Adaptation to Changing Crude Oil Markets
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
I have been here in Congress for 21 years, and during that time, we always hear talk about we want to be energy-independent in the United States. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle always talk about the dream of energy independence, where we don't have to depend on any other country for our oil. It would change policy in the Middle East, and it would dramatically improve our national security. Well, the bad news is, Mr. Chairman, we are not energy-independent. We use 17 million barrels of oil a day, but we only produce 9 million, which means we are still importing nearly half of all the oil we use.
Now, here is the good news, Mr. Chairman. Horizontal drilling and all this oil we are finding in the shale formations gives us a chance to be truly energy-independent. We could produce an additional 9 million barrels a day, and we wouldn't have to depend on any other country in the world for our oil. All we have to do is produce what we have in our own country and make sure that we have refinery capacity to take care of this light sweet crude, and we are energy-independent.
So the question is, Mr. Chairman, why aren't we investing in our own domestic refinery capacity to keep high-paying jobs here in the United States in the refinery industry, in the maritime trades, and in manufacturing, like steelmaking? Why aren't we doing that for America while enhancing America's security?
We had the former commander of the USS Cole, Kirk Lippold, testify before our committee. He highlighted ``the significant national security risks associated with greater oil imports.'' He said that ``too many times in recent history, the U.S. has made oil deals with hostile or unfriendly governments that actually threaten our foreign policy and our national security objectives.
``Lifting the export ban will undermine U.S. power projection capabilities by undermining the competitiveness of our U.S. refineries.''
Do we really want to undermine the U.S. military?
And then we hear the story that, somehow, lifting this ban is going to help our European allies because it will reduce their dependence on Russian oil. Well, that is a myth, too.
As Commander Lippold testified before our committee, ``the primary recipient of this U.S. exported oil is going to be Asia, specifically, China.''
So we want to export U.S. oil to China and still have to import oil from countries that aren't necessarily friendly to us. Why would we do that?
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 702 is deeply flawed because it doesn't allow for any future oversight of oil exports under any circumstances. Even if there is an oil spike or a shortage, there is no ``safety valve'' to ensure that we have enough of this critical resource for our Armed Forces, our industries, and our constituents.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, this bill undermines our national security, and we are still importing an incredible amount of oil. This just defies common sense, and we should reject it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source