Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2016-- Motion to Proceed-- Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. President, about a month ago the White House announced that it has reached a deal with 11 other countries along the Pacific Rim--known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This is a major trade agreement that followed on the approval of trade promotion authority by the Congress.

As we might expect, President Obama has been quick to tout his credentials as a pro-trade President, and I think so far, so good. In fact, though, you might say he is so pro-trade that he has significantly not only sought to open up the U.S. economy but also the Iranian economy, releasing billions of dollars to a hostile regime by negotiating a deal to ease sanctions against them and potentially releasing as much as 1 million barrels of crude oil by Iran onto the world markets. I think it has been well documented that I oppose that deal.

I do find the President's position is perplexing at minimum or hypocritical at worst. It is hypocritical that despite his self-proclaimed pro-trade stance, he refuses to do something that should be a no-brainer when it comes to any proponent of free trade: opening up foreign markets to the things we make and produce here, like lifting the antiquated ban on exporting crude oil.

By refusing to revise this outdated policy, the President continues to contribute to the flatline of our economy and to deny our potential as an energy powerhouse. And, I might add, at the same time, by not acting to lift this export ban, the President continues to deny our allies the energy they need for their economic security and to improve their national security.

Next month will mark 40 years since the United States put into place a ban on the export of crude oil. For those who might not be familiar with the history, let me offer a little bit of background.

The crude oil export ban was put in place decades ago as a precaution to protect the United States from disruptions to global supply of oil in the 1970s, at a time when we were importing the majority of the oil and gas that we consumed here in the United States. But, fortunately, the world looks a lot different than it did back in the 1970s. For example, in 1970, world production was roughly 48 million barrels of oil a day. In 2015 that number has doubled to 100 million barrels of oil a day, and the United States alone is producing about 9.4 million barrels of oil a day.

As recently as 2008, 76 percent of Americans believed that the world was somehow running out of oil. Thanks to the remarkable shale revolution, we have come a long way in helping the geopolitical energy landscape turn in our favor here in the United States and have reduced our dependency on imported energy from other parts of the country.

I should mention that it is because of the commonsense policies of States such as Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and North Dakota that we have been able to take advantage of the incredible new technology in this field that goes along with horizontal drilling and fracking to produce a supply of oil and gas that we never would have dreamed of a few short years ago. These developments have been nothing short of revolutionary.

We have recently seen an uptick in oil imports in the United States, primarily because overseas energy producers are discounting their crude to be able to take advantage of the U.S. market. The downward trend for the past several years of imports of oil showed that the United States is importing less than it historically has. Why? Because we are producing more here, so we are less reliant. I think most people would think that would be a good thing.

Our country doesn't need to bar our domestically produced energy from reaching the global market. We should do away with this antiquated policy and, in so doing, help kick start the U.S. economy in the process. First, let me talk about what this would do to help our economy. Lifting the ban would mean real job creation right here in this country. These are not minimum wage jobs. These are well-paying jobs. It is easy to think that lifting the ban would only provide a limited benefit to those who work in the domestic energy sector, but that is actually not the case.

Domestic energy production involves many different sectors, from construction to shipping to technology companies. By allowing our country to export more crude, the United States has the potential to create many, many jobs here in the United States at a time when we need more jobs--not only in the domestic energy sector but deep in the supply chain as well.

One study estimated that for every new production job, it translates into three additional jobs in the supply chain and another six in the broader economy. It is estimated that in my home State of Texas alone, more than 40,000 jobs could be created in the coming years simply by lifting the ban and making available to producers the global benchmark price known as the Brent price. Several studies have suggested that hundreds of thousands of jobs in multiple sectors throughout the country could be created in the coming years if the crude export ban is lifted.

By the way, I should mention this--because this is probably on everybody's mind: What is this going to do to the price of gasoline? Study after study has documented that gasoline prices are going to remain either where they are now or go lower should the ban be lifted. By the way, the Energy Secretary of the Obama administration, Dr. Moniz, agrees with that. It is plain old supply and demand, if you think about it.
Lifting the crude oil ban export would strengthen our economy and could actually save Americans money at the pump. But doing away with this outdated, protectionist policy also gives us the opportunity to promote stronger relationships with our friends and allies around the world. For example, our NATO allies and other nations in Europe rightly question why the United States doesn't lift this ban, which would help them achieve a source of energy that they need, instead of having to depend on countries such as Russia that use it as an instrument of coercion and intimidation.

Today, many of our allies in Europe rely not only on Russia but on Iran for their energy needs. Wouldn't it be so much better if we were able to enter into contracts to sell our energy to our friends and allies to help prop them up and provide them another source of energy, rather than leave them dependent on countries such as Russia that want to use it as an instrument of intimidation. Because of these countries' dependence on our adversaries for their basic needs such as heating, electricity, and fuel, this represents a real vulnerability, not just for them but for us as well because we are part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

As our world becomes more interconnected, we need to take a more long-term strategic view. That means considering the implications of our energy policies for our own national security. By lifting this ban, the United States can offer to help our friends diversify their energy supplies and enhance their energy security and help reduce the revenue that these rogue states take in for nefarious purposes--such as Iran, the No. 1 sponsor of state terrorism.

Lifting the crude oil ban represents a rare opportunity to do two things vital for our country: to strengthen our economy and to promote a safer, more stable world for our allies and partners and ultimately for us.

Last month, in a strong bipartisan vote, the House of Representatives voted to overturn this ban. Now it is time for the Senate to do the same. Unfortunately, the White House has already sent a signal that were we to pass such a bill to lift the ban, the President might decide to veto this pro-trade legislation. I wish to point out to the White House and to anybody else who is listening that time and again the President has relied on Republicans in this Chamber to advance his pro-trade agenda. The reason we have done it is because we agree that a pro-trade agenda is good for our economy and good for our security.

Soon we will have an opportunity to read the full text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement that I mentioned earlier. Pro-trade Republicans in this Chamber, myself included, have voted to equip Congress with a powerful mechanism with which to consider trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement or trade promotion authority. Trade promotion authority, or TPA, which passed with strong Republican support and only 13 Democratic votes in the Senate, does not guarantee that the President's agreement will pass this Senate or this Congress--far from it. I am going to use all of the tools that we have provided for in the trade promotion authority legislation to make sure this proposed deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, gets the kind of careful scrutiny it deserves.

We know the President, with not much time left in his administration, is looking for a legacy accomplishment. But this President's inconsistency with respect to free trade gives me great pause. I have to say that he can't take my support for granted or, I believe, the support of others in this Chamber for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, particularly if he acts so inconsistently on other free trade measures such as lifting the crude oil export ban.

Moving forward, I hope the President will learn to work with those of us in Congress who have traditionally supported free trade in every respect. If he were truly the pro-trade President he claims to be, his administration would prioritize lifting the crude oil export ban with the same ferocity with which it supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source