North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to figure out who would be opposed to this amendment, so maybe I will just talk my few minutes and go from there.
The bill deals with energy, and I am trying to figure out, let's see, energy that goes along in wires would be electrical energy. If it is coal, it is probably on a truck or a train. If it is oil or gas, it is on a pipeline or maybe in a truck, maybe in a boat or barge.
But this bill doesn't speak to the transportation of energy, so this amendment is extraordinarily important because it really says that, if you are going to study energy, you better study how you are going to get it to wherever it needs to go. This amendment, being such an important amendment, and so long--let's see, transportation. Wow, not even 15 letters. That is all it does. It simply adds the word ``transportation'' to the study section of this bill, requiring the Department of Energy, as it studies energy, to study how it gets from here to there. That is it.
Now, I can go on for another 4 minutes or so, but after doing so, it won't make any difference because we really need to study energy and figure out how it gets to where it needs to go. That is the amendment. Add the word ``transportation'' in it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I came in prepared for a brawl, and all I get is acceptance of an amendment. I think I will go with that and say thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the extraordinary wisdom that apparently we both seem to have.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, ever since I got involved in public policy, which was about 40 years ago, this Nation has been crying for energy independence.
I remember my very first campaign in 1974, during the oil energy crisis, when there was all around the world no oil available and no gas available, and we wanted to be energy independent. We are actually getting close to it; although, we continue to import 25 percent of our crude oil, but maybe we are on the cusp of being energy independent.
So what does Big Oil want to do? It is not good enough that they should be the wealthiest of all corporations in America and the world. They want to take our precious and almost energy independent oil and export it.
Where is it going to go? Where is the market? China, for sure, wants oil. They are going to need to double their import of oil. So where is Big Oil going to go with our precious natural resource that we have for at least the last 40 years been trying to use to achieve energy independence?
Why would my good friend from Texas give away to Big Oil our energy independence? Why would we do that?
By the way, the 1975 law does not prohibit. It puts the hand of the government--the President and the Secretary of Commerce--on the spigot, and if it is not in America's interest to export, they can shut the spigot down. There is no such protection in this. The only hand on the spigot for the export of oil is Big Oil. There is $30 billion a year of additional revenue for Big Oil--as if they don't already have enough.
What about the rest of the Nation? Shouldn't this natural resource asset of America's be shared? It could be. Control the spigot to the benefit of the people at the gas pump. My farmers need chemicals and fertilizer coming from the oil industry. They need the pipes--they need all of the material--and they need the diesel. Oh, we can forget about the farmers. After all, Big Oil wants to ship our precious natural resource--oil--overseas, probably to China.
So why don't we put a control on this, and if it is not in the public interest, don't do it? $8.7 billion of refining infrastructure will not be built as a result of this export. Whose jobs are those? They are the American middle class', which, apparently, all of us want to protect and enhance. Those are middle class jobs. $8.7 billion of infrastructure is not going to be built in our refineries.
This is not a big deal. After all, Big Oil wants it. It is no big deal that we would take, as we move towards energy independence, the one product that is available that could diminish the 25 percent oil we currently import. No. We are simply going to ship it offshore. For whose benefit? Are the American mariners going to benefit from that? No. Are the American shipbuilders going to benefit from that? No, not at all. Who is going to benefit? Some in the oil patch will benefit for sure, and, certainly, the Big Oil companies will benefit; but will the American consumer at the gasoline pump benefit?
I have seen the studies. You can design a study that will show it, but it means nothing. Remember this: $30 billion of oil a year is going to leave this country. For whose benefit? For Big Oil? It is not for the person at the gas pump. It is not for the farmer who is buying the diesel. It is not for the farmer who wants to buy the fertilizer. Give it away. Let them have it--as if they don't already have enough. For a century, Big Oil has been subsidized by the American public. Enough already.
I don't think this is a good idea. I don't think it is a good idea to take our crude oil and allow it to be shipped overseas with absolutely no restrictions whatsoever. You want a strong vote on this? Then make it a strong ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source