[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.

                          ____________________