Huffman Leads Floor Fight Against the Environmental Consequences of Unrestricted Crude Oil Exports
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today, Congressman Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) helped lead the opposition to H.R. 702, a controversial bill to repeal the 40-year-old ban on exporting crude oil from the United States. He offered one successful amendment requiring the Department of Energy to report on the greenhouse gas emissions that will result from the export ban repeal, and offered another motion to ensure that bedrock health and safety laws like the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Act would not be cast aside. That motion, known as a Motion to Recommit, was defeated on a nearly party-line vote.
“With today’s bill the House majority is saying that American oil and gas companies can drill more, export more, and realize even greater profits, no matter the environmental consequences, no matter the consequences to health and safety,” said Huffman. “My motion to recommit this bill would ensure that the President, and federal government agencies charged with protecting human health, the environment, and public safety, can continue to do the jobs that our constituents rely on them to do.”
Huffman voted against repealing the crude oil export ban, which, according to an independent study, would result in an additional 515 million metric tons of carbon pollution each year—equivalent to an additional 108 million passenger cars on the road or 135 coal-fired power plants put online.
Huffman also introduced today a bill that would require the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to estimate and report the projected carbon footprint of each bill considered before Congress. The Carbon Pollution Transparency Act of 2015 would provide carbon emission estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, a well-respected, neutral umpire that already provides long-term financial forecasting for the most important bills that go before Congress.
“Members of Congress already rely on fiscal impact estimates produced by the Congressional Budget Office to help make up their minds,” Huffman said, “but we must also take into account the environmental consequences of our votes. The American public has the right to know whether their representatives in Washington are voting to help or harm the environment, and my bill would ensure we have a fair judge of each bill’s environmental impact.”
The Carbon Pollution Transparency Act of 2015 would:
- Require that the Director of the Congressional Budget Office include a carbon score with every analysis of a public bill or resolution it submits to a Congressional Office under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 on the same timeline as the financial analysis.
- Require that the carbon score be based on the incremental change in carbon emissions relative to the current level of emissions likely to result from the activities required to carry out the bill.
- Require the Director to estimate emissions using established best practices, including life-cycle analysis and internationally recognized methodologies.
Huffman spoke on the House floor in support of the Motion to Recommit, footage of which can be found HERE. A transcript of his speech can be found below:
[[{"fid":"483","view_mode":"full","fields":{"format":"full"},"type":"media","attributes":{"alt":"Huffman: Repealing crude oil export ban = Congress selling out","height":"380","width":"640","class":"media-element file-full"}}]]
“This is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee.
“If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.
“We have heard a lot of debate this morning about the need to give Big Oil – one of the most profitable industries in world history – yet another advantage.
“For years Americans have been told we have to “drill, baby drill” – the theory we heard is that we need to extract every barrel of oil from every acre of American soil to keep gas prices low and provide “energy security.”
“But as soon as American gas prices started to drop, the curtain was raised and the truth was revealed. The real reason for “drill baby drill” — surprise, surprise — was to give Big Oil the chance to maximize their profits on the world market.
“It’s not enough that they have gamed the tax code for a century, with billions of dollars in tax breaks not available to any other taxpayer or business.
“It’s not enough that they are continuing to enjoy access to our public lands and waters for oil drilling even though they are no longer paying into the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the longstanding law that expired at the beginning of this month.
“As a reminder, for fifty years the Land And Water Conservation Fund was an agreement between the American people and Big Oil: when we let oil and gas companies drill in federal waters, they must dedicate a fraction of the profits—just a fraction—to protect our great outdoors for future generations so that our grandchildren can hike, hunt, and fish in our parks and wildlife refuges.
“The Land and Water Conservation Fund was shamefully allowed to lapse at the beginning of this month, and the majority hasn’t scheduled a single vote—or even a hearing—to get it back on the books.
“No, those concessions to the oil and gas industry are not enough for this House. With today’s bill the House majority is saying that American oil and gas companies can drill more, export more, and realize even greater profits, no matter the environmental consequences, no matter the consequences to health and safety.
“As presently written, the underlying bill, H.R. 702, would permanently ensure that no export restrictions—for any reason—could be implemented or enforced in the future. That’s breathtaking in its devotion to the oil & gas industry’s agenda.
“My motion to recommit this bill would ensure that the President, and federal government agencies charged with protecting human health, the environment, and public safety, can continue to do the jobs that our constituents rely on them to do.
“Specifically, with this amendment we will ensure that bedrock health and safety laws like the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Act would not be cast aside in favor of Big Oil’s desire to sell more crude overseas.
“If you think about it, this is a straightforward amendment: So I just want to ask my colleagues a question: should crude oil exports trump the Safe Drinking Water Act? Should Big Oil profits trump the need for pipeline safety and pipeline inspection?
“Of course not. We need to protect clean drinking water, and we need to ensure pipeline safety.
“I urge my colleagues to support this MTR to improve this bill and I yield back.”
Huffman spoke on the House floor in opposition to the repeal bill, the text of which can be found below:
[[{"fid":"484","view_mode":"full","fields":{"format":"full"},"type":"media","attributes":{"alt":"Rep. Huffman: Congress must consider carbon footprint of each bill","height":"380","width":"640","class":"media-element file-full"}}]]
“Mr. Speaker,
“I rise to offer my amendment to H.R. 702, this is the only amendment the majority would allow in order to help us understand the impacts of lifting the crude oil export ban on greenhouse gas emissions.
“Before the Rules Committee, Ranking Member Pallone and I offered two other that would have more proactively studied the increase in greenhouse gas emissions caused by this bill. Instead, the majority only allowed this amendment, which requires the Department of Energy to report on the increase in greenhouse gas emission caused by lifting the ban on crude oil exports but still allows the ban to be lifted.
“This is what the legislative process has come to in this chamber. Instead of analyzing full impacts of before voting, the majority has adopted a “pollute first, ask questions later” approach. Repeal the restrictions on fossil fuel extraction and production, and we’ll figure out the environmental impact later.
“Lifting this forty-year-old ban on exports could increase oil production by as much as five hundred thousand barrels per day, that’s a significant increase that risks expanding production to sensitive areas off our coasts and on our public lands. According to the Center for American Progress, this surge in production would result in an additional five hundred and fifteen million metric tons of carbon pollution each year—that’s equivalent to an additional one hundred and eight million passenger cars on the road or one hundred and thirty five coal-fired power plants put online. That’s what this bill could do. That’s why over forty environmental groups are opposing this shortsighted bill.
“Now my Republican colleagues may dispute this study, it’s the Center for American Progress. When we hear studies by any group not funded by the fossil fuel industry we typically hear them accused of being biased, left-leaning sources. Certainly they are welcome to make that argument. But doesn’t that support the need for an established, nonpartisan source for assessments on impacts to our environment by the bills Congress considers?
“That is why today I am introducing the Carbon Pollution Transparency Act of 2015. This is a bill which would require the CBO to estimate and report on the projected carbon footprint of each bill Congress considers. That way we know before we vote how a bill would impact our climate change and the environment.
“Members of Congress already rely on fiscal impact estimates produced by the Congressional Budget Office to help make up our minds, but we must also take into account the environmental consequences of our votes. The American public has the right to know whether their representatives in Washington are voting to help or harm the environment, to worsen climate change, or whatever the impact may be. And that’s why my bill ensures we have a fair judge, the CBO, of each bill’s environmental impact.
“But today, we at least have an opportunity to require such a study as part of H.R. 702. It’s not enough, but it’s a step forward to fully understand the impacts of lifting the crude oil export ban and potentially the harm it would result to environment. I urge a yes vote for my amendment, a no vote on the underlying legislation, and yield back the balance of my time.”
###
Next Article Previous Article