H.R. 702 - To Adapt to Changing Crude Oil Markets

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source