Strategic Production Response Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CASTEN. 66.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CASTEN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would require oil and gas companies drilling on public lands to submit plans for cutting the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and use of their products in half by 2030 and to zero by 2050, as is called for by climate science. My amendment would allow the release of no more than 1 percent of the superpollutant methane brought to the surface by drilling operations.

Mr. Chairman, let's be honest here. We have been here a long night. H.R. 21 is not about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, nor is it about domestic energy security, because if it was, we would be talking about the fact that the United States is an oil exporter.

We have a lot of tools, not just limited to what is in a few tanks around the country, to affect domestic supply of oil, but we are not talking about that, are we? We are talking about using the SPR to get a nose under the tent to meet the larger and consistent Republican goal to expand drilling on public lands.

Since this bill is really about public lands, we cannot discuss this bill without addressing our stewardship responsibilities for those lands, forested lands that are increasingly prone to climate change- driven wildfires; coastal lands that are prone to climate change-driven sea level rises; and wild lands where climate change and drilling is destroying habitat and contributing to the most rapid rate of extinction in our history. Our stewardship of those lands, Republicans and Democrats, compels us to eliminate the causes of global warming, to stop emitting greenhouse gases.

Public reporting has shown that Exxon scientists not only knew their products were responsible for climate change in 1977, but they did a really good job of predicting the changes that were going to follow. So did the world's climate scientists, who called for global action.

The 1992 Rio summit and Kyoto Protocol were designed to avert climate disaster, but as we know, the fossil energy industry did not respond with stewardship. They started a massive disinformation campaign that continues to this day, spending enormous amounts of money to confuse the American public and to delay climate action.

Today, I will be honest, every major oil company pays lip service to the reality of climate change and the need to address it. Many have even pledged sharp reductions of their direct emissions, but they know that most of their contributions to global warming are downstream--it is what people do with their products--or upstream, the methane that gets released from their production.

It would take leadership on their behalf, it would take entrepreneurial vision, and it would take stewardship for them to realize that they are experts at giving people useful energy. They are in the business of providing that. They could do that, but instead, they have decided that they just want to be committed to the extraction of oil.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment just provides an appropriate stewardship of our public lands to this bill. We know from history that the oil companies cannot be trusted to protect those lands, and so it behooves us in this body to require that any expansion of drilling on those lands must be met by a reduction in the gross greenhouse gas emissions associated with drillers' operations.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CASTEN. 67.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CASTEN. Mr. Chairman, my friend from Texas and I are going to get to continue talking about a few tanks.

My amendment would require the Secretary of Energy to determine whether curtailing U.S. oil exports would be more effective than drawing from the SPR to stabilize U.S. oil prices and protect U.S. energy security. If it is determined that curtailing oil exports would be more effective, the increased drilling on Federal lands otherwise required by H.R. 21 would not be allowed.

Mr. Chair, H.R. 21 is based on the false premise that a drawdown from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve weakens our energy security and therefore must be made up for by expanding drilling on Federal land.

Let's run through a little history here. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was created in 1975 in response to the first OPEC price shocks to provide a domestic buffer against future global market volatility and supply constraints.

We had that oil in our country, and we wanted to use that to bolster domestic supplies. The conditions under which it was created changed in October 2019. That was the month when the United States, for the first time, became a net oil exporter, and we have remained one since.

That means that, for the last 4 years, we have had not one but two tools we could use to protect ourselves domestically from global volatility. We could either release from those few tanks in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve or we could reduce the exports that are leaving our country, keep that, and prioritize good old, apple-pie- smelling United States oil for United States use.

As an economic matter, both of those are equivalent, right? If we add a barrel to our domestic supplies, that is a barrel we don't have to import. That is a barrel that eases price pressure internally, regardless of where that barrel came from.

Moreover--and this is important because this is about those few tanks we were talking about before--the volume of oil that we export today is way bigger than the amount that we release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. If I may, Mr. Chairman, most of our Strategic Petroleum Reserve is still underground.

When the United States became a net exporter in 2019, though, something changed. The thing that changed was the politics of this conversation because it created a new set of players at the table: oil exporters, who have a vested interest in a high oil price.

They don't seek to maximize value for the American people. They seek to maximize value for their shareholders. I would point out, many of their shareholders are not U.S. citizens. They want to maximize that value by selling American oil overseas at the highest possible price.

Now, let's be really clear. Every single American is an energy consumer. A tiny number of Americans are oil exporters. The greater good is always to maximize the benefit to U.S. consumers by lowering energy prices.

I have introduced this amendment to ensure that we use the full suite of tools available to us when we face domestic price or supply constraints, inclusive of SPR releases and export curtailments.

This amendment would simply direct the Secretary of Energy to determine whether curtailing U.S. exports would be more effective than drawing from the SPR at stabilizing U.S. oil prices and protecting U.S. energy security. If it is determined that curtailing exports would be more effective, the increased drilling on Federal lands otherwise required by H.R. 21 would not be allowed.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CASTEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CASTEN. 68.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CASTEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to tell you I will not need 5 minutes. This is a really short amendment. It simply strikes the words ``natural gas'' from this bill.

Mr. Chairman, domestic production of natural gas has nothing to do with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is a strategic reserve of petroleum. Today, it holds about 372 million barrels of petroleum--oil, if you prefer. It does not hold natural gas.

Yet, H.R. 21 says that a release from the SPR--again, of oil--should be linked to an increase in drilling for oil and gas on Federal lands.

Now, if you are not following that, I want you to imagine that you are at the grocery store, and your significant other calls you up and says: ``Hey, we are out of turkey.'' You come back and say: ``Well, I will return with turkey or milk.'' You might not have a happy spouse. Same deal here.

If the majority would like to provide more subsidies to drill for gas on public lands, you are, of course, free to do that and propose legislation to do that, but that has nothing to do with releases from this Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Since the underlying bill is predicated on an event of SPR release, my amendment is both simple and necessary. It simply strikes all mentions of ``natural gas'' from a bill that claims to be about oil.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CASTEN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source