House steps toward ending oil export ban

The House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 31-19 in favor of the bill, which would lift the ban on crude oil exports first imposed in 1975. It’s expected the bill will come up for a vote in the House before the end of the month.

The lead sponsor of the bill, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, said repealing the ban is a common-sense measure that would position the United States as the world’s energy leader for decades to come.

He said repealing the ban is about “unleashing the American ability to compete and strategically make the world a better place.” However, the bill would allow the president to reinstitute the ban in times of emergency.

Barton and other supporters of ending the ban believe it would drive down gas prices, help create more jobs in the energy industry by increasing domestic production, and help the country project power abroad by competing with the likes of Russia and the OPEC countries.

House Speaker John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and many other lawmakers have announced their support for repealing the ban on crude oil exports. A similar bill is being considered on the floor of the Senate.Critics of the measure point to potential environmental harm they say would be caused by the use and production of more oil, and question whether lifting the ban would actually cause any impact on gas prices. Some say the only real beneficiaries would be oil companies.

Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Fla., called the bill an “unconscionable giveaway to Big Oil” and said the countries that would benefit the most would not be the United States’ European allies, as many supporters believe. Instead, east Asian countries, especially China, would become new customers of American oil companies.

“This bill will provide a strategic advantage to China,” she said. “Well, that’s a fine gift as Chinese President [Xi] Jinping arrives for a visit next week.”

However, other representatives said it’s clear there are potential customers for American oil in Europe.

Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., voted against the measure but said it could benefit European countries being “blackmailed” by Russia, and the United States.

That was a sentiment echoed by Rep. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., who said using oil exports to advance American interests would be more effective than fighting a war.

“I’d rather use the peaceful tools of energy development to hold Vladimir Putin in check than the weapons of war,” he said. “I’d rather use the peaceful tools of energy development to hold Iran in check than the weapons of war.”

Iran was mentioned multiple times as a reason to support the bill. Many supporters on the committee said if opponents were willing to lift the Islamic republic’s ban on exporting oil, they should be willing to do the same for American companies.

While some of those who voted against the bill raised concerns about the impacts of lifting the export ban on oil refineries and on domestic shipping, all of those who spoke against the bill mentioned climate change as a mitigating factor.

Many scientists say greenhouse gases released by the burning of fossil fuels are the driving cause behind manmade climate change. Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., said lifting the ban on exporting crude oil would only mean more oil consumption and more harm being done to the environment.

“Our continued dependence on fossil fuels is not only doing irreparable damage to our planet,” she said, “but it’s also costing us billions and billions of dollars to the impacts of climate change.”