[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 154 (Tuesday, September 24, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5646-S5648]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Saudi Arabia

  Mr. GARDNER. Madam President, last weekend, the world watched as an 
attack was launched on the oil processing infrastructure of the Kingdom 
of Saudi Arabia. The attack initially reduced Saudi Arabia's daily 
output capability by half, and that represents about 5 percent of the 
daily global production. Oil prices around the globe spiked by as much 
as 19 percent before starting to fall on the news that there was enough 
oil in reserves around the world to deal with any short-term reduction 
from Saudi Arabia. One of those reserve nations they were talking 
about, of course, included this great Nation, the United States.
  The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is important to maintain. I think we 
all recognize that, especially in light of the attack on Saudi Arabia. 
Yet I have always believed and had the mindset that we need long-term 
energy supply solutions in this country. As the attack on Saudi Arabia 
has displayed, there is no foreign substitute for American energy.
  Should this attack on Saudi Arabia have happened before our Nation's 
energy renaissance, we would have been in a much worse situation. The 
near monopolistic control other nations once had on the oil and gas 
market no longer exist--a credit to American ingenuity and innovation. 
Over the last decade, we have had a turning point in this country on 
energy, which is something that leaders around the world talk to and 
point to in the United States. We have produced more oil and gas, we 
have improved energy conservation, and we have diversified our energy 
sources.
  In 2015, we got rid of another handcuff to securing energy 
independence. We lifted the export ban on oil. That policy change both 
boosted America's domestic energy industry and is helping today to 
settle markets after the attack in Saudi Arabia. Lifting the ban has 
unleashed millions of barrels of oil into the marketplace, which has 
kept prices steady and reduced the influence of the Organization of the 
Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, and Russia. Think about that, 
what the United States has done to reduce that influence.
  According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. 
petroleum and natural gas production increased by 16 percent and 12 
percent respectively in 2018. These totals combined established a new 
production record. The United States surpassed Russia in 2011 to become 
the world's largest producer of natural gas and surpassed Saudi Arabia 
in 2018 to become the world's largest producer of petroleum. Last 
year's increase in the United States was also one of the largest 
absolute petroleum and natural gas production increases in history from 
a single country.
  The United States continues this trend toward energy independence, 
and that is a good thing. Yet, despite these successes, there are those 
who want to not just stop this trend but who fully intend to reverse 
our energy independence. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle have endorsed a Federal fracking ban. They want to ban the very 
production that gave us energy independence, that gave us independence 
from OPEC and Russia. They have endorsed ending fossil fuel exports, 
and they have endorsed eliminating energy development on Federal land. 
Yet, tell me, do any of these policies actually result in more 
affordable energy prices? Do these policies make energy more reliable? 
Do these policies keep the price at the pump down? Do these policies 
keep our allies across the globe safer? Do these policies keep our 
troops safer?
  Let's take gas prices. If my Democratic colleagues were truly 
concerned about the impact of gas prices on their constituents' 
pocketbooks, I am curious if any of them would come up with a 
calculation of what gas prices would be after the ban of hydraulic 
fracturing, the stopping of exporting fossil fuels to the global 
market, and the stopping of energy development on Federal land. What 
would the price be? I guarantee you that there wouldn't be very much 
opportunity or at least very much comfort for their constituents.

  Over 20 percent of the crude oil produced in this country in 2018 
came from Federal land. There is little doubt that eliminating 20 
percent of the supply of oil would have a significant impact on gas 
prices. Yet that is exactly what several have called for. Fracking has 
extended the productive life and resource recovery at the Bakken, Eagle 
Ford Shale, Marcellus Shale, Niobrara, and Permian Basin formations, 
just to name a few.
  As a matter of fact, the U.S. Geological Survey published an updated 
assessment of the Permian Basin's resources in 2018. By itself, the 
Permian already produces one-third of the Nation's oil, and the updated 
assessment estimates that over 46 billion barrels of oil, 280 trillion 
cubic feet of gas, and 20 billion barrels of natural gas liquids are 
trapped in these low-permeability shale formations. The Nation's supply 
of oil and gas reserves essentially doubled in the blink of an eye, 
according to that report.
  Colorado's Western Slope is home to the Piceance Basin. In 2016, the 
USGS issued a similarly larger reassessment of the recoverable 
resources in the Piceance. The USGS estimated mean volumes of 66.3 
trillion cubic feet of gas, 74 million barrels of oil, and 45 million 
barrels of natural gas liquids.
  The Uinta-Piceance Basin that covers western Colorado and eastern 
Utah has an abundant supply of natural gas that could be exported 
through a west coast liquefied natural gas terminal, like Jordan Cove, 
to our allies in the Pacific.
  We have enough energy resources to meet our domestic needs and to 
meet the needs of energy overseas. So let's relish that fact. Rarely do 
we have a chance to provide economic opportunities here at home, to 
provide energy security to our partners abroad and make sure our allies 
have those opportunities as well, and to use the innovation and the 
investments we have made here to weaken our enemies all in one area, 
like in energy production.
  Let's think about what the world would look like if we had not moved 
in the direction of increased domestic production in recent years.
  The decline of Venezuela's oil production over the last 12 years and 
the resulting political instability in the country would have hurt the 
import ability of the United States. OPEC and Russia would have a 
significantly larger role than they do today in determining the global 
production levels,

[[Page S5647]]

and we have seen how that has played out for the United States in the 
past. We could very well be where China is today--overly dependent on 
imports from Saudi Arabia and terrified at the slightest hiccup in its 
production ability, which could have far-reaching consequences for our 
economy or, rather, we would find ourselves exactly where we were in 
1973.
  That is where we will end up if my colleagues get their way and ban 
energy production, hydraulic fracturing, or pass the Green New Deal, as 
they would like. These policies would make us once again dependent on 
foreign sources of energy and make us vulnerable to the geopolitical 
manipulation that comes with that dependence.
  As recently as 2005, we were dependent on imports for two-thirds of 
our oil consumption--more than twice what we were reliant on in 1973 
when we had a supply crisis during the embargo. If that were still true 
today, this attack on Saudi Arabia would be a significant cause of 
concern for the United States and for the U.S. oil supply. Yet, because 
of the pursuit of energy independence in the United States and the 
security we have achieved through these innovations and developments, 
we are confident that we can weather short-term supply disruptions in 
the global market.
  Banning production, banning the development of energy in Colorado, or 
implementing policies like the Green New Deal would kill not only our 
opportunity to be energy independent and weather the storm of a global 
supply crisis, but it would also kill millions of jobs around the 
United States that pay far above average wages. The oil and gas 
industry supports over 10 million jobs in the United States, and it 
accounts for almost 8 percent of the gross domestic product of the 
United States. The jobs have an average salary of over $100,000 a year. 
These are good-paying jobs that enable people to provide for their 
families, contribute to domestic energy security and our goal of energy 
independence, and they will allow us the ability to send a responsibly 
developed resource to our allies overseas who want a dependable trade 
partner.
  Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, though, simply 
want to do away with this industry, those jobs, those salaries, that 
freedom, the independence, and the prosperity that it brings.
  Instead of talking about putting our traditional energy sources out 
of business, why don't we talk about hardening our energy 
infrastructure, protecting these critical assets, and continuing to 
responsibly produce those resources for us, the environment, and for 
the world? Doing so is a win for the United States. It is also a win 
for our communities and those who wish to partner with us in order to 
fuel the world's economy.
  It is incredibly important that we have energy independence, and I 
can't think of a more disruptive crisis the world could have faced had 
this happened in a country in which we no longer had the production 
that we do today. I hope we can work together on energy policies that 
continue to create jobs and grow the American economy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). The Senator from Colorado.


               Unanimous Consent Request--S. Con. Res. 10

  Mr. GARDNER. Madam President, several months ago, members of the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee had the opportunity to sit down with 
the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, to talk about a number of concerns 
around the globe, including our concerns about Huawei and ZTE and the 
fact that Huawei and ZTE pose serious threats to the national security 
of the United States and its allies.
  At the time, there had been a lot of discussion about what was 
happening in Europe and other places around the globe and about whether 
Huawei would be allowed to participate in our allies' networks and what 
that could mean for U.S. national security and our ability to continue 
to engage in national security conversations, intelligence operations, 
sharing of information, and the like.
  In that conversation, Secretary Pompeo said--and this was the entire 
group of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, both Republican and 
Democratic Members--in that conversation, Secretary Pompeo said that 
what would help would be to let Congress's voice be heard when it comes 
to Huawei and ZTE and that we should send a strong message to our 
allies that our concern with Huawei and ZTE is not a Republican issue, 
it is not a Democratic issue, it is not just a one-term-of-Congress 
concern, but it is an ongoing concern that we have with the security of 
our systems, our information, the lack of security and the 
vulnerability that Huawei and ZTE networks and equipment pose to the 
United States; that we send a message to our allies in a bipartisan, 
bicameral fashion that if they go forward and allow Huawei or ZTE to 
have access to their critical infrastructure networks, then that is 
going to pose problems for the United States; that we may have to tell 
them: Look, this kind of action could have consequences; that perhaps 
we don't share as much information with them as we otherwise would, or 
it could mean that certain facilities we were going to build together 
won't be built but all because of our concern over Huawei and ZTE.
  I want to thank my colleagues, Senators Coons, Markey, Cruz, and 
Rubio, who have joined me in cosponsoring this resolution.
  I want to thank Chairman Risch and Ranking Member Cardin for working 
with my office to get this resolution condemning and making a very 
strong statement against the actions of Huawei and ZTE back in July.
  Again, Huawei and ZTE pose a serious threat to the United States and 
our allies around the globe. This resolution makes clear many of the 
longstanding and bipartisan efforts we have made together to warn about 
the threats these companies pose to our critical telecommunications 
infrastructure. It further makes clear that the United States should 
reiterate to countries choosing to incorporate Huawei or ZTE into their 
new telecommunications infrastructure that the United State will seek 
to limit the risks posed to our government and military from use of 
such compromised networks.
  This is an issue that shouldn't be bound by partisanship; it ought to 
cut across the Members of this Chamber who agree on condemning the 
actions of Huawei and ZTE and standing up for our national security. 
That is why I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 136, S. Con. Res. 10. I further 
ask that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; the 
concurrent resolution, as amended, be agreed to; the Gardner amendment 
at the desk to the preamble be considered and agreed to; the committee-
reported amendment to the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; the 
preamble, as amended, be agreed to; and the motions to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, Huawei presents a very real threat to the 
security of every American, both individually and collectively. I have 
long been concerned that the Trump administration was going to let 
Huawei off the hook in order to get a politically useful trade deal. As 
the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, which has 
jurisdiction over trade matters, that concerns me greatly. In addition, 
I am concerned that the resolution being offered does not go far enough 
to protect America's national security and hold the Trump 
administration accountable.
  Tomorrow there will be another bipartisan measure offered that, in my 
view, will better address the concerns I have just mentioned, and 
therefore I must object this afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. GARDNER. Madam President, tomorrow I plan to vote for the motion 
to instruct, which is in regard to language within the Defense 
Authorization Act that talks about the importance of protecting our 
national security interests against Huawei and ZTE. But when we are 
objecting to resolutions that are bipartisan because of motions to 
instruct that have no binding nature, I am concerned that perhaps we 
are not doing enough work to

[[Page S5648]]

find those bipartisan solutions in this Chamber.
  So I hope, as I come back to this floor again to consider S. Con. 
Res. 10, to warn our allies that if they use Huawei or ZTE, there will 
be repercussions.
  The resolution itself is bipartisan. I hope we can come together as a 
Senate and recognize that motions to instruct are fine, but actual 
messages, condemnation, and understanding of our allies that actions 
will be taken are important.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.