Letter - Energy Updates

Jan 17, 2023
In the News

ICYMI: E&C Republicans Turn Up the Heat and Demand Biden Stop Efforts to Ban Gas Stoves

President Biden wants to control every aspect of our lives—from what kind of cars we can drive, how we can heat our homes, and now how we’re allowed to cook food for our families. Last week, it was reported that the Biden administration is looking to ban gas stoves from American homes across the country. This is just the latest in a long line of power grabs by the radical Left. It's not about public safety, but rather about telling the American people the federal government knows what’s best. Nearly 35% of homes in the U.S. – more than 40 million Americans – use a natural gas stove. That’s why Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and 86 of her House Republican colleagues sent a letter to President Biden demanding the administration reverse any attempts to ban gas stoves. Chair Rodgers also sent a letter to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) echoing these concerns.  Highlights and excerpts from the Fox Business exclusive coverage on the letter to President Biden : Furious lawmakers are calling on President Biden to cease any efforts by his administration to ban natural gas stoves inside Americans' homes. Republicans on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce sent a letter to the president Friday writing in "strong opposition" to reported efforts by regulators to ban natural gas appliances. "This kind of intrusion into the homes of Americans by the federal government as a way of forcing rush-to-green, liberal policies is the ‘nanny state’ at its worst," the Republicans wrote. "Banning natural gas stoves is not about public safety – it is another example of government control; like other policies we have seen from your administration, to tell Americans what kinds of cars they can drive, how they heat their homes, and how to live their lives." The Biden administration caused an uproar over gas stoves earlier this week after a commissioner on the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) suggested regulators were considering banning the appliance due to health and safety concerns. From E&E News : House Energy and Commerce Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) is already making plans to bring the issue before her committee. “I’m quite concerned,” Rodgers told E&E News. “I think we need to dig into this more and probably bring them in and ask some questions.” CLICK HERE to read Chair Rodgers’ January 11th statement on President Biden’s plan to ban gas stoves. CLICK HERE to read House Republicans’ January 13th letter to President Biden. CLICK HERE to read Chair Rodgers’ January 13th letter to U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Chairman Alexander Hoehn-Saric.

Nov 30, 2022
Letter - Energy

Rodgers, Barrasso Press DOE about Damage Caused by Biden’s SPR Drawdowns

Washington, D.C. —  U.S. House Energy and Commerce Republican Leader Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Republican Leader John Barrasso (R-WY) sent a letter to Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Jennifer Granholm raising concerns about potential damage to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) due to President Biden’s unprecedented drawdowns and DOE’s mismanagement of the national security asset. Barrasso serves as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. McMorris Rodgers serves as ranking member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. In the letter, the committee leaders request answers and documentation for all damages and increased maintenance requirements resulting from the recent drawdowns. They also highlight the importance of the SPR’s energy security mission and the need for DOE to develop long-term plans to maintain and operate the reserve. Read the full letter  here  and below. “Dear Secretary Granholm, “We write to you with concerns regarding President Biden’s unprecedented drawdown of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), which has depleted our national security asset to the lowest level since 1984. As Secretary of Energy, you have overseen the largest SPR drawdown in history, selling more than 245 million barrels since President Biden’s first day in office. This has occurred as gas prices remain high and supply chain shortages continue to plague our economy. Instead of unleashing American energy production, you have depleted our strategic stockpile while failing to establish long-term plans for the optimal size, configuration, maintenance, and operational capabilities of the reserve. “We are also concerned that the rapid depletion of the SPR may have caused damage to the SPR’s pipelines and caverns, compromising its ability to meet its energy security mission in the event of a true energy supply interruption. As you know, the SPR consists of subterranean salt caverns filled with oil, and a complex system of wells, pipelines, and pumps that use water and brine to direct the flow of oil to where it is needed. Each drawdown has the potential to degrade the SPR’s storage and distribution capabilities as pressurization, corrosion, and consequences of repeated use erode the SPR’s physical integrity. “In 2015, Congress required the Department of Energy (DOE) to conduct a long-term strategic review of the SPR and authorized an investment of $1.4 billion to conduct an SPR modernization program. We were disappointed to learn that the modernization program, known as Life Extension II, was recently put on hold by DOE, resulting in critical delays and cost overruns. “President Biden’s unprecedented and unwarranted drawdowns, and the Administration’s overt crusade against the oil and gas industry, undermines the country’s energy security and, by extension, its national security. Your continued mismanagement of the SPR will leave our nation even more susceptible to true energy supply disruptions and leave us vulnerable to our greatest geopolitical adversaries. “We ask that you answer the following questions, and provide the requested documentation below, no later than December 12, 2022. Has the Biden administration conducted a full assessment of the integrity of SPR facilities to include both current use and future need? Please describe all damage and increased maintenance requirements, including well remediation, cavern closure, and both pipeline and pump replacements, that has occurred as a result of the drawdown. Have any SPR caverns collapsed or been closed temporarily or permanently as a result of the recent drawdowns? Does the Biden administration intend to close down any caverns or sites as a result of the SPR’s depletion? If so, which ones and over what time period? What is the current status of Life Extension II? Is it behind schedule? Specifically, has its completion fallen further behind schedule as a result of the SPR’s recent drawdowns? If the Biden administration does refill the SPR, will the construction of new caverns and other infrastructure be required? In the event SPR refills commence, will an equal volume of oil be bought that was sold? Has the SPR faced physical or cyber security threats to any of its facilities? If so, please describe to include dates when the incidents occurred and the resolution. Additionally, please list all local, state, and federal partner agencies who assisted in mitigation efforts. Please provide all Department correspondence to include studies and assessments pertaining to the SPR’s structural integrity as related to President Biden’s SPR drawdowns. Please provide all Department records related to future SPR cavern development and acquisition. “We look forward to your prompt response.”

Nov 8, 2022
Letter - Energy

Rodgers, Barrasso Request Accountability Review of Illicit Technology Transfers to China

Washington, D.C. —  House Energy and Commerce Republican Leader Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member John Barrasso (R-WY) sent a letter to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) urging the agency to review the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Technology transfer activities to ensure they are working in the best interest of the American people—not helping adversaries like China. Excerpts and highlights from the letter to the GAO: “Every year, the Department of Energy (DOE) oversees investments of billions of federal dollars in research and development to advance the economic, energy, and national security interests of the nation.  This work is conducted across DOE research and production facilities and its national laboratory system, which is at the forefront of technology development and maturation, and which spurs innovation and benefits American competitiveness and security.  To help ensure that taxpayer-funded technologies developed by DOE can be commercialized to the benefit of the nation, the Office of Technology Transitions (OTT) develops and oversees the Department’s commercialization programs and engagement with business and industrial sectors across the United States. “While OTT’s mission is important, it is also essential that potential technology transfers be scrutinized to ensure that taxpayer-funded technologies are not transferred to foreign companies that will ultimately move jobs overseas and use U.S. technology breakthroughs to compete against U.S. industry. This point is underscored by a recent DOE review of licensing of breakthrough battery technology—developed through taxpayer-funded research at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and from the state of Washington—following news reporting that the laboratory allowed the technology license to be transferred to a Chinese company.  The review found a lack of internal controls and effective management of the licensing at the laboratory. It also identified the need to assess research security and technology transfer policy and oversight across the DOE enterprise to address commercial and security risks. “To protect U.S. investment in leading technologies and U.S. manufacturing jobs, it is essential to make transparent whether DOE’s technology transfer activities are working in the interest of the American people, and not in support of America’s adversaries. Accordingly, we write to request that the Government Accountability Office undertake a broad review of DOE’s technology transfer and intellectual property protection activities. “Specifically, we request that GAO evaluate DOE’s technology transfer program and its implementation across the DOE enterprise, with specific focus on the controls in place to protect taxpayer-funded technologies from foreign transfer. We believe this is particularly important with respect to technologies that have been identified as critical and emerging. “Further, we request that GAO evaluate the tools available to the government to monitor critical and emerging technologies funded by DOE that have already transferred to U.S. companies to guard against their potential later acquisition by or transfer to foreign companies or countries. A review of this nature should include a full exploration of how DOE enforces the terms of its laboratories’ licenses. “We appreciate your assistance in this DOE management oversight effort, which is important to strengthening U.S. competitiveness by helping to ensure that taxpayer-funded critical and emerging technologies are of maximum benefit to the people who funded their development.” CLICK HERE  to read the full letter.

Oct 14, 2022

E&C Republicans Urge EPA Not to Shortcut Review of Proposed Air Quality Standards to Avoid Destroying Local Economies

Washington, D.C. —  House Energy and Commerce Committee Republican Leader Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee Republican Leader David McKinley (R-WV), and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Republican Leader Morgan Griffith (R-VA) sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Michael Regan requesting that any effort by the EPA to revise national air quality standards—particularly, PM2.5 standards—must ensure ample time for public comment and evaluate whether any changes clearly improve public health.  Excerpts and highlights from the letter to EPA Administrator Regan: EPA MUST PROVIDE BETTER REGULATORY CERTAINTY:  “Less than two years ago, EPA, pursuant to Clean Air Act requirements, completed an exhaustive review of the PM2.5 standards, concluding that existing standards protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. However, just six months later, in June 2021, you directed the agency to review that decision. We understand EPA recently submitted the resulting reconsideration proposal to the White House for interagency review. “When EPA seeks public comment on that proposal, you should ensure the agency follows its own past precedents as well as requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act to accept comment on retaining the existing standards. Furthermore, we believe you should ensure the public has at least 90 days to submit comments once any proposal is published.” […] “EPA’s reconsideration of the 2020 PM2.5 standard comes at a time of ongoing improvements to air quality. EPA, states, and the regulated community have successfully worked together to slash PM2.5 emissions, resulting in a 37% improvement in related air quality since 2000. These emissions reductions will continue under existing programs without changes to the PM2.5 standard.” PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTH, JOBS, AND THE ECONOMY: “Lowering the standard will create a regulatory burden that undermines community business investment, reduces tax revenue that support local schools and first and frontline responders, and effectively hamstrings efforts to overcome tough economic times. These impacts reverberate to every part of the country already reeling from a recession.” […] “Moreover, the consequences of lowering PM2.5 standards extend even to areas meeting those standards. New projects and major expansions in these areas require permits demonstrating that they will not exceed the standards. Manufacturing businesses trying to make such demonstrations are already pinched between PM2.5 standards set near levels of emissions that naturally occur or are transported from other countries, and EPA modeling designed to over predict PM2.5 concentrations. Lowering PM2.5 standards further would eliminate the small margin left for manufacturers and to obtain the necessary approvals for new, state-of-the-art projects. This could force companies operating in areas meeting PM2.5 standards to install controls even more costly than those required in areas that fail them – or to simply not build at all.” BOTTOMLINE: “Changes to the PM2.5 standards should therefore clearly improve public health – especially with PM2.5 emissions already on a continuing, downward trajectory. It is critical, then, for EPA’s reconsideration to get the science and the rulemaking process right. That requires accepting comment on the full range of issues, including retaining existing standards, and providing stakeholders sufficient time, at least 90 days, to file comments.” CLICK HERE  to read the full letter.

Oct 11, 2022

E&C Republicans Vow Strict Oversight Over Massive DOE Loan Guarantee Program

Washington, D.C. —  House Energy and Commerce Committee Republican Leader Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Energy Subcommittee Republican Leader Fred Upton (R-MI), and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Republican Leader Morgan Griffith (R-VA) are vowing vigorous oversight over the implementation of Department of Energy’s (DOE) loan programs, which Democrats expanded in their massive tax and spending sprees. The Energy and Commerce Republicans warn that $450 billion in new spending and loans for President Biden to achieve his radical energy transition is at significant risk of waste, fraud, and abuse. As Leader Rodgers says, it’s “ Solyndra on steroids .” She added, “The hardworking people of this country are paying for record high energy and food prices because of President Biden’s war on American energy. They cannot afford for him to waste hundreds of billions of dollars on a political agenda that forces an expensive ‘green’ energy transition, threatens energy reliability, increases costs, and makes America reliant on the Chinese Communist Party for batteries and solar panels. Energy and Commerce Republicans will hold DOE accountable for every cent spent to ensure taxpayer dollars are not wasted and the American people are protected.” KEY EXCERPT FROM THE E&C GOP LETTER:  “We write with regard to the Department of Energy’s (DOE) implementation of new programs and spending authority provided in the reconciliation legislation enacted this past August and the infrastructure legislation enacted in November 2021.  All told, these two spending laws, enacted in less than a year and with little Congressional scrutiny of long-term taxpayer risks, appropriated more than $100 billion to the Department for use across its applied energy, electricity, and efficiency programs and provided new authorities for $350 billion in loan guarantees.” […] “The scope and scale of this expanded loan authority, related credit subsidies, and rapid four-year timeline for making commitments, raise questions about increased risks of waste, fraud and abuse, especially if the administration uses the program for its rush-to-green agenda.  Under the Obama administration, DOE’s loan program failed to put taxpayer interests first, and the Secretary allowed a political agenda to take over decision-making.” To best oversee the DOE’s loan programs, the Members are asking Sec. Granholm to provide information to the Committee by October 25, 2022, including: Provide a list of all current loan and loan guarantees in the Loan Program Office portfolio, including the specific borrowers, the statutory program under which commitment for loan or loan guarantee was made, technology sector, project status, disbursement status, repayment status, and any information pertinent to the current ability of the borrowers to repay the loans. Provide a list of all open funding and financing opportunities, by statutory category, and include the number of applicants and technology in each category, including whether the applicants seek guarantees for first-of-a-kind technology. Explain what the Department has done to address the four major risk areas to the Loan Program identified by the DOE Inspector General Special Report issued this past June 7, 2022. Explain the Department review process for loan guarantee decisions, including for approval by the Secretary, and the role of independent departmental reviews and risk oversight. Identify specific measures or requirements the Department implements to ensure loan guarantees will protect intellectual property, and not subsidize loss of intellectual property to China or other American adversaries. CLICK HERE  to read the letter to Secretary Granholm.

Aug 10, 2022

E&C Bipartisan Leaders Request Briefings to Address Ongoing Efforts to Strengthen U.S. Government Network Security

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Republican Leader Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), and Subcommittee Leaders sent letters to the Departments of Commerce, Energy, Health and Human Services, and the Environmental Protection Agency requesting briefings to address concerns about how the U.S. government is identifying and mitigating potential compromises to its network security.  Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Republican Leader Morgan Griffith (R-VA), Subcommittee Chairwoman Diana DeGette (D-CO), Communications and Technology Subcommittee Republican Leader Bob Latta (R-OH), Subcommittee Chairman Mike Doyle (D-PA), Consumer Protection and Commerce Subcommittee Republican Leader Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Subcommittee Chairwoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Energy Subcommittee Republican Leader Fred Upton (R-MI), Subcommittee Chairman Bobby Rush (D-IL), Environment and Climate Change Republican Leader David McKinley (R-WV), Subcommittee Chairman Paul Tonko (D-NY), Health Subcommittee Republican Leader Brett Guthrie (R-KY), and Subcommittee Chairwoman Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA) also joined in sending the letters to the federal agencies.  Excerpts and highlights from the letter to Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm:  “Secretary Granholm:   “We write to request a briefing from your department related to the recent open-source software vulnerability—Apache Log4j. The ubiquitous nature of this vulnerability and the hundreds of thousands of known exploits since its disclosure raise concerns about how the U.S. government is identifying and mitigating potential compromises to its network security.”   […]   “On December 11, 2021, CISA Director Jen Easterly stated that ‘this vulnerability, which is being widely exploited by a growing set of threat actors, presents an urgent challenge to network defenders given its broad use.’ She later added, ‘[t]o be clear, this vulnerability poses a severe risk. We will only minimize potential impacts through collaborative efforts between government and the private sector.’”   […]   “Over the past several years, the Committee has done extensive work on cyber threats, including hearings and investigations examining the information-security programs and controls over key computer systems and networks at multiple agencies under the Committee’s jurisdiction.  Because the Log4j vulnerability is widespread and can affect enterprise applications, embedded systems, and their sub-components, the Committee is seeking to gain a comprehensive understanding of the scope of the vulnerability and actions being taken to mitigate its effects. The risk to federal network security is especially concerning because nation-state threat actors have attempted to exploit this Log4j vulnerability.   “Accordingly, we request a staff briefing to discuss your department’s response to the Log4j vulnerability by August 10, 2022, including the following questions:  When did your department first learn of the Log4j vulnerability?  When did your department first learn of the Log4j vulnerability?  What specific actions has your department taken in response to CISA’s guidance in December 2021 and subsequent directive on April 8, 2022, regarding the Log4j vulnerability?   What tools does your department employ to detect all instances of the Log4j vulnerability on your networks? What is your department’s schedule for identifying the Log4j vulnerability?  Does your department employ software that utilizes Apache Log4j? If so, how many software products employed by the department include the Log4j vulnerability?   Has your department been impacted by a compromise or exploitation of the Log4j vulnerability? If so, when was your department first compromised, when did you detect the compromise, what was the extent of the compromise, and how did the department address the compromise?   What incident alert thresholds does your department have for potential compromises generally, and what are your requirements for escalating and reporting anomalies?  Does your department have a specific plan to identify and remediate, on an ongoing basis, software that it uses to ensure the department is not currently using software vulnerable to a cyber threat?”  CLICK HERE to read the letter to the Department of Commerce.   CLICK HERE to read the letter to the Department of Energy.   CLICK HERE to read the letter to the Department of Health and Human Services.   CLICK HERE to read the letter to the Environmental Protection Agency.   CLICK HERE to read the letter to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. 

Aug 8, 2022

E&C Republican Leaders Demand Answers for Biased “Fact Checking” Used by Big Tech to Censor Speech

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Republican Leader Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and other Republican leaders on the Committee are demanding transparency from the Poynter Institute, the parent company of PolitiFact, for its clear biased and politically motivated decisions that help Big Tech censor Americans on their platforms.  As reported exclusively by Breitbart :  “House Republicans are demanding answers from The Poynter Institute, one of the nation’s most impactful ‘fact-checkers,’ over President Joe Biden’s definition of a ‘recession,’ according to a letter exclusively obtained by Breitbart News.  […]  “In a letter to PolitiFact’s parent company Poynter Institute, House Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee, led by ranking member Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), demanded answers about how the company conducts its fact-checking and if it has colluded with the Biden administration.   […]  “The letter also pointed to reports earlier in the year that Biden’s administration was using federal funds to buy crackpipes for ‘safe smoking kits,’ being labeled false by these fact-checkers, despite it being proven true.  “‘More recently, PolitiFact incorrectly labeled third-party content that challenges the Biden administration’s definition of a recession as ‘false information,’ the letter said.  “McMorris Rodgers even noted that former President Bill Clinton (D) defined a recession by the traditional two consecutive quarters definition.  […]   “Our country is founded on the battle of ideas and having a robust discussion about the state of our nation,’ the letter said. ‘Holding our government accountable through fact-based journalism, including by questioning claims from the White House, is foundational to our democracy.’  “Not only does this seem to violate Poynter’s core principles, but it creates an echo chamber of misleading information to participants in active debate, the opposite of Poynter’s and fact checkers’ stated purpose.”  CLICK HERE to read the full Breitbart exclusive.  In the letter, Republican leaders ask Poynter Institute President Neil Brown:   Who develops the standards that Poynter uses to certify its fact-checkers?  What process does Poynter use to certify its fact-checkers?  Has Poynter or any of its certified fact checkers communicated with any officials in the Biden administration regarding the definition of a recession? Has Poynter provided guidance to its fact checkers regarding statements by Biden administration officials on the definition of a recession?  How does Poynter define misinformation, and does Poynter enforce its fact-checkers that moderate misinformation to ensure the same definition is used by each fact-checker certified by Poynter?  How does Poynter conduct quality control for its certification of fact-checkers to ensure Poynter-certified fact checkers uphold the Poynter code of principles?  How does Poynter ensure impartiality when assessing the accuracy and non-partisanship of PolitiFact, given the financial interest Poynter has in PolitiFact?  If a Poynter-certified fact-checker is determined to be flagging content inaccurately, is there a process that a user can challenge their accreditation by Poynter?  Has Poynter or any of its certified fact checkers communicated with Big Tech platforms regarding the definition of a recession? Has Poynter provided any guidance to Big Tech Platforms regarding the definition of a recession?  CLICK HERE to read the letter to Poynter Institute President Brown.  CLICK HERE to read Leader Rodgers recent Op Ed with Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon and members of the House Republican Big Tech Task Force on how to hold Big Tech accountable for censoring Americans. 

E&C Republicans Lead to Grow Hydropower Production and Innovation

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans are leading an effort to expand clean and affordable hydropower around the United States. Energy and Commerce Committee Republican Leader Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Republican Leader Morgan Griffith (R-VA), Rep. Larry Bucshon, M.D. (R-IN), and Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) are examining potential reforms and how to improve hydropower provisions in the enacted America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA). The members ask in a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) what has worked and where improvements can be made, to increase hydropower production and innovation. LETTER HIGHLIGHT: “Given the strong bipartisan support for AWIA, and the well-established need to modernize the hydropower licensing process, we are concerned that some of the statutory requirements are not working as intended.” […] “As you know, there is tremendous opportunity to expand hydropower production. Only about 3 percent of the dams in the United States, approximately 2,000 dams, produce electricity today. A recent report by the Department of Energy (DOE) found that U.S. hydropower production could grow by almost 50 percent from current levels by 2050 from a combination of upgrading existing hydropower facilities, adding generation capacity to existing non-powered dams and canals, and developing new hydropower facilities.” The members ask FERC several questions on the AWIA and its implementation: Please describe whether or not the amendments to the FPA [Federal Power Act] relating to extending preliminary permit terms and start of construction deadlines for new construction projects have been implemented successfully. On April 18, 2019, FERC issued a final rule establishing an expedited 2-year licensing timeline for certain non-powered dams and closed-loop pumped storage projects to meet the requirements of AWIA. Have any applicants successfully completed the expedited licensing process? How did FERC establish the qualifying criteria for the purposes of the expedited licensing process? Has FERC evaluated the success of the program to determine whether it is meeting the objectives established by Congress? Has FERC considered whether the qualifying criteria should be modified? If not, why not? Please describe whether or not the amendments to the FPA relating to conduit hydropower facilities have been implemented successfully. How many conduit facilities have qualified for the exemption since Congress lifted the cap from 5 MW to 40 MW? Please provide a list of those facilities. Please describe whether or not the amendments to the FPA relating to FERC’s licensing terms and promoting project-related investments have been implemented successfully. How many facilities have applied for project-related investment determinations pursuant to AWIA? How many facilities have received a determination that a project-related investment is eligible under AWIA? CLICK HERE to read the letter to FERC Chairman Richard Glick.

Jul 27, 2022
In the News

House Republicans to Biden: Put American Energy Workers First, Don’t Reward Foreign Oil Producers

93 Republicans Warn Biden that OPEC+, Including Russia, Wins if He Bans American Oil Exports Washington, D.C. — House Republicans are demanding President Bidenabandon his anti-American energy agenda, including any plans to cut off America’s access to global energy markets by imposing a ban on oil exports. In a new letter, Energy and Commerce Committee Republican Leader Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), and 91 Republican representatives tell President Biden that banning America’s crude oil and petroleum product exports will make the self-inflicted energy crisis even worse, by hurting American energy workers, increasing gas prices, and further emboldening America’s adversaries, especially Russia.  Recent studies show the benefits of the U.S. exporting crude oil, as well as the harmful impacts of banning the exporting of U.S. petroleum products.  The following are excerpts from House Republicans letter to President Biden:  AN EXPORT BAN HURTS OUR ECONOMY AND SECURITY: “Banning oil exports would destroy American jobs and lead to higher energy prices for the hardworking people of this country already suffering under record high inflation. Furthermore, banning American oil exports would punish our allies in Europe and Asia who desperately seek to reduce their reliance on OPEC and Russia for oil. The only beneficiary of a ban on American oil exports would be Russia, which would gain geopolitical leverage over our allies and additional revenue to finance the unjustified war on Ukraine.” WHY LIFTING THE EXPORT BAN PUT AMERICA FIRST: “In 2015, when Congress passed bipartisan legislation to repeal 1970’s-era restrictions on crude oil exports, it found that ‘the United States upholds a commitment to free trade and open markets and has consistently opposed attempts by other nations to restrict the free flow of energy; and, the United States should remove all restrictions on the export of crude oil, which will provide domestic economic benefits, enhanced energy security, and flexibility in foreign diplomacy.’ Before your Administration took office, the United States emerged as the world’s leading energy producer and a net energy exporter, and American oil production was wisely treated as an arsenal of energy security. Prior to your Administration, and as a direct result of Congress lifting the crude oil export ban, OPEC and Russian power over world oil markets had been substantially diminished, and America’s trading partners had a more stable and reliable supplier for crude oil.” BOTTOM LINE: “ A ban on American crude oil or petroleum product exports would be detrimental to our national security and economy.” Don’t miss this exclusive coverage from : CLICK HERE to read the full letter.