[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 184 (Thursday, December 17, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8756-S8758]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
OIL EXPORT BAN
Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, we rise today to talk about an issue we
started talking about a year ago; that is, the oil export ban. What we
were going to do is not only educate the public about this 40-year-old
ban but also educate those colleagues in our caucus who do not have the
level of experience that we have with the oil industry. I can tell you
that it has been a journey.
I want to make this point because I always make this point when I
talk about it: Fundamentally ignore all the other policy arguments.
There is absolutely no reason in the world to restrict the export of a
commodity that we produce in this country. Commodities traditionally
trade on a global market. If we are not going to distort the market,
they need to find their market. This is a 40-year-old ban that didn't
make sense when they did it, and it made even less sense in an
environment where States such as North Dakota were on the path to
produce over 2 million barrels a day of light sweet crude from our
shale formations.
At the end of the day, when we look at the effort and we look at the
analysis, occasionally a good argument wins the day. I think that is
what we are seeing as we are on the verge of this Congress--signed by
the President--lifting a 40-year-old ban on the exportation of crude
oil that is produced in this country.
I wish to make a couple of quick points about it on a policy matter.
First, many people say: Well, wouldn't that jeopardize our energy
independence?
Closing off the market and making sure our commodities can't find a
market encourages investment in other places than the United States of
America, so it is counterintuitive.
They say: Wouldn't this actually raise our gasoline prices?
We had study after study that concluded one simple thing: Either it
would have no effect or it would have a downward effect since gasoline
prices were measured against Brent, which is the international pricing
benchmark. When we look at what is good for consumers, what is good for
jobs in States such as North Dakota and New Mexico, what is good for
national security, and what is good for our allies--I spent a lot of
time last year talking to people from the EU and talking to people in
Eastern Europe about the significance of energy security and knowing
that even though they didn't have a source of energy, they could buy
energy from a country such as the United States of America.
I frequently referred to our oil as ``democracy oil.'' It is not oil
produced by countries that we are at odds with, that we disagree with;
this is oil that is absolutely an opportunity to use that soft power,
to use that ability to export. That idea was shared not only by foreign
policy experts from conservative think tanks but many well-recognized
Democratic foreign policy experts. We are at the point of actually
getting this done, and that is the good news.
We also know that frequently in the Congress a good idea doesn't
happen in isolation; it happens when we are willing to sit down and go
to negotiations. That is where my great friend from New Mexico came in,
taking a look at whether there was an opportunity to actually get a
deal done and what we could do to make this actually happen. So we
partnered up pretty early in making the pitch together.
I wish to ask my friend Senator Heinrich, would you please talk about
the piece of this deal that supports the development of renewables and
what that means for your State, which is also an oil-producing State,
and what that means for jobs not only in a State such as mine, which
has a large manufacturing facility that manufactures blades--plus, we
think we are the Saudi Arabia of wind. I know there are probably 20
States that say that. In North Dakota, it is true. I am sure the
Presiding Officer would agree that we are, in fact, the Saudi Arabia of
wind.
I ask Senator Heinrich, what does this mean for you in terms of
renewables?
Mr. HEINRICH. I thank Senator Heitkamp for her leadership on this
issue.
I thank the Presiding Officer for his contributions to allow us to
reach what has been an incredible example of a bipartisan, balanced
energy package, something we haven't seen for quite a while.
I wish to recognize the many hours that Senator Heitkamp spent in
meetings of every complexion under the sun, educating our colleagues
who don't have oil- and gas-producing basins, as we do, on the
intricacies of what does this mean for price pressures, what does this
mean for consumers, are the things that you intuitively might think
actually not what you would see in the actual marketplace. There was
meeting after meeting with the renewable energy associations, in the
solar field, in the wind field, and with colleagues on both sides of
the aisle. There were people such as the Presiding Officer or the
energy committee chairperson, Senator Murkowski of Alaska.
I thank the Senator for that work, and it has really been a pleasure
to work with her in that effort.
This is a very big step for New Mexico. Obviously, at any time when
oil is trading under $50 a barrel in a State where we have two big
basins--the Permian Basin in the Southeast and the San Juan Basin in
the Northwest, not to mention production in the Raton Basin that is
coming on--it is a very big hit, not only to our job situation and to
the families who rely on those jobs, but also to our public schools in
the State of New Mexico. This opportunity to relax the oil export ban
means something concrete for that industry and for those jobs in New
Mexico. It also means something very concrete for the future of jobs in
New Mexico as well.
The incremental work on the renewable side is one of the single
biggest pieces of policy on clean energy that I have seen in my adult
lifetime.
We are looking at two markets that have grown rapidly and that have
produced, in solar's case, 200,000 jobs in the last few years. That
would have taken an enormous hit if we would have allowed those
incentives to go away. As a result of this package, we are likely going
to see another 140,000 jobs in solar alone.
The incremental impact on the carbon front--the extension will offset
100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. That is like 26
coal-fired powerplants.
These things impact small businesses across my State as well as
across the country. But if you look at a small State such as New Mexico
with 2 million people, we have close to 100 solar companies employing
1,600 people in these new fields, and it is growing rapidly. We have
seen 358 megawatts of solar energy installed. We have 812 megawatts of
wind energy currently installed and another 300 in the pipeline right
now, with another 300,000 to 500,000 jobs associated with that in 2014
alone.
This is the single biggest piece of predictability within renewable
energy
[[Page S8757]]
that we have seen in a very long time. We have learned the reality that
one-plus-one-plus-one does not equal three. When you add a tax
incentive one year, you take it away, and you add it back, the sum of
those is not nearly as robust as when you have predictability over a
period of time. That is what this does for our energy industries across
the board.
I thank the Senator for all of her work on it. I wish to ask the
Senator a question, in particular. This agreement obviously didn't
happen overnight. I know we have been meeting for well over a year, and
you have been thinking about it even longer than that.
I ask Senator Heitkamp, would you talk a little bit about why you are
so passionate about this issue and what specifically it means for the
people of North Dakota.
Ms. HEITKAMP. Well, it wasn't that long ago that North Dakota became
the second largest oil-producing State in the country. We are
challenged in North Dakota because we don't have the mature
infrastructure of Texas and the basin. We are challenged with
transportation. But the amazing thing is, we produce the best crude in
the world, light sweet crude. The problem with light sweet crude over
the years is it wasn't the dominant crude that was produced in the
United States. As a result, the refineries are basically geared up to
refine heavy crudes. They are geared up to basically import crude from
places such as Venezuela and some of the heavier crudes. That is what
the refiners can do. And a lot of refineries that can handle light
sweet crude are not on a pipeline system. So on top of producing this
great-quality crude, we have additional transportation costs and we
were seeing deductions.
When you add to that the challenge of producing something that could
be so important for energy security in our country but also national
security and helping our allies with their energy security in Europe--
when you add the challenge of that product not being able to find a
market, what that means is that this energy renaissance for the country
that we are so proud that we participated in begins to basically dim.
This idea that we can be energy independent starts dimming, and we
start seeing people cut back on investment, and we start seeing people
reduce their plans to invest in this country when they know they can go
offshore and actually market their product.
So the bottom line is that this isn't going to raise oil prices
overnight. Those folks who may have a prediction that this is going to
result in a dramatic increase--I don't think they really understand the
oil markets and what is happening right now. But what it does do is it
takes a commodity that should always have had the opportunity to find
its market and it applies free enterprise system principles and it
applies capitalistic principles. When you produce something in this
country, you ought to be able to find your market.
People say: It is remarkable you have been able to get this far. It
tells the American public that the Congress can function if people come
willing to make a deal.
I see my friend from New Jersey, who a lot of people would not have
suspected played such an important role in our discussions and had such
a willingness to learn. He impressed a lot of our friends in the oil
industry with his rapid understanding of economics. I tried to tell
them he was smart. They occasionally get fooled by press releases as
opposed to actually meeting folks.
I think another great thing that has come as a result of this is
certainly a willingness of the Democratic caucus to listen to this
argument. There has been a building of relationships that I hope will
allow us to have a reasoned debate about oil energy development in this
country going into the future.
I say to Senator Heinrich, I am going to ask you to close with an
explanation of, when you look into the future, how critical this is to
your school system and what you see in terms of the future of the
industry as a result of this change in your State.
Mr. HEINRICH. I thank again Senator Heitkamp. I just wish to say how
important this is for the State of New Mexico, in part from the
perspective that our economy has been incredibly challenged in the last
few years. Coming out of the recessions, we have not seen the growth
that many of our neighbors have seen.
One of the places where we have seen growth has been the solar
industry. For the people working in the solar industry today, those are
new jobs. Having certainty for our energy sector, which runs the gamut
from the oil and gas basins that I talked about, to the incredible
growth in solar energy, to the fact that we have a very strong wind
component in the State--basically, the eastern side of our State is
very much in the same wind-mapping zone as the Panhandle of Texas. This
means predictability. It means jobs. It is one of the single biggest
economic things that we could have done for the State of New Mexico
since I have been in the Senate.
I think we have a lot to be proud of. We were also able to extend the
Land and Water Conservation Fund, something that has been working for
this Nation, across the country, for 50 years. That is very much tied
to our leasing of oil and gas offshore.
Certainly, my colleague Senator Udall knows that program inside and
out. He has been an incredible champion for it. His father made it
happen when he was Secretary of the Interior.
I conclude my remarks and thank you again for allowing me to engage
in this colloquy. I thank our colleagues for being able to work on a
bipartisan basis.
Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I know that we are up against the clock,
and I promised my friend from the South that I would, in fact,
conclude, but I saw someone I worked very closely with on this issue
come onto the floor. I extend my great appreciation for the hours we
spent together talking about this issue and the hours we spent with the
senior Senator from Alaska, basically educating as the first step and
then finally delivering a product that we can all be proud of. I extend
my congratulations and my appreciation to the chairwoman of the energy
committee for the work that she did and for her belief, along with my
belief, that we could in fact get this across the finish line. I don't
think anyone at any point, other than her and me, actually believed we
could get it done this year. It is pretty remarkable that we did.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank not only the Senator from North
Dakota but many others for the effort that has been made to get us to
this point where we will soon have the opportunity to vote to lift a
40-year-old ban on export.
We are the only Nation in the world that produces oil that limits our
ability to export that. It is a policy that 40 years ago may have made
sense at that time, but it is so outdated. It is so past time that we
recognize we are that energy superpower, and, as that energy
superpower, act like one.
The Senator from North Dakota mentioned there were very few people
initially who thought this could be done. In January of 2014, I gave a
speech to the Brookings Institute, and I called for repeal of the ban.
At that time, I was the first policymaker who really got out front and
said what a lot were thinking but were thinking maybe this was way too
soon.
A couple months later, I had the opportunity to lay out a framework
or a pathway forward--a pathway that said we are not going to lay down
legislation right now; we are going to build the case, and 2014 is
going to be the year of the report. There were some dozen reports--very
considered, substantive reports--that came out and said: This isn't
going to increase the price of oil. This is going to be good for jobs
and our economy. This is going to be great, important, and vital for
our role around the world to help our allies and to help others who
would like to rely on our energy resources rather than on Russia or
Iran.
So that path was set. I think it set the table for where we are now,
in 2015. We were able to introduce legislation, to have it heard by our
committee, to move the bill out of committee, to see the House do the
same and move it across the floor, and to get us then to the point
where we could consider it in various legislative vehicles. It didn't
quite work with NDAA. It didn't quite work with the Iran deal. It
didn't quite work with the transportation bill. But now we are here
with this omnibus package.
[[Page S8758]]
Again, recognizing that this is so substantive from a domestic policy
perspective is something that I think the occupant of the Chair, as
well as Senator Heitkamp, as well as Senator Heinrich from New Mexico--
all producing States--can recognize the enormous gains. But I think we
also need to consider the very real, very substantive difference that
we will make when as an energy superpower are able to share our
resources--whether it is oil, whether it is natural gas--to help
whether it is our friends in Europe, whether it is Poland, which is 95-
percent reliant on Russia for its oil, whether it is South Korea or
Japan.
Alaska has been able to export its oil since 1996, when we received
basically a waiver. We have seen the benefits that oil exports bring.
Our State has had the ability to do so. Why should the rest of the
country not see that benefit?
Again, since 1996, with our oil, we have exported our natural gas
from Cook Inlet, and it has actually been the longest term export
contract that this country has seen as far as natural gas. We have seen
the benefit. We know that when we are the export trading partner, we as
a nation benefit from it. Whether it is jobs, revenues, growth or
prosperity, this is good, this is a win, and it is very important.
Again, I appreciate the efforts of so many that have brought us to the
place that we are today.
I think we acknowledge that, yes, there are heavy legislative lifts
around here. But I think we work constructively to build the case, to
try to depoliticize to the extent possible, to avoid the partisanship
that can come into specific issues, by saying: Let's examine this from
a policy perspective. Does it make sense to lift sanctions on Iran for
their oil and keep in place a ban on our U.S. oil producers,
effectively sanctioning U.S. oil producers? I think we got a lot of
colleagues when we raised that question to them: Think about it from a
policy perspective and whether it is good or outdated. This one is
outdated, and it was time to go.
So I thank Senator Heitkamp for yielding for just a moment and
allowing me to speak very briefly to what I think is very significant
for this country, both domestically and internationally. Let's let the
United States of America be that energy superpower that we are.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
____________________