[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 18 (Friday, January 27, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H435-H440]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   STRATEGIC PRODUCTION RESPONSE ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Meuser). Pursuant to House Resolution 5 
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill, H.R. 21.
  Will the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) kindly take the 
chair.

                              {time}  0917


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 21) to provide for the development of a plan to increase 
oil and gas production under oil and gas leases of Federal lands under 
the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of 
Energy, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of Defense in 
conjunction with a drawdown of petroleum reserves from the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, with Mr. McClintock (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, 
January 26, 2023, amendment No. 14 printed in the Congressional Record 
offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib) had been disposed 
of.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Kamlager-Dove).
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chair, today, I rise in opposition to H.R. 21.
  Once again, Republicans are selling out the American people to their 
Big Oil friends. Oil companies are not even using the thousands of 
permits to drill on public lands that they currently hold, and 
Republicans want to add another 300 million acres to this oil carnage.
  Big Oil rakes in record profits while poisoning the Earth and anyone 
who lives and works near their oil fields.
  The Inglewood Oil Field is in my district and has been toxifying the 
predominantly Black and Brown communities near it for decades. There is 
literally oil bubbling up through the sidewalks.
  Back in April, more than 1,600 gallons of oil spilled from the field, 
spewing toxins into the air, and Republicans want more of that 
everywhere. Not caring if people literally have clean air to breathe 
doesn't sound very pro-life to me.
  This ``drill, baby, drill'' attitude isn't making the United States 
any safer or more economically competitive. It is killing Mother Earth 
and us.
  H.R. 21 is derelict to the American people, and I urge my colleagues 
to protect what is left of our public lands and vote against H.R. 21.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.


               Amendment No. 145 Offered by Mr. Grijalva

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:
       (4) Protected public lands.--The plan required by paragraph 
     (1) shall not include oil and gas leasing on any protected 
     public lands, including any--
       (A) unit of the National Park System;
       (B) unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
       (C) component of the national wild and scenic river system;
       (D) component of the National Wilderness Preservation 
     System;
       (E) designated wilderness study area or other area managed 
     for wilderness characteristics;
       (F) component of the national trails system;
       (G) national conservation area;
       (H) national monument;
       (I) national recreation area;
       (J) inventoried roadless area within the National Forest 
     System;

[[Page H436]]

       (K) area of critical environmental concern;
       (L) Backcountry Conservation Area; or
       (M) National Conservation Lands.

  Mr. GRIJALVA (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent 
to dispense with the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer what I hope will be an 
amendment that every Member of this body can support.
  This amendment would simply prevent new planned oil and gas drilling 
in our national parks or on protected public lands, including national 
monuments, national recreation areas, or areas of critical 
environmental concern.
  The debate yesterday and today has shown the American people that 
there are deep divisions between our two parties when it comes to 
America's energy future. We have starkly different priorities for 
protecting communities and the climate, securing environmental justice, 
and safeguarding public health.
  I hope the concerns that we have raised might change some minds 
across the aisle, though I worry it will not. However, one area in 
which I believe we can all agree is that we should not allow oil and 
gas extraction in our national parks, our national wildlife refuges, 
our national recreation areas, or our conservation lands.
  Mr. Chair, for those of us who have had the privilege to serve on the 
House Natural Resources Committee, we hear nearly every day about what 
parks and public lands mean to the communities in every congressional 
district across the country. Put simply, Americans love their parks. 
From the Everglades to the Grand Canyon, Shenandoah to Mesa Verde, 
these iconic landscapes are some of the most visited and the most loved 
in the United States.
  It is our responsibility as elected officials to ensure future 
generations, our children and our grandchildren, will have the same 
opportunities we have enjoyed and experienced in these incredible 
places.
  My amendment would protect these opportunities, ensuring that any new 
planned oil and gas extraction would not occur in our parks or our 
protected public lands.
  Despite what some may suggest, this amendment is essential, given the 
repeated extremist efforts we saw under the previous administration to 
open protected public lands to extraction.
  This amendment is necessary. I hope that all of my colleagues can 
join me in protecting our parks and protected public lands from 
unnecessary oil and gas extraction.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chair, this amendment will prohibit the leasing plan 
from including a whole new swath of Federal lands.
  This is a solution in search of a problem because many of these areas 
are already protected. I went through the list. I don't see any that 
aren't.
  Under existing law, many of these places aren't open for oil and gas 
leasing. Nothing in H.R. 21 would change that fact.
  President Biden campaigned on a platform to end fossil fuels, and on 
day one of his administration, he imposed a moratorium on energy 
production on Federal lands. The Biden administration has leased fewer 
acres than any other administration dating all the way back to World 
War II. H.R. 21 will reverse the dangerous precedent set by President 
Biden and his administration and unlock the natural resources owned by 
the American people for the benefit of all.
  The SPR shouldn't be used for political purposes. Drawing down to 
influence gas prices is wrong when the SPR is set aside for national 
emergencies, a time of war. It is a strategic asset for the American 
people, not to be used to influence elections.
  This amendment will increase gas prices and weaken our energy 
security by reimposing the Biden administration's leasing moratorium.
  It is wrong. It is messaging. I get it. You are okay with releasing 
gas and oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to influence gas 
prices, weakening our Nation if a natural disaster should strike.
  We need to replenish the SPR. We need to do it with the American 
resources that we are blessed with in this country. That is what H.R. 
21 does.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


       Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Jackson of North Carolina

  Mr. JACKSON of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, line 11, after ``(d)'' insert ``or if the Secretary 
     determines that a situation exists in which a delay in 
     executing a drawdown of petroleum products in the Reserve in 
     order to comply with this paragraph will harm national 
     security''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. JACKSON of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, we just heard from the 
gentleman from South Carolina that the purpose of this bill was to make 
sure that the use of our Strategic Petroleum Reserve was confined to 
instances in which there was a national emergency.
  The purpose of this amendment is very simple. It is to make sure that 
if we are going to restrict releases from our strategic reserve, it 
have an exception for national security. That is it. Very simple.
  If you are going to tie the President's hands to respond to an energy 
crisis, at least include language that allows for a swift response in 
the event of a threat to our national security. At least do that.
  I understand the concern about the use of our reserve. I do not 
understand the lack of concern for a future situation that could call 
for its use when our national security is at stake.
  This is a simple amendment. It only adds language with respect to 
national security. This should be a bipartisan concern, and I welcome 
bipartisan support.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chair, once again, this amendment would further allow 
the President to abuse the SPR by draining it without declaring a 
national emergency under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, giving 
him the ability to once again use the SPR for political purposes, and 
that is wrong.
  It is set aside for national emergencies, true national emergencies. 
Hurricanes hit the coast. We just saw one in Florida this year. We all 
remember Hurricane Katrina. We have adversaries threatening us around 
the world.
  We need the SPR full. We don't need it to be released to influence an 
election. We need it there for national emergencies. This amendment 
would further allow the President to abuse it.
  The statute is clear, and emergency triggers to use the SPR are very 
well defined. The law requires the President to declare that a ``severe 
energy supply interruption'' exists.
  The only reason a severe supply interruption exists is because of 
their policies, the policies of the Biden administration that took oil 
and gas production in this Nation off the table.
  We have American resources here. We are blessed in this Nation with 
abundant natural resources, but we are cursed by liberal politicians 
who don't want America to be energy independent. They don't want us to 
be energy dominant.

[[Page H437]]

  


                              {time}  0930

  They want to take those resources off the table for production to 
increase supply to meet demand to lower prices for consumers, 
manufacturers, and people across America.
  The statute defines a supply interruption as follows: ``An emergency 
situation exists and there is a significant reduction in supply which 
is of significant scope and duration.''
  There was no emergency situation existing when the President withdrew 
oil from the SPR.
  ``A severe increase in the price of petroleum products has resulted 
from such emergency situation.''
  Where was the emergency?
  Yes, we had higher prices because supply was low due to the policies 
of the administration that took oil and gas production off the table. 
He created the emergency if you want to call it an emergency.
  Number three: ``Such price increase is likely to or may cause a major 
adverse impact on the national economy.''
  There is a solution. Drill here. Drill now. Produce American energy.
  The SPR is a critical national security asset. We have said that over 
and over and over and over and over on this side. It is a national 
asset paid for by the taxpayers, set aside for the use of this Nation 
in time of a real emergency. A real emergency.
  The SPR is a critical national security asset. It should have only 
been utilized in accordance with the law. This amendment would affect 
that.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Jackson).
  Mr. JACKSON of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, the gentleman from South 
Carolina concluded his remarks by saying this amendment ``would affect 
that'' and provided no specification for ``that.''
  Look, this was just about national security. We didn't get two words 
in response to the substance of this amendment. We got a bunch of 
platitudes that were completely unrelated.
  I was under the assumption, given everything we had heard about 
national emergencies and national security, that making sure that the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve could be used for national security used to 
be bipartisan.
  If not, there would be a good reason as to why that exception should 
not exist. We didn't get a one. We got a speech about hurricanes. We 
got a speech about other uses for oil. I hear you. I am on board. This 
is national security.
  The fact that you had no response whatsoever tells me your bill isn't 
serious. This bill is about messaging. You are looking to tie any 
future President's hands in a way that is fundamentally reckless. If 
this bill were serious, you would take national security more 
seriously.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to address their remarks to 
the Chair.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jackson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina will be postponed.


           Amendment No. 147 Offered by Ms. Greene of Georgia

  Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION WITH RESPECT TO ABUSE OF 
                   EMERGENCY DECLARATIONS.

       Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, 
     may be construed to authorize the President to make a 
     determination under section 161(d) of the Energy Policy and 
     Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6241(d)) that an emergency 
     situation exists in order for the Secretary of Energy to draw 
     down and sell petroleum products under such subsection for 
     political, non-emergency purposes.

  Ms. GREENE of Georgia (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask 
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Mr. Chair, yesterday I introduced an amendment 
that would take away the President's emergency power to sell our oil 
from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and give that authority back to 
Congress.
  Since Joe Biden has become President, he has abused his emergency 
power and sold American oil to our enemies. China was the number one 
buyer.
  President Biden abused his power to sell our oil and reduce gas 
prices so that the midterm elections would swing Democrats' way. It is 
a shame to trick the American people just to win an election.
  No President should be able to use their emergency powers for 
politics. While my amendment failed yesterday, it opened up discussions 
on how to solve this problem.
  While our leadership was working with me to protect America's 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, Democrats and the mocking Hill media were 
making fun of me for having a failed amendment. I want to say this: 
True success comes through failure.
  There is one thing that needs to be pointed out about our new 
Republican majority: We are much different than Republican majorities 
of the past. We aren't afraid of conflict, of disagreements in the 
public's eye. We have already proven that.
  What all of us are afraid of is not being a successful Republican 
majority for the American people and stopping the Democrats' America 
last policies.
  What our Republican majority will continue to show the country and 
the mocking media, in the words of our new, great Republican Speaker: 
``It's not how you start, it's how you finish.''
  Today, I am introducing a new amendment that would prevent President 
Biden, or any President, from selling our strategic oil reserves for 
political reasons.
  The American people don't believe President Biden should have the 
sole authority to sell our oil for whatever reason he comes up with. 
President Biden's war on American energy has crippled our country and 
left us vulnerable to an economic crisis and a national security 
crisis.
  There is no reason the President should be able to sell one of our 
most strategic resources for political gain. Instead, the President 
should unleash American energy at home.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment, which 
would simply clarify that the President is not authorized to make 
emergency drawdowns of the SPR for political purposes. It is pretty 
simple.
  Imagine if a Republican administration would have done what this 
administration did. You all would be hollering from the tops of 
buildings in the streets.
  It is clear. President Biden has abused his emergency powers to raid 
our SPR for political gain. The SPR was meant for true emergency energy 
supply interruptions. President Biden has mismanaged the SPR.
  Mr. Chair, 250 million barrels, over 40 percent of the SPR, has been 
drained in less than 2 years; it happened in 15 months.
  We need to unleash American energy by expanding energy production on 
Federal lands across the country. We are going to work on that in the 
House majority, to expand American energy. We are fighting--like 
Marjorie is--to deliver affordable and reliable energy for all 
Americans.
  We are also fighting to maintain and bolster our energy security. 
That is

[[Page H438]]

what this is about: energy security, national security.
  H.R. 21 furthers these goals, and I support this amendment and the 
passage of H.R. 21.
  Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in 
personalities toward the President.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I listened to the gentlewoman from Georgia, 
and to me, this amendment is unbelievable. I mean, she says that you 
can't draw down or sell petroleum products under this amendment for 
political and nonemergency purposes.
  Well, I mean, everything around here is political, so I don't know 
how you would define that.
  What the President has been doing is using this Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve to help bring down the price of gasoline at the pump, or in 
other cases, to increase supply because of the supply shortage due to 
Russia's action in the invasion of Ukraine.
  These are, in my opinion, totally legitimate emergency purposes to 
help the American people and help the supply chain.
  What the bill does is to say: Well, if you want to do that--if you 
want to use the reserve--then you have to drill for more oil on public 
lands.
  Well, isn't that political.
  A decision is made to say that you can't use the reserve unless you 
help the oil companies and let the oil companies take more of our 
public lands. That is about the most political thing that I can think 
of.
  In addition to that, was it not political when the Republican 
administrations in the past released and sold oil from the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve?
  What did they do it for.
  Well, they did it for deficit reduction. They did it to pay for 
different items, like the 21st Century Cures bill that came out of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee.

  Were those emergencies?
  Were those not political?
  I would argue that using the reserve for those purposes was not an 
emergency at all and certainly was incredibly political.
  This is just another example of what the Republicans are doing. They 
are politicizing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve because they want to 
make message points.
  They know that this bill isn't going anywhere. The President already 
said that he will veto it, and the Senate won't take it up. They are 
being so political. They are talking about situations that have nothing 
to do with an emergency.
  I really don't know what to say. The whole process here is very 
political, oriented toward messaging, oriented toward going on TV, I 
guess, to appeal to base voters. It is just incredible to me that this 
amendment is being offered.
  Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chair, the Democrats try to paint this picture that 
rising energy costs was Putin's war, Putin's gas hikes.
  I had to do some research. The gentleman from North Carolina tried to 
make this all about the war in Ukraine, the reason the President did 
this. Just a little factoid: The first drawdown of SPR was 2 months 
before Russia invaded Ukraine. So this isn't about a national emergency 
related to Ukraine or related to Vladimir Putin. This isn't Putin's 
price hike on gasoline for American consumers.
  This is the Biden administration's war on American energy. He said it 
on the campaign trail, and he is implementing it today. He implemented 
it from day one, and it continues.
  The SPR is a strategic asset for the American people to meet their 
needs in a time of crisis, such as a national emergency or time of war.
  Let's just be clear. It should not be used for political gain or 
political influence. The American people see right through this. They 
appreciated a little bump--and that is all it was, a speed bump--at the 
pump for them. The prices went right back up.
  It didn't have much influence on the price of energy in this country. 
What can have an influence on the price of energy in this country is 
producing American energy resources.
  My goodness. We are blessed in this Nation with natural gas and oil 
to meet the demands of a growing economy.
  Your constituents and mine are paying the price at the pump. It is 
time to unleash American energy dominance, which we can.
  Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene).
  Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Mr. Chair, my Democrat colleague across the 
aisle pointed out exactly what I was saying, that the entire reason why 
President Biden released our very precious oil--that the American 
people paid for with their hard-earned tax dollars for our emergency 
reserves--the reason why it was released was to reduce gas prices 
before an election. Our Democrat colleague completely admits that.
  He then goes on to blame the war in Ukraine for the reason that we 
have a low supply. Talk about serious.
  Let's talk about the most unserious decisions: that the Senate would 
not take up this bill to protect the American Strategic Petroleum 
Reserves; that the Senate would not take up this bill and pass my 
amendment to stop any President, Democrat or Republican, from selling 
oil out of our SPR for political reasons; and to imagine that President 
Biden would say that he would not consider this bill.
  President Biden is telling America that he doesn't care about our 
emergency supply or our national security. President Biden gives a 
serious, clear message to the American people that he will destroy the 
fossil fuel energy industry and that that will hurt every single 
American. There are no politics that can play with that.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to pass my amendment and H.R. 21.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0945

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 88 Offered by Mr. Sherman

  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 9, strike the closed quotation mark and the 
     final period.
       Page 3, after line 9, insert the following:
       ``(4) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply if the 
     President produces a plan to limit the amount of oil and gas 
     exported from the United States by the same percentage as the 
     percentage of petroleum in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     that is drawn down in each drawdown that occurs after the 
     date of enactment of this subsection.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chair, American gas prices are too high. The 
pressure is on this Congress to do something about it. President Biden 
has done something about it by releasing oil at a strategic time from 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and gas prices are down from their 
peak.
  But Americans want more. They want real action, and instead, they get 
what is nothing more than a 2-day fraud on this House floor: a bill 
that would do absolutely nothing to reduce oil prices or gas prices.
  Yet, by spending 2 days on the floor and by making this the bill of 
the week, we fool the American people into thinking that Congress is 
doing something.
  Now, how utterly meaningless is this bill?
  It would do nothing to increase oil production in the United States 
for it calls only for a plan to be created but not necessarily 
implemented. It implies that it would do something to increase oil 
production but not for well more than a year after the crisis began any 
spike in oil prices. Finally, even if more oil is produced in the 
United States, it will be exported and will lower the world price 
perhaps by a penny.

[[Page H439]]

  This is a messaging bill. Its message is to attack President Biden, 
who is the only one who has actually done something to reduce oil 
prices.
  So let's look at what this bill does. It calls for a plan. If the 
administration wants to give us a plan, then give us a plan. Washington 
is filled with plans. The American Petroleum Institute has a plan. 
Everybody has a plan. So we draft another plan.
  What does that do?
  Now, it forces the administration to write a plan about leasing more 
land for oil drilling. They are free to list parcels where everybody 
knows there is no oil and nobody wants to bid. If they don't want to do 
a plan, then that is the plan they will give us.
  But let's say they give us the plan that the majority seems to want. 
They can write the plan, accompany it with a letter explaining that 
they think it won't reduce oil prices and that it is bad for the 
environment, and therefore they are not going to implement it. So now 
we have a plan that is similar to what they want and a letter saying 
why it won't be implemented.
  This is what we offer the American people?
  If we are going to have a bill that requires a plan, then we ought to 
adopt this amendment that offers the administration a chance to create 
a different kind of plan, a plan to prohibit or limit exports.
  The illustration of how important this is can be seen just north of 
our border. Canada produces twice as much oil as they consume, and 
their consumers are paying $2 a gallon more than we are paying. So 
producing more oil inside your country doesn't seem to lower oil prices 
for those living to the north of the United States.
  Why?
  Because the oil is simply exported at the world price. Now, that 
guarantees--if we actually produced more oil in the United States and 
exported it--more profits for oil companies but not a penny of 
reduction at the pump.
  If instead we had a plan to limit or prohibit exports, then we would 
lower certainly the price of natural gas, and I believe that under many 
circumstances we would reduce the price of oil and gasoline paid for by 
the American people.
  So the majority comes to this floor with a bill requiring a plan to 
be added to the hundreds of existing plans that already exist that 
requires the administration to create a plan that the majority tells us 
the administration doesn't want to create, allows the administration to 
create a plan that they wouldn't like, allows the administration to 
create a plan that they would like and then refuse to implement it, and 
then tells the American people that they are doing something to lower 
the price of gasoline now.
  Let's point out that we are going to produce more oil in this country 
in 2023 than any other year in our history. So this is a message bill 
that is sending a false message. We are going to produce more oil in 
2023 than any other year. But even if we did lease more land, and even 
if they did drill on it, that is a response that might affect us in 
2025.
  Why don't we have something that will lower gas prices now?
  So if we want to engage in this process of telling the American 
people that we are doing something or that we would do something but it 
is the other party's fault, then for God's sakes, bring forward a bill 
that if enacted--which, of course, won't happen--but if enacted, that 
would actually do something. This bill will not increase oil production 
in the United States, and oil production in the United States, if 
exported, will do nothing to help the American consumer.
  Mr. Chairman, vote for my amendment, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, the education of my colleagues continues.
  A plan?
  The administration in violation of the law that requires a 5-year 
drilling plan on OCS. I was on the MMS 5-year OCS drilling study 
committee. I know what the law is. The administration needs to create a 
5-year plan for drilling offshore on Federal lands. That is a plan.
  We talked about oil and how we shouldn't import oil. There are all 
kinds of different oil: heavy and light. Our refineries are set up to 
take a certain kind of oil. We were called a net exporter when we 
exceeded the demand in this country. We had a surplus and were able to 
export it. Net exporter because we are still going to import oil 
because our refineries are set up to take that kind of oil and not 
necessarily the oil that is produced here.
  My friend mentioned our neighbors to the north in Canada producing a 
lot more oil.
  They don't have refineries up there to meet their demand. They need 
to send that oil somewhere to be refined and made into all of the 
miraculous products that come out of a barrel of hydrocarbon. It 
doesn't just produce diesel fuel and gasoline. So they have to send 
that oil somewhere.
  But the stoppage of the Keystone XL pipeline kept that oil from 
coming to the United States of America.
  Guess what, Mr. Chairman?
  They have got to send it somewhere else. They have got to send it 
overseas to be refined somewhere. That is the reason that Canada may 
pay higher prices for gasoline.
  We have the solution. Bring that oil here. Let us refine it. Let's 
put American workers to work at refineries. We haven't built a refinery 
in this country since I don't know when.
  We can meet a lot of different goals in this country and globally by 
refining more of that product here. That is a plan for you.
  The Keystone pipeline is important for our refineries and the energy 
sector and for our allies both north and south in Mexico and Canada. We 
can be North American energy secure. We can actually be hemispherically 
energy secure by working with our colleagues.
  H.R. 21 is about the SPR, about requiring nonemergency use to be 
accompanied by a plan to produce American oil resources. There is the 
gentleman's plan.
  By requiring a plan to limit oil imports, this amendment aims to harm 
American families by imposing costly trade restrictions into the global 
market for oil, which would drive up fuel prices.
  OPEC doesn't play by these rules. America is the top producer in the 
world; increasing energy production leads to more security and price 
stability especially when prices are set by OPEC and the global market.
  This amendment undermines the purpose of the bill and undermines 
American energy affordability and security.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote for my colleagues, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
  The amendment was rejected.


           Amendment No. 146 Offered by Ms. Greene of Georgia

  Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, line 22, strike ``that is'' and insert ``that has 
     been drawn down during the period beginning January 21, 2021, 
     and ending on the date of enactment of this Act, and that 
     is''.

  Ms. GREENE of Georgia (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask 
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PALLONE . Mr. Chair, I reserve a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, plans are extremely important, 
but, unfortunately, our President has given us no plan on how he will 
replace all of the oil--very important oil--that has been sold out of 
our Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  The American people are trapped on a journey in this country. The 
American people work hard every single day and pay their taxes, and 
their taxes have been abused. Their tax dollars were used to fill up 
the supply in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and in 2 years' time, 
this President has sold out America by selling our Strategic Petroleum 
Reserves and creating a national security crisis for all of America.

[[Page H440]]

  I am introducing an amendment today that will require a leasing plan 
from day one of President Biden's Presidency, Inauguration Day, when 
this bill is enacted into law. President Biden will have to come up 
with a plan to tell the American people how he will clean up his mess 
and refill America's SPR.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I insist on my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. PALLONE. The pending amendment violates the germaneness 
requirement of rule XVI, clause 7. That rule precludes amendments ``on 
a subject different from that under consideration.''
  The subject matter of the underlying bill is a requirement that the 
Department of Energy issue a plan related to the leasing of Federal 
lands for oil and gas drilling before certain first drawdowns from the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  However, the subject matter of the pending amendment is different. 
The pending amendment introduces a new subject matter to the bill by 
requiring a plan for drawdowns that have already occurred. Because the 
pending amendment is on a different subject than that of the underlying 
bill, I urge the Chair to hold this amendment as not germane.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chair, I wish to speak on the point of order. This is 
absolutely germane. It is the same subject, and it meets all the rules.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  The gentleman from New Jersey makes a point of order that the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Georgia is not germane.
  Clause 7 of rule XVI, the germaneness rule, provides that no 
proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall 
be admitted under color of amendment.
  The bill prohibits the drawdown of petroleum products in the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve until the Secretary of Energy has developed 
a plan to increase the percentage of certain Federal lands leased for 
oil and gas production. The amendment changes the calculation of how 
much land would need to be leased to offset the drawdown.
  The Chair finds that the amendment is within the subject matter of 
the underlying bill. It is, therefore, germane. The point of order is 
overruled.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think the gentlewoman's 
previous amendment was about the policies of the President being 
political. And I think this amendment is more political than anything.
  First of all, as we know, what the underlying bill does is it says 
that if the President wants to release crude oil from the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, then he has to put together a plan that would 
require more leases on public lands.
  What the gentlewoman's amendment says now is that she makes this 
retroactive and goes back to the day of the President's inauguration--
again, a very political decision to use that date--and says that any 
releases from the reserve beginning on the day of the President's 
inauguration, we would also then have to go back and make sure that we 
sell or lease additional leases on public lands to cover those releases 
from the reserve back to the inauguration.
  So, the bureaucracy of all this in itself I think is absurd.
  But the point is that she is essentially saying that now we have to 
lease more public lands when, in fact, there are about 9,000 leases 
already on public lands, half of which are not being used. The oil 
companies do not want to pump more oil because that brings down the 
price. They don't want any releases from the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve because that brings down the price.
  So all that the Republican majority is doing here is trying to help 
the oil companies, trying to make sure that there are no tools on the 
part of the administration to increase the supply, to bring down the 
cost of gasoline at the pump. Whatever the oil companies, which are 
making huge profits, want to do, that is what they want to do, as well.
  So I would just again say that this amendment may be germane but it 
is certainly detrimental to what the President and the Democrats are 
trying to do to help people deal with affordability.

                          ____________________