[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1811-1812]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, on Tuesday, President Obama released his 
budget for the next fiscal year. As usual, there was a lot of new 
spending the American people don't want and a lot of new taxes the 
American people can't afford.
  It is interesting. Politico had a headline about the budget in 
Tuesday's

[[Page 1812]]

paper. It says ``Obama launches liberal offensive in his final 
budget.'' A liberal offensive in his final budget. It called the budget 
``aggressively liberal.'' Well, one of the big, ``aggressively 
liberal'' things the President put in his budget is an enormous tax 
increase on gasoline. This tax would add over $10 to the price of a 
barrel of oil. That equates to about 24 cents to a gallon of gasoline 
at the pump. This increase in tax would raise about $319 billion over 
10 years.
  President Obama knows his budget has zero chance of becoming law, not 
just because Republicans won't vote for it; Democrats won't vote for 
it. Last year his budget was defeated by a vote of 98 to 1. Only one 
Member of his own party voted for his budget last year, and now 
Democrats in Congress are running away from this gas tax as fast as 
they can.
  The problem is, this tax is about more than just the budget; this is 
a sign that the Obama administration is still committed to continuing 
its assault on energy production in this country--red, white, and blue 
energy.
  The American people understand there are enormous national security 
implications to what the President is proposing in his budget. Right 
now there is fierce competition in the global energy markets. The OPEC 
cartel has a strategy to win that competition in the oil market. It has 
been pumping out oil at a pace that is intended to drive U.S. shale oil 
producers out of business. Then once the competition is gone, they will 
raise prices.
  The best way for us to protect American interests is to make it 
easier and cheaper for energy producers to operate here in America. The 
worst thing we could do is to add to the cost of American oil by 
imposing this new tax of $10 per barrel, 24 cents per gallon, but that 
is exactly what President Obama wants to do. He wants to raise taxes, 
and he wants to make it harder to produce American energy. President 
Obama's plan would actually help OPEC get what it wants. It would also 
put American energy producers at a competitive disadvantage with our 
adversaries in Iran and in Russia.
  Just a few weeks ago, the Obama administration lifted economic 
sanctions on Iran's energy exports. This means that Iran can now export 
oil again. So how much oil are they going to export? According to the 
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Iran right now has between 30 
and 50 million barrels of oil sitting offshore in tankers today. Iran 
is planning to boost its oil exports to Europe and Asia by half a 
million barrels a day in the next few months. And it is not just oil; 
Iran is also the world's second largest producer of natural gas in 
terms of its resources. Right now, they are building a new export plant 
for liquefied natural gas that is about 40 percent complete, and they 
are ready to start shipping natural gas to Europe within 2 years.
  Russia is also a huge exporter of natural gas. That is one of the 
reasons Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine. It was to get control of the 
gas pipelines there. Now it appears that Gazprom is prepared to start a 
natural gas price war with the United States. Gazprom is, of course, 
the Russian gas company that is mostly owned by the government and 
controlled by Vladimir Putin. A price war would help them maintain 
their grip as being the biggest gas supplier in Europe, and it would 
discourage U.S. liquefied natural gas projects from ever being built.
  What has the Obama administration done? The Obama administration has 
a documented history of delaying permits to American businesses that 
want to export our liquefied natural gas. Needless bureaucratic delays 
just deter energy production and producers from wanting to start these 
projects in the United States because it is so hard to get them 
approved, and that just drives up the cost. The administration's 
approach plays right into Vladimir Putin's hands.
  This is not the time to add cost to American energy production. That 
will only help our adversaries more, and it will make our allies more 
dependent on energy--not from us but from places such as Russia and 
Iran and, of course, from other OPEC countries. This is not the time to 
shut down the production of American energy.
  There are a lot of far-left, extreme environmentalists out there who 
want to make sure American energy resources are never used but stay in 
the ground. There are also a lot of Washington Democrats who are eager 
to give these environmental extremists everything they want--
everything.
  Last week in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton was caught on tape 
promising one of these extremist supporters that the end of fossil fuel 
development on public land, she said, is ``a done deal.'' The end of 
exploration of fossil fuels on public land is ``a done deal.'' Well, it 
may be a done deal in her mind. It is also unrealistic, unwise, and 
unworkable. Take a look at it. Forty-one percent of America's coal 
production right now comes from public land; 22 percent of our crude 
oil comes from public land; 16 percent of our natural gas comes from 
public land; and Hillary Clinton, in her speech and her comments last 
Thursday in New Hampshire, said, in terms of any of that production, it 
is ``a done deal.''
  I remind my colleagues that energy is the master resource. America 
needs energy for our economy to grow. We need those jobs. Where are we 
supposed to get our energy if we don't get it from public lands? We 
can't power America's manufacturing on wind alone.
  Instead of building new barriers to American energy production, we 
should be tearing down those barriers. The energy legislation we have 
been debating in this body actually includes ideas to help do that. One 
bipartisan idea in this legislation would help speed up the permitting 
process to export liquefied natural gas. It is bipartisan, with six 
Democratic cosponsors.
  After all the environmental studies have been done, after everything 
has been approved, it then takes an average of another 7 months for 
this administration to say yes or no on the permits. That is after 
everything has already been approved. Why would it take 7 additional 
months to get a decision by the administration? The Energy Department 
should be able to say yes or no, and this legislation says they should 
be able to do it within 45 days. This is going to force Washington to 
do its job in an accountable and timely way. That will help make sure 
other countries have options for where to get their energy, other than 
the concerns we have about a dominance of Russia, a dominance of Iran, 
and a change of the balance of power internationally.
  It is time for America's energy policies to help American energy 
producers compete and to help those jobs in our energy security at 
home. That is how we are going to build our economy, how we are going 
to create American jobs, and how we are going to strengthen our 
national security.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________