordable for millions of Americans.
Millions more are paying thousands of dollars more a year for
everyday goods because of the President's tariffs. These tariffs are
attacks on the American people, and they are expected to cost families
more than $2,000 each year when they take full effect.
Meanwhile, prices on everything from utilities to food to energy,
even prices for Thanksgiving dinner next week, are going up.
You would think that House Republicans would be doing something,
anything, anything at all to fight these high prices. Instead, we are
here talking about a bill that requires a Big Oil and Gas lobby group
to put together a report. That is it.
I cannot stress enough that this report is simply not needed,
regardless of who does it. In fact, it is almost an insult,
particularly to refinery workers on the East Coast, including my State
of New Jersey, who don't need a study to tell them why refining
capacity here has dropped by over one third in the last decade. It all
goes back to the repeal of the crude oil export ban in 2015.
You don't have to take my word for it. The nonpartisan Government
Accountability Office found in a 2020 report--that was a report--that
domestic refinery margins suffered in the wake of the repeal. This bill
only asks for the report to assess executive actions, regulations, or
policies that have impacted refineries, not a change in the law. If it
were dealing with a change in the law, I think that would make sense.
It is a massive, massive oversight to not talk about the law and what
happened when the crude oil export ban was lifted 10 years ago. That is
what caused the problem with refineries.
The most ridiculous part of this bill is that it demands the study
not be done by the Department of Energy but by the National Petroleum
Council, an industry advisory body for Big Oil and Gas. I have no doubt
that the National Petroleum Council will produce a biased report that
will likely complain about every environmental regulation that they
don't like, but that protects the American people. That is what
Republicans have been doing: repealing all the environmental
regulations.
If Republicans wanted an unbiased view of domestic refining
challenges, they would have asked the Department of Energy to craft a
report. That is not what they are looking for because Republicans just
want to sanction fossil fuel propaganda. That is what they are doing
with this bill.
It is a waste of everyone's time, Mr. Speaker. It is just another
example of how Republicans have absolutely no ideas to help American
families lower everyday costs.
We need to be working on real solutions, Democrats and Republicans,
to address the affordability crisis. That is what the American people
want, not this report.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
When I was a young man in the 1970s--when I was a kid, I guess, in
the 1970s--I remember gas lines and having to push my father's car to
get gasoline. At the time, everybody said we were going to run out of
crude oil. That was the thing, running out of crude oil.
I appreciate the gentleman bringing up the crude oil issue. It is
actually because of the ingenuity of the American people that we have
an abundance of crude oil. The issue isn't crude oil. It is the
refining capacity.
Since I was a kid, we found this abundance of crude oil in the
Permian Basin, North Dakota, and all the places I can name. We have
more oil than they have in the Middle East, which, when I was a kid, a
lot of it was coming from the Middle East.
Then, you have this chokepoint of refining capacity. We haven't built
a new refinery in the United States since I was a kid, so that is the
thing that we want to address. That is the issue we want to address. We
do want prices to go down. We don't want it to be $5 a gallon.
I was putting gas in a rental car in California, and I looked over at
the guy next to me. I paid probably $2.60 a gallon in Kentucky, and I
think it was $4.80 there. I said: Do you guys have any idea what the
rest of America is paying for gasoline?
We are here to address it, and we are addressing it by a bill
authored by my good friend, the chairman of the Energy Subcommittee, a
member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and a leader in this
arena.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Latta).
{time} 1310
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the chairman of the full
committee of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 3109, the REFINER
Act. This legislation will direct the National Petroleum Council to
report to Congress and the Department of Energy on petrochemical
refiners in the United States.
This legislation is essential to ensuring that the U.S. can reliably
produce enough refined products domestically. The Energy Information
Administration projects global demand for liquid fuels to increase by
about 20 million barrels per day by 2050. Alarmingly, over the last
several years, North America has lost an estimated 1 million barrels of
fuel per day due to low refining capacity.
The last report from the National Petroleum Council on refining was
completed over 20 years ago.
The report must include information concerning the contribution of
refineries to U.S. energy security; capacity projections of U.S.
petrochemical refineries; opportunities for expanding capacities and
risks to those refineries; an assessment of any State or Federal
executive actions, regulations, or policies that have caused or
contributed to
[[Page H4837]]
a decline in U.S. petrochemical refinery capacity; and recommendations
for how to increase refinery capacity.
American refineries have played a crucial role in providing secure,
affordable, and high-value petroleum products to global customers.
Importantly, this legislation would help identify States that have
caused or contributed to a decline in U.S. petrochemical refinery
capacity.
Hostile regulatory environments, like in California, have led to the
shuttering of several refineries. California used to be home to over 40
refineries in the 1980s. This number has now decreased to 14 as of last
year, with two additional refineries slated to close in early 2026.
These anticipated closures will disrupt fuel supplies and increase
energy prices for consumers, businesses, and farmers.
An analysis by the University of Southern California anticipates
retail gas prices in the State could increase by as much as 75 percent
under certain conditions. The bottom line: Fewer refineries result in
supply disruptions and higher fuel prices for Americans.
The REFINER Act seeks to produce a detailed roadmap to strengthen and
expand refinery capacity to increase American energy security and
economic growth.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I
thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, my point is that this report does not ask
the people that are doing it to look into the change of law that would
be necessary in order to bring refineries back.
The reason why we lost so many refineries, particularly on the East
Coast and New Jersey, was because the ban on the export of crude oil
was lifted 10 years ago. You don't need a refinery if you can export
the crude, but this report doesn't address that at all.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Castor), the ranking member of our Energy
Subcommittee.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3109.
I know my Republican colleagues want to pretend that this is a
simple, unbiased study bill, but it is not. The bill asks the National
Petroleum Council, a council that is made up of members from the oil
and gas industry, to create a report that says that the United States
needs more oil and gas. I fear that what this is a recipe for is higher
electric bills and higher costs for hardworking Americans who already
are being crushed by higher bills.
There are unbiased public servants who could write this report--for
example, at the Department of Energy--but, of course, Elon Musk and the
Trump administration have pushed out more than 3,500 public servants
there. As a result, the Department of Energy is in trouble. The
Department has even had to ask external lawyers for things like
defending against challenges relating to their illegal cancelations of
projects across the country.
To bring this bill at a time when people really want to see the
Congress work to solve problems, I think, demonstrates that Members are
out of touch. It is part of a very disturbing Republican trend, led by
the President, to purge the government of real experts and to slash and
burn, like medical research, finding the cures and treatments that we
need to survive and thrive; trying to illegally dismantle the
Department of Education; and going after public health and really
ruining a lot of the expert public health advice that helps keep our
neighbors healthy and safe.
Then, here, when we are talking about oil and gas and their
lobbyists, they are so firmly in control of the agenda here in the
United States Congress. I just think my colleagues are not solving
problems. Watching the President just remain out of touch is so painful
to people back home that they feel betrayed.
Even during the Republican shutdown, was the President focused on
trying to negotiate a solution there or trying to take us out of the
healthcare crisis? No. He was giving the White House a makeover. He
tore down the entire East Wing to make way for a 90,000-square-foot,
$300 million ballroom, funded by corporations that have a lot to gain
monetarily; and he had ``Great Gatsby'' parties at Mar-a-Lago with
dancing girls. It is just mind-boggling.
Back to electric bills. Let's not forget that President Trump
convened oil industry executives and lobbyists at his home last year to
ask for $1 billion for his Presidential campaign. Well, now they are
coming to collect.
Even after almost 2 months, when Speaker Johnson had the House of
Representatives shut down because he didn't want to find a solution to
rising healthcare costs and he wanted to avoid a vote to release the
Epstein files, we could have been focusing on, behind the scenes, some
ways to lower costs and solve real problems, but they continue to bring
bills like this: a study on how we produce more oil and gas.
Here is the connection to higher bills. While they want to pad the
profits of oil and gas companies, what they are doing to sabotage jobs
and cleaner, cheaper energy now is showing up in people's electric
bills, and they are angry.
I was with neighbors a couple of weeks ago who were burning their
electric bills because costs are increasing so dramatically.
Why? On January 20, the President froze Federal leasing for wind
projects and blocked permits for projects that had already been
approved.
On February 5, the Army Corps of Engineers halted permits for 168
renewable energy projects on private lands.
In March, as part of his tariff war, he imposed a 10 percent tax on
energy imported from Canada, hitting Midwestern States with higher gas
prices.
In April, the Trump administration abruptly fired the entire staff
overseeing the low-income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps
working families afford their utility bills. Weeks later, the White
House proposed cutting it entirely.
In May, the Secretary of Energy ordered an old Michigan coal plant to
stay online, forcing the company to spend nearly $1 million a day.
These are costs that are passed on to families across the Midwest.
In June, the Trump administration's EPA proposed a rule to allow coal
and gas power plants to emit unlimited amounts of climate pollution,
locking us into a dirtier and more expensive future.
In July, Republicans passed their big, ugly bill, which will saddle
American families with price hikes of at least $110 next year and up to
$4,000 annually within a decade.
In August, EPA announced an illegal cancellation of the $7 billion
Solar for All Grant Initiative, which was intended to bring affordable
energy to more than 900,000 hardworking American households.
In September, the Trump administration unveiled a more than $600
million bailout for coal plants to keep them online.
In October, while shutting down the government to deny Americans
access to affordable healthcare, the White House tried to claw back
billions in clean energy funds.
These actions are costly, and American families deserve better. We
should be working together to solve problems and not wasting time on
trying to figure out how we pad the profits of industries. Instead, we
should be looking out for the pocketbooks of the people who sent us
here. People deserve better. Hardworking Americans expect better of
this Congress.
I hope that we can send a message on this bill and the next one that
we are not going to put up with it anymore. We want real solutions to
lower the cost of living.
{time} 1320
Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the
gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation
of the rules of the House.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is frustrating that we lost 42 days because our side of the aisle
wanted to open the government and wanted to have the government
operating. We
[[Page H4838]]
wanted to sit down and work through the issues before us, not choosing
to not fund the government.
I was always embarrassed to even look in the eye--I voted for all of
it--to go see a TSA agent at the airport in Nashville in my home State
of Tennessee where I fly out of, the FAA people going to work at the
airport. I was embarrassed coming here and seeing the people sitting in
front of us here, the people guarding the doors of the Capitol
building, with no respect, having them come to work without respect and
paying them. That was extremely frustrating to me. It is just beyond
pale that that happened.
On the Epstein files, the Speaker tried to come and unanimous consent
the Epstein files. Remember, last week he came down and said let's pass
the Epstein files, and the other side of the aisle objected to it. I
don't know why they would object to passing the files.
They held it up for several days. I know there were a few rallies
that happened, and then we all voted. It was 427-1. Were they trying to
get the Epstein files out, or were they trying to make sure people got
in town for their rallies? That is what I would like to know.
The National Petroleum Council that we are referring to in this bill
is a part of the Department of Energy. All through government, we have
councils of people that are experts in their fields who come to D.C.
The Department of Labor has them. People from the labor community come
and have councils to give advice on bills.
We know we have ample crude. We know the ingenuity of the American
people to have ample crude. What we are talking about today is where 40
refineries in California have gone to 14. If you want affordability,
not only do you have to be able to get the crude out of the ground, you
have to refine it to where we can use it.
As we are shrinking refining capacity in this country and increasing
demand, if we don't increase supply, we are not going to have
affordability. You can talk about affordability all you want, but you
have got to have the supply to address it. That is what we are focused
on doing today.
We want the experts to give us their information. We don't have to do
what they say. We want to take their information, take the good ideas
and try to implement them into where we can provide lower prices.
If you think this doesn't work, come buy gas in Kentucky. Then go to
my good friends who are sitting here from California and buy gas in
their State, then tell us what does efficient energy policy do for
affordability. I will challenge them to do that. I will say you can buy
the most expensive gas in Kentucky, and we will compare that to what is
going on in California.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Carter), my good friend and very important member of the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.
3109, the REFINER Act.
For too long, America has fallen behind in refining capacity. In
fact, we have lost an estimated 1 million barrels of fuel per day due
to low refining capacity.
The Biden administration declared war on American energy by
suspending oil and gas leasing on Federal lands, delaying permits for
energy infrastructure, and canceling the Keystone XL pipeline.
With President Trump and House Republicans in charge, those days are
over with now.
The REFINER Act offers a commonsense solution to this critical issue.
This bill requires the National Petroleum Council to submit a report to
Congress analyzing the capacity of American refining and recommending
how we can increase our refining capacity.
The American people elected us to lower prices, especially prices at
the pump. This bill will provide crucial data and guidance on how we
can best reinforce our domestic energy infrastructure and help ensure
fuel costs are low for Americans.
This bill is an important step toward delivering American energy
dominance. It is something the President has worked on and is diligent
about.
If we are going to power domestic manufacturing, if we are going to
beat China in the AI race, and then deliver on affordable energy for
all, we must ensure that domestic refining can keep up.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend Representative Latta for introducing
this important piece of legislation, and I urge its immediate adoption.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, listening to my colleagues on the
Republican side of the aisle, this report obviously does absolutely
nothing to address the prices of power and electricity that continues
to go up.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a document from the Joint
Economic Committee, as well as a link to the document located at:
https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/22e24fd6-4db7-44c6-93a9-
9710c6f48b85/electricity-bills-report.pdf
[From the Joint Economic Committee Minority, Nov. 2025]
State-by-State Data: Annual Electricity Bills Up $100 Per Family in
2025
Last year, President Donald Trump repeatedly promised that
energy bills across the country would be ``cut in half''
within 12 months. However, this new Joint Economic
Committee--Minority analysis finds that electricity costs are
increasing significantly, with households in nearly every
state on track to pay more for electricity this year compared
to last year.
The Committee estimated full-year 2025 electricity costs
per state based on the monthly electricity bill data released
by the federal Energy Information Administration (EIA) for
January-August of 2025. The Committee projects that annual
electricity costs will be at least 5 percent higher than last
year in 37 states plus D.C., and at least 10 percent higher
than last year in 10 states plus D.C. On average, the
Committee projects that American households will pay
approximately $100 more per household in electricity costs
this year.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, last year, as I think everyone knows,
President Donald Trump repeatedly promised that energy bills across the
country would be cut in half within 12 months of his taking office.
This shows a State-by-State analysis of how much electricity bills have
gone up instead of being cut.
Just to mention to my two colleagues, here in Kentucky, it says that
they have gone up 11.8 percent; in Ohio, 9.9 percent; in New Jersey,
13.6 percent. Certainly nothing like the cut in half that President
Donald Trump promised. This report projects that American households
will pay approximately $100 more per household in electricity costs
this year.
We are going to deal with this pricing issue when we get to the next
bill about LNG, which, again, is only going to increase prices. It is
clear that the Republicans have no intention of dealing with this
crisis of affordability with electric or power bills, as well.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. DeSaulnier).
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I will say to my friend from Kentucky
that it has been a long time since you have been to the Bay Area, so I
will take you up on your offer.
One of the reasons I wanted to come down and speak to this is because
I represent an area in the Bay Area that has five refineries in it.
They have been valuable tax providers and employers for many years. One
of them is about to close and another one is in the process of closing.
Two others have spent billions of dollars to work on transitional
fuels, to put investment into those refineries to produce biofuels that
are part of the transition to cleaner, safer, more economical energy
sources. The last one, Chevron, is doing both.
I must say I am reminded, as I sit here, to the same arguments 30
years ago having been involved at the local level in California about
secondhand smoke and tobacco when the tobacco industry was insisting
that the Tobacco Institute do studies about the cost to smokers by
passing secondhand smoke ordinances that figured out the full cost to
consumers for people who didn't smoke.
As a former restaurant owner, who didn't allow people to smoke, it
just reminds me of the same thing. I believe in research because I have
worked with a refinery and oil companies for many years. I was one of
those regulators. I represented the Bay Area on the California Air
Resources Board for 10 years. I was appointed by two Republicans, by
the way, and one Democrat.
What we have done is, we are transitioning. Twenty-five percent of
the cars in northern California last
[[Page H4839]]
year were EVs. They were alternative fuels. We knew this was coming. We
have tried to work and invest in the refinery community on how we
transition for the local government, who required those taxes, and for
the employers-employees who need those jobs.
Let's do research on how we transition and give States the ability to
transition, if they choose, and local governments to transition. While
I value the research, let's be honest about having more research that
is more objective and consider the full cost to changing our energy.
Almost 50 million Americans live within a mile of a refinery or a
heavy processing plant. Their public health costs are
disproportionately affected by what we know from traditional
pollutants, particulate matter, and smog. Then when you add carbon into
it, the economic model changes completely.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest to Mr. Guthrie, before he comes out to the Bay
Area, we have a collegial conversation and we can go to those
refineries. I would particularly like to take him to the ones that have
invested on the transition because we know we need a transition for
those of us who want to go to as near-zero emissions as possible, and
we are succeeding.
I will remind my colleagues, too, across the aisle that the Chinese
are our global competition. The Chinese auto manufacturing industry is
about to become the largest auto manufacturer in the world. They are
all EVs.
They are moving to this. While we try to protect traditional energy
sources, let's be smart about the transition economically for American
consumers and taxpayers.
I don't disagree with looking at capacity, but let's do it in a
broader and more objective way that tells the full story as truthfully
as possible, so we as policymakers can be more thoughtful about the
short-term impacts of our policy decisions, as well as in the midterm
and long term.
{time} 1330
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from California, and I actually
do love going to California. I haven't been in the bay area in a couple
of years, and we will figure out an opportunity to come there. My
family tries to go to California as much as we can. I know he is from
the beautiful bay area. Actually, when I was talking about the high
price of gas, it was down in southern California, which has its own
beauty, as well.
I am a fan of California. Other than Kentucky, I think California is
one of the prettiest States we have in the Union. From the redwoods to
the Yosemite Valley, it is absolutely stunning. I absolutely would love
to come back out to the bay area because it is beautiful, as well.
In this bill, we are talking about electricity prices. China is
building the electric car industry, but they are also building the
power generation, like a coal plant a week, I think, to provide the
energy for that.
This bill we are talking about is on gasoline and diesel. Remember,
everything that arrives to a store comes on a truck. Sometimes they
come on a train, but the last mile is almost always or is always a
truck. Diesel prices, fuel prices, matter in terms of food prices and
about everything else that we consume.
This is important to do. Electric affordability is also important to
do, and we are committed. We will work together to get our prices down,
but we have to produce more.
That is what we are wondering. How do we efficiently, effectively,
safely, and cleanly produce more gasoline and diesel? You can't do it
without more refining capacity unless you decrease demand for it. That
is not the avenue we have to go, either.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Weber), my good friend and the vice chair of the Subcommittee on Energy
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the time.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to me that our friends across the
aisle say that we already have enough oil. It is also interesting that
President Obama, when he--the gentleman from Georgia, Buddy Carter,
mentioned the Keystone pipeline. It would have come into my district in
Texas, 830,000 barrels of oil a day. That is what we are talking about
refining on the Gulf Coast of Texas. If you transfer that to 18-
wheelers, it is about 5,253 18-wheeler tankers on the road every day.
The pipeline is the best way to do this.
Mr. Speaker, in Texas, we understand better than anyone else that
America's energy strength depends on what happens to the oil after it
comes out of the ground. The Keystone pipeline is a good example.
Mr. Speaker, it is our refineries, the men and women who run them,
and the communities built around those businesses that turn our
resources into fuels and products that power everyday life.
The REFINER Act takes on a question that Washington has ignored for
far too long: Are we doing enough to protect and expand America's
ability to refine the energy we produce? Right now, unfortunately, the
answer is no, we are not.
Over the last several years, America's refining capacity has gone
backward. We have lost more than a million barrels of capacity per day,
and several facilities have shut down altogether. The gentleman from
California mentioned one of them.
In several States, hostile policies are pushing refineries out so
fast that families are now facing higher prices and increased
dependence on foreign fuel.
That is not how you build energy security, Mr. Speaker. That is how
you weaken it.
Meanwhile, global demand for fuels is still rising and is expected to
grow as much as 20 million barrels a day by 2050.
The world isn't slowing down, Mr. Speaker, and neither should
American energy.
The REFINER Act takes a serious look at that situation, directs the
National Petroleum Council to review our refining capacity, identify
where we are vulnerable, and highlight opportunities for us to expand.
In other words, it gives us the facts we need to strengthen a critical
part of our energy supply chain.
When refineries close, families suffer; small businesses suffer;
transportation costs rise; and prices jump at the pump. The whole
region becomes dependent on foreign suppliers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Williams of Texas). The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the opposite of the
energy dominance vision that we are working toward under President
Trump.
Let me tell you this, Mr. Speaker--you know this--in Texas, we know
what happens when refineries thrive. We fuel the Nation. We even supply
our allies. We make money doing this, and we support thousands of good-
paying jobs.
The REFINER Act recognizes that refining isn't an afterthought. It is
a foundational piece of our national security, as well as our economic
strength.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3109.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, other than the Commonwealth
of Kentucky, California is one of those beautiful States in our--they
are all beautiful, actually. We live in a wonderful country. There is
nothing prettier than the tunnel view from Yosemite Valley.
I don't know, with your lines changing so much, but I know my good
friend from California used to represent our beautiful natural
resources in the National Park of Yosemite Valley. He still does.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
McClintock), my good friend and a classmate elected the same year.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, no one has suffered more than
Californians because of the left's war on fossil fuels. Forty years of
folly are now driving energy prices out of reach for working families
and driving those working families out of California.
In 1980, 40 refineries served the California market, producing
abundant gasoline at easily affordable prices. Mr. Latta said 14
refineries were left. His numbers are old. We are now down to
[[Page H4840]]
nine refineries, and two more of those, Phillips in southern California
and Valero in northern California, are closing by April. That will
leave us just seven refineries to serve the State.
Californians already pay the highest gasoline prices in the United
States, averaging $4.64 a gallon as of yesterday. The same gallon costs
only $2.56 in Oklahoma.
When we lose these next two refineries, economists at UC Berkeley
predict Californians will be paying more than $8 a gallon by the
summer. Leftwing zealots like Gavin Newsom obsess over a 1-degree rise
in global temperatures over the next century, but they couldn't care
less that they are making it impossible for growing numbers of
Californians to heat their homes or get to work.
This is not only a quality-of-life issue for Californians and a
cautionary tale for the rest of the country. It is a national security
risk, as well. Forty military bases depend on these dwindling West
Coast refineries. As California strangles production, we must
increasingly rely on foreign imports from our enemies.
H.R. 3109 requires the National Petroleum Council to report on ways
to reverse such foolish and self-destructive policies. What has
happened to California is the predictable result of bad policy made by
fools.
I hope the REFINER Act will shine a light on their folly and
recommend ways to reverse the damage that they have caused before they
can do any more harm to our Nation's prosperity and security.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Fong), who is from Bakersfield, California, and was
elected just recently to Congress.
Mr. FONG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3109,
the REFINER Act.
This legislation is critical to unleashing our energy potential,
lowering costs for hardworking families, and protecting our national
security.
U.S. refineries are vital to our energy ecosystem. They convert crude
oil into fuels and countless products, ranging from shoes and plastics
to cell phones, computers, solar panels, medical devices, and even
space suits. They make gasoline and diesel for our cars and trucks, and
they make jet fuel for our planes.
Yet, over the past few years, our refining capacity has declined due
to burdensome Federal and State policies.
I know this bitter reality all too well in my home State of
California.
{time} 1340
From 2020 to 2022, we lost more than 1 million barrels of production
capacity per day, and refinery closures are projected to slash that
capacity by 20 percent over the next year. Twenty percent of our
refining capacity is going to disappear overnight.
Since 2018, over 360 energy companies have left California. Oil
production has dropped by 47 million barrels over the past 5 years, and
foreign imports now account for over 60 percent of our crude supply in
California.
Californians pay nearly $5 a gallon. In fact, Californians are paying
the highest gas and electricity prices in the Nation, thanks to
Governor Gavin Newsom's radical-left failed energy policies. California
has an affordability crisis that Governor Gavin Newsom created, but
this crisis also goes well beyond the pump.
As California fuel production declines, it jeopardizes our national
security and undermines our military readiness, as multiple strategic
military bases rely on California fuel. With threats from our foreign
adversaries, like China, only continuing to grow, we cannot risk
leaving our defenses weakened.
The REFINER Act is common sense. It will help identify ways to expand
refining capacity, protect our energy infrastructure, and strengthen
our national security.
Mr. Speaker, we must act now to restore American energy dominance,
secure affordable fuel for families, and protect our Nation's military
defense. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3109.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, I urge President Trump and my Republican colleagues to
start taking the American affordability crisis seriously. President
Trump is simply out of touch with the reality that American families
are facing.
Earlier this week, he seemed to mockingly suggest that
``affordability'' is a word the Democrats made up to attack him. Well,
that is rich coming from a man who has declared bankruptcy six times.
The American people are hurting because of President Trump and the
Republican policies, and they should not be mocked for that. Even FOX
News reported last night that 76 percent of Americans view the economy
negatively.
Americans are struggling to afford basic necessities. A new report
from The Century Foundation found that utility prices are up 32 percent
since 2022. That is nearly three times the rate of inflation. Nearly a
quarter of that jump occurred just this year alone. These rising costs
are debilitating to the middle class. Nearly 1 in 20 households are in
severe utility debt.
Roughly 4 million Americans are at risk of having their utility bills
sent to collections. It is an incredible number. They have done nothing
wrong. They just can't afford to keep up with the exponential rise in
electricity prices. They can't afford to pay the bill.
Now, the two bills that are on the floor today, in my opinion, will
only increase the average utility bill even further. Just last week,
the U.S. Energy Information Association found that natural gas prices
will rise by 16 percent in 2026, primarily due to increased LNG exports
amid flat production growth.
Secretary Chris Wright promised to double LNG exports to countries
like China within 5 years. The next bill that we are going to consider
is all about giving more LNG to China, to Beijing, to Communist China.
Why are we helping them?
The American people desperately need a solution to lower energy costs
at home. Why does the President or the Secretary refuse to take care of
the American people that the Trump administration is supposed to
represent?
Now, I have said it before, but it bears repeating: The Trump
administration only cares about bailing out themselves and their fossil
fuel friends.
It is time for Republicans to come to the table to work with
Democrats on a solution to this affordability crisis, and it can begin
here with the Energy and Commerce Committee.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back the
balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, we are all concerned about rising prices. My friend from
New Jersey talked about since 2022, and he said the emphasis is on what
has happened in the first few months of this year.
The decisions were made prior to the present Trump administration to
take power offline. I know in my community down in Bowling Green,
Kentucky, a few years ago with the polar vortex, we actually had
blackouts, we had to have rolling blackouts because of taking power
offline.
We all want to address it. The way we address this is not taking
power offline, not building new, safer--my good friend from California
talked about what they are doing in California to make refineries
cleaner and safer, and that is what we want. We want refineries to
refine in a safe, responsible, and sustainable way. We can work
together to do that.
On the LNG we are going to talk about in just a few minutes, we do
have the gas in our country. We have people who can develop,
particularly in your home State, Mr. Speaker. The problem is, can we
move it to where it needs to go. We know the challenge isn't the access
to gas, it is actually moving it to where it needs to be.
We need to work together. I think Natural Resources today had a
markup, T&I is working on a markup, and we hopefully can work together
as Members across the aisle in the Energy and Commerce Committee to do
our share to make sure this explosive growth of energy is not just in
gas and diesel but also in electricity. We need every electron we can
produce to beat China.
Talking about China, China is struggling and working as hard as they
can to beat us to control the data that flows around the world through
AI. It
[[Page H4841]]
is our job on this committee to see that that doesn't happen for this
country, and that is because we have to have enough energy.
Again, this is a Department of Energy council, made up of people in
the industry, to give us a report to see where we should go in making
sure that America has proper refining. It is not a report that is going
to produce what we do. It is the kind of report that informs us in what
we do. I know on our side of the aisle--I think on both sides of the
aisle--we try to take as much information as we can to make a
reasonable decision to make sure we have clean, sustainable, but ample
and safe fuel for this country in order to get groceries to the grocery
store, either through diesel or gasoline.
Prices matter. It hurts families when their electric bills are high
and when their grocery bills are high because people have to eat and
they have to have a safe and clean place to live. This is what this is
about. This is what our struggle is over, and this is what we are going
to accomplish as a committee.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 3109, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 879, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________