[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 2]
[House]
[Page 1735]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         PROPOSED CRUDE OIL FEE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tipton) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time of year, we are starting to 
work on budgets in Washington, D.C.
  The President recently proposed his eighth budget. If we want to give 
credit to the President, he is consistent. He believes that we are just 
one tax increase, one regulation, one more government program away from 
prosperity in America. But the reality is, Americans in my district are 
struggling. They are struggling to be able to maintain the jobs they 
have. Far too many Americans are struggling to be able to find a job.
  One area where we have had an opportunity to be able to provide good-
paying jobs has been in responsible energy development in this country. 
Today, I would like to be able to speak to some of the deeply flawed 
logic by the Obama administration in trying to eliminate the use of 
fossil fuels in America.
  Mr. Speaker, over the last year and a half, despite the 
administration's best attempts to stifle production, one of the few 
areas of the economy that has provided some financial relief to the 
poor and middle class has been the low price of energy. The cause of 
this has been the result of American productivity and American 
ingenuity driving down the costs, making it more affordable for people.
  It is a surprise to no one then that, with his latest budget 
proposal, the President is trying in earnest to take the little savings 
Americans have welcomed into their wallets and now feed it back to Big 
Government.
  Effectively, what the President is stating is that government--
Washington--needs those resources more than the American people do.
  Two days ago, the President presented a budget that included a $10 
per barrel tax on crude oil. His budget stated that if tax would result 
in $319 billion in revenues that would be used to fund transportation 
infrastructure, ``reduce America's reliance on oil,'' and ensure 
``electric cars and other alternatives to oil-based vehicles have the 
technology and charging infrastructure they need.''
  I believe we need to be clear. I firmly back the notion that we need 
to have an all-of-the-above strategy. That is highlighted in the bill I 
have introduced in this Congress, Planning for American Energy Act, 
which literally calls for all of the above. It explicitly states as 
such.
  Those resources and technologies are only part of what should be a 
multi-pronged strategy. If true energy independence is our goal, we 
cannot simply price ourselves out of using traditional energy resources 
and transportation fuels. Yet, that is unmistakably exactly what the 
President is proposing.
  So, while cheap energy is one of the few things keeping the economy 
out of a nose dive into a further deep recession, the President 
proposes a tax cut on crude oil--whether produced domestically or 
abroad--that will cut directly into already low revenues, and will 
undoubtedly be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices at 
the pump.
  An additional $10 per barrel will be a significant sum, even with a 
healthy commodity price, but on the day that the President submitted 
his proposal, the spot price for a barrel of oil was just under $30. 
Given that our oil and gas energy sector is already struggling mightily 
with this downswing in price, what exactly does the President hope to 
accomplish by wresting away a third of that sum? The economic impacts 
of this policy on an industry that is already struggling would be 
extremely harmful.
  Now, I assume that when we envision who the industry is, the picture 
comes to mind of large, multinational corporations. Make no mistake: 
they, too, will feel the impacts. But the brunt of an ill-conceived 
policy, such as what the President has put forward, will fall squarely 
on the shoulders of small- and medium-sized companies that make up the 
backbone of our domestic oil and gas industry.
  It will also fall squarely on the many contractors who work in those 
companies. They are geologists, engineers, construction companies, well 
servicing companies, and the hospitality industry. They are the many 
hardworking Americans working to provide for their families and working 
to provide the rest of us with an invaluable resource that we too often 
take for granted.
  The President wishes to move us away from oil as a transportation 
fuel, so he pursues a purely ideological strategy to force it, never 
mind who is trampled in the process.
  The President wishes, instead, to pursue electric vehicle sales, 
which, in 2015, accounted for less than 1 percent of the total car 
sales in the country. Yet, he takes measures to halt coal leasing and 
bludgeon coal-fired power plants into nonexistence. Coal, of course, is 
the single largest source of electricity in the United States.
  These two incoherent policy pursuits are a perfect demonstration of 
the complete lack of vision this administration has when it comes to 
achieving actual energy independence.
  Let's stand up for the American consumer and American jobs and reject 
the President's budget proposals.

                          ____________________