National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, what we are about to do is have a discussion about whether the United States of America should start exporting our oil--exporting our oil.

The United States right now, along with China, is the largest importer of oil in the world. We are not exactly at but very near to the level of imports of oil in our country that we were back in 1975 when we put a ban on the exportation of oil in our country.

Why is that important? It is important for a lot of reasons. No. 1, if we begin to export our oil in the United States, a new Barclays report found that the U.S. consumer last year saved $11.4 billion at the pump because of the lowest U.S. crude prices in a long time, and we would potentially save upwards of $10 billion in prices for consumers at the pump in the United States of America.

We understand the oil industry. Here is what happens. The world price is set. It is called the Brent price. The Brent price is the world price of oil. That price is traditionally higher, much higher than the price of crude oil in the United States that is produced in the United States. That is West Texas intermediate. That is a price set in Cushing, OK.

If you are an oil company, you want to get our U.S. crude out on the world market because they will then be able to sell it for a much higher price. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with that is that the American consumers will not get that oil at the lower price, and we will still have to import oil into our country because we are still short by millions of barrels of oil per day.

The consumer in America is the one who will be paying this tax on their price at the pump. That is the essence of what this whole strategy is about. It is to get the oil companies the highest price for the oil which is on the world market. But who is going to pay? Who is going to have their pockets tipped upside down at the pump and have money shaken out of them so they have to pay a higher price? It will be the consumers.

If we want to give more money to the defense budget, let's just do it. Let's have a big debate about increasing the defense budget. Let's have that debate. But let's not have the American consumer at the pump be a special tax that is imposed in order to help our allies overseas. Ultimately, of course, there is a beautiful access there where the oil industry is saying: Yes, sir, we are willing to put our crude oil on ships and send it overseas.

It is just a bad, bad economic policy for our country. We are already paying a high price at home. This exportation of our oil would also defy what our own Department of Energy is saying. Our Department of Energy is saying that in 2020, our oil production in America is going to peak, and then we are going to begin to go down once again in our oil production.

Who is saying this? Our Government. Who is saying this? The Energy Information Administration of the United States of America. What we are engaging in here is a premature attempt to export oil with the likelihood that by 2019 and 2020 our oil production is going to start to go down again.

It also hurts our domestic oil refining industry. The Energy Information Administration has found that lifting this ban on the exportation of our own domestic crude could lead to a fundamental reduction in the amount of investment made by the American refining industry here on our own soil. Some $9 billion less would be invested because the oil would be sent overseas. The crude oil would get refined overseas. It would not be refined here in our own country with American workers and American companies doing it here on our own soil, helping our economy here.

This decision, by the way, that Members are going to be asked to make today is opposed by the AFL-CIO, it is opposed by the steel workers, it is opposed by the League of Conservation Voters, by the Sierra Club, by Public Citizen, and by an entire group of American refiners.

This is no radical coalition that has been put together. It is a broad base of interest in our own country that wants to make America stronger. How in the world can we be strong if we are exporting oil while we are still importing oil? We will have to import the same amount that we are now exporting under this amendment that is being made by the Senator from Texas, and we will wind up with, ultimately, the price being paid by the American consumer at the pump.

From my perspective, this is about as desperate an attempt as the oil industry can have to get out from underneath the 1975 law. They have been looking for an opportunity. But, obviously, the instability in the Middle East should make us very cautious at this time. The oil fields of Saudi Arabia are now very vulnerable. They are right on the border. The Houthis being supported by Iran, right at the bottom of the Red Sea, makes that juncture very vulnerable to a cutoff of oil coming into the world economy. This Shiite-Sunni war is something that we have to be very conscious of because ISIS is targeting those areas in Syria, in Iraq, and in Yemen that have oil resources.

We need a big debate in our country about oil and war in the Middle East. We are at a pivotal point here where the Ottoman Empire and all of the lines that were drawn 100 years ago are being erased and with that the protection of oil resources in the Middle East.

We should not just have a debate on the Senate floor about cavalierly lifting the ban on the exportation of oil. We should have a debate about what this war in country after country and oil area after oil area means for our country.

I would say to you that we should err in a way that is going to protect our own economy. That is what makes us strong. That is what makes it possible for us to project the power around the world. It is that we are the strongest economy in the world, and the indispensable life's blood of economic growth is low-energy cost for every single industry and every single consumer. It puts more money in their pockets.

This decision that the amendment of the Senator from Texas asks us to make will send us in the wrong direction. This is a disaster for consumers in our country. It is a disaster for the refiners in our country, and it is a disaster for the national security of our country. We should keep our resources here at home for American families, American businesses, to enhance our national security using America and our economy as the basis for how we project power around the world. For every barrel of oil that we export, we are going to have to import another barrel of oil from some other place.

We should have the debate here on the Senate floor about where that oil will be coming back into our country because we still need 3 million, 4 million extra barrels of oil a day. That is a national security consideration that we have to deal with. Which country are we going to call up? Which country are we going to ask to send us their oil? What are the implications for our national security of having phone calls go to country after country--probably not just the oil companies but our government beginning new negotiations to get even more oil to come here as we export the oil that we should be keeping here.

The Saudis have been our friends, historically. We have no guarantee that the Saudis are going to even be running that country. Let's be honest about it. Let's talk about that. Let's debate it. ISIS has taken over oil fields in Syria. ISIS has taken over areas of oil production in Iraq. Let's have a debate about that. That is what we should be debating. How is that oil now funding ISIS? How is that oil now being used by Iran, potentially, in Yemen and in other parts of the world to undermine American interests?

In one part of the world, Yemen, we want to back the Sunnis against the Shiites. In Iran, we are backing moderate Sunnis against Shiites. In Iraq we are backing the Shiites against radical Sunnis, trying to get moderate Sunnis to help us. All of it, by the way, is with oil as--if not the central issue, then one of--the central issues in each one of these countries. To have a resolution here today and to be saying that we should be exporting oil--no, ladies and gentlemen, that is not how we should be discussing this issue.

How did we get into the Middle East? We got into the Middle East, yes, protecting Israel, but we got in because of our addiction to oil--not my words, President Bush's words. We have to break our dependence upon imported oil. Increasing fuel economy standards is a big part of it. Having this fracking revolution continue to produce more oil here domestically is a big part of it. Investing in renewables and energy efficiency is a big part of it. But we are still at the earliest stages of this strategy. When we have completed it, when we know we are successful, then let's talk about the generosity that we are going to expect from American consumers at the pump to pay higher prices for gasoline.

Again, this is an issue that the American people overwhelmingly want to see resolved in a way that keeps American oil in America. If we are going to continue to export young men and women from America over to the Middle East, then we should not be exporting our oil at the same time. That makes no sense--no sense. It is disrespectful to the sacrifice young men and women are making in the Middle East in order to protect our interests to start an economic policy of exporting imported oil while we still need to import it.

This issue, to me, is central to our overall long-term national security and economic interests, and I urge an aye vote on the amendment.

I ask for a rollcall on the amendment, Madam President.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source