National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this Chamber is currently having a very
important debate about our national security priorities, including the
authorized funding levels for our Nation's Armed Forces. But I would
like to speak just briefly about an element of our national security that is
often overlooked, and that has to do with the interconnection between
our energy resources here in America and global security.

I will start by quoting the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
GEN Martin Dempsey, who said: ``I think we've got to pay more and
particular attention to energy as an instrument of national power.''

Well, I could not agree, in this instance, with General Dempsey more.
So I want to again address a way in which I believe the United States
can utilize our vast domestic energy resources to not only enhance our
economy but also help enhance our national security and help us meet
our strategic objectives around the world and specifically by helping
many of our NATO allies in Europe in this process.

As I mentioned on the floor last week, many of these countries rely
heavily on energy resources from Russia, creating strategic
vulnerability for them as well as for the United States, their treaty
ally. This is not a hypothetical matter because we know Vladimir Putin
has literally turned the spigot off to countries like Ukraine and
threatens to do so to Europe if they happen to disagree with Russian
policy, particularly with regard to its expropriation of Crimea and
Ukraine.

But the United States can use its energy resources to reassure our
allies and partners and to lessen, reduce, at the same time, their
dependence on bad actors like Russia and Iran. So it is as simple as
helping our friends and checking the abuse of power by our adversaries.

Now, while allowing energy exports to some of our allies when their
security is threatened probably sounds like a commonsense notion to a
lot of people, there are some skeptics. One of our colleagues, the
junior Senator from Massachusetts, has suggested that approving crude
oil exports to anybody--including on a limited basis to our allies who
are being coerced and under duress from Vladimir Putin--that somehow
that would result in a tax on consumers at the pump. In other words, he
is arguing that exporting our natural resources around the world would
actually cause gasoline prices to go up.

Well, I am here to say that is a faulty assumption and it is simply
not grounded in fact. It is at odds with the research and leading
opinions of multiple experts, think tank organizations, and officials.
And you know what. It is even at odds with the Obama administration's
leading expert in this field. Here is what Secretary Moniz said on
February 12, 2015, about the effect of crude oil exports on U.S. gas
prices. He said there would be no effect on gas prices. He said: ``And
their [EIA's] conclusion was, probably none to possibly minor decreases
in domestic prices.''

So if you think about it, actually more American supply increases the
world's supply of oil. Indeed, gasoline is already sold around the
world at a global price. So more supply of oil, which is the chief
component of gasoline, would actually increase the supply. Even
according to a recovering lawyer who is not an economist, on a supply-
and-demand basis, with static demand increasing, the supply is actually
going to bring down the price.

The Energy Secretary is not the only one who believes there will
either be no change or actually a downward price to consumers on
gasoline.

After reviewing several studies on this issue, the Government
Accountability Office noted that ``consumer fuel prices, such as
gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel, could decrease as a result of removing
crude oil export restrictions.'' So this is the Government
Accountability Office that said that, actually confirming, essentially,
what Secretary Moniz said; that we would actually see gasoline prices
go down at the pump were we to lift this domestic sanction we have
imposed upon ourselves when it comes to exporting crude.

Another think tank, the Aspen Institute, said it would have
``significant positive and durable effects on [our gross domestic
product], aggregate employment and income.''

The Aspen Institute, just as another example, thinks it would be good
for income, it would be good for jobs, it would be good for our
economy.

So it seems the only people who do not think lifting the ban would be
good are limited to the Halls of Congress or perhaps some of the
lobbyists who raise money scaring people when it comes to the use of
our fossil fuels, particularly oil and gas.

While I think it is important to come and rebut this faulty argument,
the amendment that is pending to the underlying bill is actually much
more narrowly targeted. It simply ensures that we will have a reliable
sense of the energy vulnerabilities of our European partners. In fact,
we are a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and under
article 5, were they to be attacked, all members of the treaty would be
required to come to their assistance. So why in the world would we not
want to reduce their vulnerability to economic hostage-taking?

We also want to get a better understanding of Russia's ability to use
this dependency against our allies in NATO and Europe in general. So my
amendment would allow us to see the big picture when it comes to just
how dependent our allies in the region are on nations that wield their
energy supply as a weapon.

Now, I just want to make clear my amendment would actually not change
any of the current law. It would not change any of the current law. It
simply restates the current authority that the President has in his
discretion to allow crude oil and natural gas exports, if determined to
be consistent with the national interest.

I would say, even though Russia and Europe and NATO are the primary
focus, this is not just limited to NATO. It could include important
allies of ours in the Middle East, like Israel, as well. My amendment
reiterates this existing authority, and it encourages the President to
use it to help reduce the vulnerabilities of our allies in Europe and
around the world when it is determined to be in our national interest.
It does not add to that authority, and it does not constrain it either.

Well, the President just returned from the so-called G7 summit--
representing the leading seven economies of the free world--and here is
what the G7 said about this topic. The G7 leaders said that ``we
reaffirm our support for Ukraine and other vulnerable countries . . .
and reiterate that energy should not be used as a means of political
coercion or as a threat to security.''

So if that is the position of the G7, if the Obama administration
takes the position that lifting the ban on exports of oil will not do
anything to raise the price of gasoline at the pump and could well
reduce it, then I think the Senate would be well advised to support the
amendment I have offered which, again, just restates the current
authority, does not expand it, and then asks the Defense Department and
the intelligence community to do an assessment of how we can better
understand the role our energy assets play as an element of our soft
power and national security.

Our allies are pretty clear-eyed about all this. They recognize that
shrinking their dependence will not be complete or easy. But one goal
this amendment seeks to recognize is that we have allies that are
asking for help that will put them on a path toward less reliance and
will put Russia on notice that they will not be able to hold these
countries hostage to energy.

This is about options, alternatives, and a stable supply on the world
market that are all helped by increased U.S. production and this
renaissance in natural gas and oil that has been brought about thanks
to the great innovation and technology improvements in the private
sector, created here in the United States but benefiting the entire
world.

The G7 leaders noted that the diversification of the world's energy
supply is ``a core element of energy security,'' including a diversity
of ``energy mix[es], energy fuels, sources, and routes.''

So my amendment is based on the idea that we may supplement the
global market, and that ultimately brings about increased diversity in
fuel supply, which benefits everyone.

My amendment is not about limiting the President's authority under
current law. I did not intend to do that. This amendment does not do
it. It is about taking a modest first step toward addressing the
requests, the pleas, in some cases, of our allies and our partners in
an increasingly unpredictable world.

So I would encourage our colleagues to support this amendment and, in
doing so, take the long-term view of our national security interests as
well as the peace and stability of our most trusted allies and
partners.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, if I may withhold that request.

I ask unanimous consent that the time in the quorum call be equally
divided.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source