Protecting Volunteer Firefighters and Emergency Responders Act

Floor Speech

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am here on the floor this afternoon
with my good friend from North Dakota, and I want to speak to an issue
as it relates to the Iranian sanctions bill that we have on the floor
in front of us.

This is about an issue that so many of us care deeply about--about
our own domestic production here, about the strength of our economy,
about the strength of our national security and how the United States
in a global environment really stands toe-to-toe in good strong
competition around the world. I want to speak today about U.S. oil--the
ban on U.S. oil--and how this all intersects with Iran, Iranian
sanctions, and specifically, the sanctions on Iranian oil.

I am submitting a bipartisan amendment to allow U.S. oil to compete
with Iranian oil on the global market. I am pleased to be joined in
this effort by Senator Heitkamp, Senator Hoeven, Senator Lankford, and,
hopefully, others, as this discussion progresses.

Iran's Government is largely dependent on its exports of oil for its
revenue source. It sends oil to countries such as China, Japan, India,
and South Korea. The sanctions that have been imposed have really hurt
Iran's economy. They have brought Iran to the table. The sanctions that
have been in place have cost the government in Tehran some $40 billion
in lost export revenues in 2014 alone, according to the Treasury
Department.

Under the sanctions regime and the Joint Plan of Action, countries
are still able to purchase Iranian oil, and I don't think a lot of
folks understand that. They think the sanctions are in place and Iran
can't derive a benefit from the oil exports. But in fact, companies are
still able to purchase Iranian oil, up to 1 to 1.1 million barrels per
day and--no surprise--countries have purchased up to that limit nearly
every month since the JPA was implemented in November of 2013. So
sanctions are in place, but Iran is still deriving the benefit of being
able to sell Iranian oil to other nations.

It is worth pointing out that this is only possible because the State
Department does not include condensate in its definition of crude oil.
If you include the condensate volumes, then the limit of 1.1 million
barrels per day was breached back in January of 2014, in February,
March, April, and May--not June--in July, September, October, and
December, and also in February of 2015, according to reports that came
out of the International Energy Agency.

It simply does not make sense for us to lift sanctions on Iranian oil
while we keep them on American oil. It just doesn't make sense that we
would tell Iran that we are going to allow these sanctions to be lifted
over there, but by keeping our oil export ban in place, we are
effectively imposing sanctions on U.S. oil producers. This is a de
facto sanctions regime against ourselves.

Now, one can understand why we have imposed sanctions on certain
places--on Tehran, Moscow, and Damascus. However, we are effectively
talking about sanctions on the Permian, on the Utica, on the Niobrara,
and on regions where we have the ability to produce a resource that
helps this country, helps to create jobs, and helps with all aspects of
our economy. We are going to say: Iran, OK, we are going to relieve
sanctions on you, but we are going to keep in place sanctions on U.S.
oil producers.

So what this amendment does is to add a third section to the Corker-
Cardin Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015. It would require a
DOE report on Iranian crude oil and condensate exports. It would then
lift the de facto ban on U.S. crude oil and condensate exports. It
still preserves the emergency authorities of the President to prohibit
exports if it is warranted. So there is that safety valve there.

The deadline for submission of this report to Congress would be 60
days following the enactment of the act. It would still be required
even if an agreement with Iran were not reached. It would effectively
address two issues--the relative ability of U.S. and Iranian oil
producers to compete in the global market, which is pretty important
out there, and the extent to which any agreement with Iran would
increase Iranian oil exports through the lifting of sanctions.

As we know, American oil producers are generally prohibited from
exporting overseas. Alaska is the one exception to the oil export ban.
A very limited amount is exported over the years. Iran, on the other
hand, currently exports over 1 million barrels per day of oil onto the
global markets.

Now, we had a hearing in the energy committee a week or so ago. The
Presiding Officer was there. We heard from the U.S. Energy Information
Administration, the EIA. They estimated that lifting the sanctions on
Iran would increase Iranian volume by some 700,000 to 1 million barrels
per day. So if we lifted that, EIA estimates that Iran would then be in
a situation where they would be able to put out onto the market,
basically to new purchasers, 1 million barrels per day.

Think about what that does--giving them new markets for their oil. As
they have new markets for their oil, they get paid for it. EIA
estimates that given the price of Brent being where it is in this range
right now, it would be $25 billion per year to Iran from the ability to
put that out onto the market and gain new customers--an extra $25
billion.

How comfortable are we with that? How much of that $25 billion is
going to fund terrorist organizations, terrorists, in areas that we are
fighting directly and immediately today? What kind of sense does it
make that we would say that we will remove sanctions on Iran, allowing
them to move their product to new customers, gain potentially $25
billion additionally into their treasury to do who knows what with it.

At the same time, what this does is it harms American producers who
are unable to compete with Iranian oil due to this outdated ban on U.S.
exports that was imposed 40 years ago. So we are going to let a 40-
year-old policy sanction us, sanction our economy and benefit Iran's.
Lifting the ban on U.S. oil exports would let American oil compete with
Iranian oil. It would reduce Iranian revenue from oil exports. It would
send a strong signal to U.S. allies that still depend on Iranian oil
that alternative supplies are available and lower global oil prices
which would decrease the price of gasoline and other consumer fuels.

A few hours ago, on the other side of the hallway here, over in the
House of Representatives, we heard from the Prime Minister of Japan.
Japan is currently purchasing and is able to purchase oil from Iran.
Don't you think that our friend Japan would much rather have security
and diversity of supply if it were to come from their friend the United
States? I sure think so.

The amendment that we have introduced lifts the ban by requiring,
after 30 days have elapsed from the enactment of S. 615, that crude oil
exports may be authorized on the same basis that they are currently
authorized for petroleum products, whether it is gasoline, diesel, jet
fuel or whatever it is. Currently, these petroleum products can be
exported without a license. In fact, we are, here in this country, the
largest exporter of petroleum products in the world. So think about
this as you kind of shake your head and say: What is going on here? We
are the largest exporter of refined products, but yet we impose a flat
ban--an outright ban--on the crude itself.

So, again, we have a safety valve in the amendment that preserves the
President's emergency authority, which is derived from the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the National Emergencies
Act, and the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. They prohibit exports,
under these various proposals, if needed for the safety and security of
the Nation. We do not touch those. We do not impact them in that
amendment at all.

So it is important to recognize that what we are doing here is we are
looking at an outdated policy that is 40-years old. We are moving into
present time and space, where we have a situation with a country that
we have tried desperately to bring to the table to be a nation that
will work with us rather than against us. Yet part of what we are
considering is an action that would remove sanctions on them and
continue to keep in place sanctions on this country.

It makes no sense to me. I would hope that my colleagues would
consider it. I know that my colleague from North Dakota has given great
thought to this, has great understanding about the issue, and also has
great passion about how we ensure that from a national security
perspective we are covered in all corners.

So I would ask my colleague from North Dakota, as she has reviewed an
antiquated and an outdated policy, and being from a producing State
such as North Dakota, where she is working to advance the opportunities
not only for North Dakotans but for people all over this country, how
people in North Dakota feel when it is suggested that we are imposing,
effectively, domestic sanctions on them, while at the same time we
would relieve sanctions on Iran.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota.
She has articulated the case so well not only from a domestic
perspective but from the international perspective as well. We need to
appreciate that as we are recognized as a nation, as that superpower
when it comes to our military strength and all those who serve us have
to offer, that we are also an energy superpower. We have not yet
embraced that as a responsibility, as an obligation to use that not
only to our advantage but to the advantage of our friends and allies
around the globe. That is an important transition, transformation we
need to make.

We are mired down in policies that are decades old, based on history
that is no longer relevant given the geopolitics of today. We have an
opportunity to wake up to where we can be, how we can lead from an
international perspective. It can begin with the strength of our energy
and our energy resources, but we have to believe in our own
possibilities. Right now, I think we are lagging in that.

I appreciate all that my colleague is doing in this effort to help
educate people. I recognize that it takes a little bit of time to
recalibrate the thinking, but we are doing that, and we are doing it
for the right reason, based on common sense, based on strength of the
economy, and based on national security, which should be our primary
consideration right now. We will never have sufficient boots on the
ground or budget for defense to be everywhere many would like to be
around the globe. What other assets do we have? What else can we
contribute? It can begin with our energy resources.

So we have great opportunities, and I forward to further discussions
about not only what we are proposing in this amendment but how we can
lead as a nation in the energy sector.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source