September 24, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 154 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S5643-S5649]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     EXECUTIVE CALENDAR--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


              United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I want to address an issue for my 
colleagues, something a lot of Senators have been talking about more 
recently, and none too soon--the Mexico-Canada agreement with the 
United States, a very important trade agreement.
  President Trump and the leaders of Mexico and Canada signed the USMCA 
on November 30, 2018, which was 43 weeks ago. More than 3 months have 
passed since Mexico ratified the USMCA, and Canada's ratification is 
well underway. However, the U.S. Congress must do its part, and time is 
running short.
  We have a limited opportunity to ratify the USMCA before election 
politics get in the way of securing this very critical win for 
literally every broad industry sector in America. I therefore urge the 
administration and House Democrats not only to intensify discussions on 
the USMCA but also to expedite those discussions and to present USMCA 
to the Congress.
  By now, everyone should know very well that Mexico and Canada are by 
far America's most important trading partners. In 2017, America sold 
more than a half trillion dollars of exports to Mexico and Canada. 
Those were more exports than we sold to the next 11 largest export 
markets combined. For Iowa, my State, 130,000 jobs were supported by 
the $6.6 billion of exports to Mexico and Canada in the same year of 
2017.
  These numbers are not just academic statistics. During the August 
State work period, I completed my 39th year holding Q and A's in every 
one of Iowa's 99 counties, and I consistently heard from Iowans that 
passing the USMCA ought to be a very top priority for the Congress.
  I joined the former Governor of Iowa and former U.S. Secretary of 
Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, at a dairy processing plant in Des Moines. 
This meeting, with one Republican and one Democrat appreciating the 
great contributions of Iowa agriculture to our Nation and to exports, 
demonstrated what I heard at my town meetings--that passing the USMCA 
should be a bipartisan priority.
  In Cedar Falls, IA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Under 
Secretary, Bill Northey, and I held a roundtable discussion with 
various commodity groups about the farm economy and the certainty that 
passing USMCA would bring to the agricultural community, particularly 
to the family farmers.
  USMCA was also a focal point when I held meetings at manufacturing 
plants, such as Altec in Osceola, IA, and AIM Aerospace in Orange City, 
IA. I can state firsthand that people in the real world--people living 
outside of the Washington Beltway--want Congress to pass the USMCA as 
soon as possible.
  My county meetings help me better represent Iowans, and it is clear 
to me that Iowans support the USMCA. We can't squander this opportunity 
to update NAFTA, which has been critical to American farmers and 
businesses but is now a quarter century old. Issues negotiated in the 
USMCA were not issues 25 years ago, showing just how out of date NAFTA 
is, as well as the importance of the USMCA.
  USMCA will bring greater market access for agriculture and important 
new commitments in areas such as customs, digital trade, intellectual 
property, labor, the environment, currency, and nontariff trade 
barriers. These updates and upgrades will translate into higher wages, 
greater productivity, and consequently more jobs for Americans.
  In fact, the independent U.S. International Trade Commission found 
that USMCA will create nearly 176,000 new American jobs while adding 
more than $68 billion to America's GDP.
  Let's not forget, USMCA was a hard-fought negotiation. For Mexico, 
two Presidents worked across opposing administrations to get this job 
done. Canada initially held out of the agreement altogether, only to 
sign on at the last possible opportunity.
  It is easy for Members of Congress to talk about how we would have 
negotiated the agreement differently. There is some talk like that 
going on. That would be true whether you are a Republican or Democrat. 
However, as the U.S. International Trade Commission report made very 
clear, USMCA is a major advancement from the 25-year-old NAFTA 
agreement. This is certainly true for labor and the environment, which 
were mere side agreements to NAFTA 25 years ago. Now these issues 
addressed in USMCA are some of the strongest obligations ever to have 
been included in any U.S. trade agreement. Simply put, we can't let the 
perfect be the enemy of the good, and calling the USMCA ``good'' would 
be a serious understatement.
  The administration did its job and brought us a modernized trade 
agreement. Nevertheless, the administration has listened to the 
concerns of House Democrats and has proposed actions to address those 
concerns. For my part, I have kept an open mind throughout this 
process, and I welcome any workable, bipartisan solutions. However, 
given the political calendar that lies ahead, I need those solutions 
promptly. We simply don't have any more time to spare.
  Iowans and all Americans deserve some much needed certainty on access 
to our half-trillion-dollar export markets in Mexico and Canada, and it 
is the job of this Congress to deliver. The time for USMCA is right 
now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                             Budget Deficit

  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise to call attention to our Federal 
Government's unsustainable fiscal path.
  Earlier this month the Congressional Budget Office reported that 
Federal

[[Page S5644]]

revenues are up 3 percent, or $102 billion, compared to the same time 
period last year. The problem is that Federal spending grew by 7 
percent, or $271 billion, over that same period. CBO projects the 
deficit for this year to reach $960 billion, which means that 22 cents 
of every dollar the government spends is borrowed.
  All of that borrowing doesn't come cheap. In the first 11 months of 
the year, net interest payments on the public debt totaled $391 
billion. That is up $48 billion, or 14 percent, over the previous year.
  To put that in context, $391 billion is roughly 2\1/2\ times what we 
spend each year on the U.S. Air Force. It is more than 12 times the 
size of the budget of the entire U.S. Department of Justice and more 
than 5 times the size of the budget for the U.S. Department of 
Education. That is $391 billion spent with nothing to show for it. It 
is just like running up credit card debt and owing a whole bunch of 
interest without getting anything for it. That is what our future 
generation is really going to have to worry about.
  What is worse, unless something is done to change our current 
trajectory, annual net interest costs are projected to more than double 
in the next 10 years. CBO projects that over the next decade we will 
spend more than $5.8 trillion on net interest costs. All the while, our 
debt will continue to mount. That doesn't pay down anything; that just 
pays the interest, and that is calculated at a pretty low interest 
rate. We could be faced with higher interest rates, which could easily 
double what we are paying right now.
  We have been fortunate that despite Congress's spendthrift ways, the 
U.S. dollar remains the dominant global reserve currency, which allows 
our government to borrow more cheaply than anybody else. But what if 
that changes? What if foreign interests decide that our fiscal 
dysfunction is simply too great and the dollar is no longer a safe bet?
  The threat of a fiscal crisis is not something anyone should take 
lightly. Last month, the CBO--that is the Congressional Budget Office, 
which does all the calculations--warned: ``If Federal debt as a 
percentage of [gross domestic product] continued to rise at the pace 
the Congressional Budget Office projects that it would under current 
law . . . [t]hat debt path would [ultimately] pose significant risks to 
the fiscal and economic outlook.''
  While the Congressional Budget Office notes that those risks are not 
currently apparent in financial markets, it goes on to warn that the 
projected path of rising debt would increase ``the risk of a fiscal 
crisis . . . in which the interest rate on federal debt rises abruptly 
because investors have lost confidence in the U.S. government's fiscal 
position.''
  As a father and a grandfather, this is a concern that keeps me up at 
night. What kind of burden are we placing on our children and on our 
grandchildren? They could face a future of less growth and economic 
opportunity as a result of our refusal to make difficult fiscal 
decisions.
  What if we actually had to make massive cuts? We don't make cuts at 
all. What if we had to do massive cuts? Of course, we could raise 
revenue, but there is always the side effect of raising revenue, which 
costs jobs and then reduces revenue. There are a lot of tricky balances 
that have to be done.
  This problem didn't arise overnight, and it will not be fixed 
overnight either. Congress should be working together with the 
administration now to begin the long process of fiscal course 
correction. Unfortunately, we are not off to a great start.
  Prior to the August State work period, Congress passed the Bipartisan 
Budget Act of 2019, which increased discretionary spending caps for 
fiscal years 2020 and 2021 by a combined $322 billion. That is the 
increase. This essentially marks the end of the Budget Control Act 
period of federal budgeting. In a form that was all too common, a tool 
that was meant to bring fiscal constraint met its end with a whimper, 
when it probably should have been a scream.
  The last cap deal--which CBO tells us will cost nearly $2 trillion 
over the next 10 years if we continue spending at those levels over 
that time period--featured $77 billion in offsets.
  What is an offset? That is finding some money to cover the amount of 
spending. I think you heard correctly there. The cap deal put us on a 
path to spend nearly $2 trillion over the next 10 years with $77 
billion--billion with a ``b''--in offsets, which is money to cover the 
debt. To make matters worse, those offsets will not even begin to kick 
in until the latter part of the next decade. In other words, we are 
saying there is a little patch of money out there that we haven't spent 
in the future yet, and it isn't going to come in for 10 years, but 
let's go ahead and spend it right now, and we will call that an offset 
to reduce the amount of debt we are creating. Boy, everybody wishes 
they could do that with their own spending, I am sure.
  The offsets--the money to cover the debt, which is the mere $77 
billion on $2 trillion--will not come in until the latter part of the 
next decade. In other words, we are spending money from 10 years down 
the road right now and calling it payment on the money we are spending.
  Even with this turn of events, everyone seems to agree that 
discretionary spending is not the main source of our budget challenge. 
The Congressional Budget Office projects America's debt will continue 
to increase rapidly over the next several decades because of mandatory 
spending.
  What is mandatory spending? That is spending we don't make a decision 
on at all. Those payments go on no matter what, and they are pretty 
important ones because they include things like Social Security and the 
major health programs and interest on the debt. That is mandatory. We 
can't bankrupt on paying the interest, so Social Security, Medicare, 
Medicaid, and interest on the debt are some of the main expenditures we 
make, and we never make any decisions on them. We do not change them. 
We don't improve them.
  For decades, nonpartisan experts warned of budget pressures we would 
face as baby boomers aged and began to retire. That is already 
happening, but that crisis is always tomorrow. We only handle today's 
crises. I can't imagine how tomorrow's people are going to handle the 
crisis that is being created at the present time. The combination of 
aging population, longer lifespans, and rising per beneficiary 
healthcare costs put enormous pressure on our budget.
  These warnings from the Congressional Budget Office, the actuaries, 
and many other people, you name it, continue to be ignored. We are now 
in a world where these pressures are very real and something we will 
need to face before we go off the cliff in a few short years.
  We know the Social Security trust fund and Medicare's Hospital 
Insurance Trust Fund are now paying out more than they are taking in. 
We also know Social Security's combined trust funds will be exhausted 
in 2032. ``That is way down the road.'' No, it is not. The Medicare 
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund--which covers inpatient hospital 
services, hospice care, skilled nursing facilities, and home health 
services--is projected to be depleted in 2026. That is not very far. If 
we continue to do nothing once their respective trust funds are 
exhausted, these programs will still be able to pay out some money, but 
they will only be able to pay out as much in benefits as they have 
coming in. I mentioned that we have a lot less coming in than we are 
paying out. For Medicare, that means we will only be able to pay 86 
percent of hospital-related Medicare spending. For Social Security, 
revenue is projected to cover only 76 percent of scheduled benefits. I 
don't know many seniors who can afford a 24-percent cut.
  I want to make sure Social Security and Medicare are able to provide 
benefits to current beneficiaries, as well as those who need them in 
the future. That will require being clear-eyed about the problem and 
working together in a bipartisan manner to ensure that these programs 
are solvent. The normal technique on trying to solve any of these 
problems is to point the finger at the other side and say it is their 
fault and they are not doing anything about it. Well, we are all going 
to have to do something about it. We are talking about a 24-percent cut 
in Social Security.
  The longer we wait to address the imbalance, the more severe the 
changes will be and the fewer options we will have. I remember looking 
at these

[[Page S5645]]

problems in the year 2000, and at that time there were quite a few 
options, but all were rejected. Today there are a lot less options and 
a bigger cliff. We need to change the way we do things in Washington. 
We simply cannot afford to continue ignoring the challenges our country 
faces.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. PERDUE. Madam President, I rise to talk about a topic that is 
boring at times but is absolutely critical, as you just heard in the 
last few minutes. My good friend from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, is a 
certified public account. He lived in the real world before he came 
here, like I did. He is chairman of the Budget Committee. When he 
speaks about this, he speaks with the level of experience and current 
information that we all should listen to.
  I want to highlight some things he has already talked about but then 
talk about the potential we are looking at this week in terms of having 
our 187th continuing resolution since the 1974 Budget Act was put into 
law. Why is this important? As Senator Enzi just pointed out, our 
problem in America is twofold; one, we have a global security crisis, 
and we have a financial crisis. I use the word ``crisis'' in both 
because the world has never been more dangerous in my lifetime.
  Today we have $22 trillion in debt. Let me put a little history 
behind it. In the year 2000, we had $6 trillion on about a $12 trillion 
economy. At the end of President Bush's time, it went to $10 trillion 
of debt--again, on something like a $14 trillion or $15 trillion 
economy. At the end of President Obama's term, it went to $20 trillion. 
Under that administration, this government doubled America's debt to 
$20 trillion. After just a couple of years of President Trump, we are 
now at $22 trillion.
  The projection is very draconian over the next decade, even though, 
by growing the economy in the last couple of years, the Trump 
administration has actually lowered the debt curve by an estimate that 
CBO says is about $3 trillion over the next decade. That is not good 
enough. That is only a fraction of our problem.
  This chart on the right talks about the problem. I call it the Lamar 
Alexander chart because when we talked about it 2 years ago, we started 
bringing this chart up. Working on the budget process is one of the 
ways we deal with this. This burgeoning debt that we have to talk about 
is really made up of one major contributing factor; that is, mandatory 
expenses.

  This chart tries to explain that. It shows that the top line here is 
total U.S. spending. Today we spend about $4.5 trillion--a little bit 
more--but about $4.5 trillion funding the Federal Government. That 
includes everything: Military, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid--the 
whole bit. The Federal Government spends about $4.5 trillion on 
everything.
  The red line is today. Today, however, we only spend $1.3 trillion on 
discretionary spending. Yet in terms of the total, in 2000 we spent 
less than $2 trillion. Now we are spending more than $4 trillion. That 
has doubled in the last two decades. These are constant 2019 dollars.
  In the next 20 years, this is projected to go from $4 trillion to $12 
trillion per year, each year. In 1 year projected out here, we would 
almost double the amount of debt we have. This is untenable under 
anybody's estimate. It can't happen. It will not happen. Here is why. 
The world can't let it happen.
  Today we have about $200 trillion in total debt. Only $60 trillion of 
that is sovereign debt, which is government debt. We have one-third of 
that. This says that because of mandatory spending, primarily, we will 
go to almost half of the world's debt with 5 percent of the population. 
That is not going to happen.
  Yet what will happen to keep us from doing that or becoming that will 
be really draconian unless we act today. Senator Enzi is right. The 
sooner we act, the more alternatives and options we have. Let me try to 
explain the situation. We are actually spending less today in 
discretionary spending at $1.3 trillion as a percentage of our economy 
than we did in 2011. In 2011, we were spending 9 percent of our total 
GDP on discretionary spending.
  What is in discretionary spending? That is the military, most of the 
VA, and all discretionary spending, such as Health and Human Services, 
Labor, Agriculture, Justice Department, Treasury. All of the above are 
included in that. That is $1.3 trillion today, which is about 6 
percent. We have gone from 9 percent GDP to 6 percent GDP. 
Discretionary spending has actually been brought down.
  What is the problem? The problem is in mandatory. What is in 
mandatory? As Senator Enzi just said, mandatory is Social Security, 
Medicare, Medicaid, pension benefits on Federal employees, and the 
interest on the debt. Just in the next 2 years alone, mandatory 
spending goes up $420 billion. I can project that. That is within range 
of understanding. What I don't understand is how this really explodes 
out of control. This is because the baby boomers are maturing and going 
into the later years of their lives. As you just heard, both Social 
Security and Medicare--major trust funds--go to zero in a very short 
period of time. Medicare happens in 2026 and Social Security in 2032.
  I am here to tell you this is the crisis of our time, and we have to 
deal with it. Yet today we are about to go into our 187th continuing 
resolution. Why? Because we don't have an agreement to fund the 
government. We are at the end of our fiscal year, which is September 
30. We have 2 working days left, the way the Senate works, before that 
happens. It could still be fixed, but the reality of today is that we 
have not appropriated one dime for the Federal Government yet.
  Last year, going into August break on July 31, we had only funded 12 
percent of the Federal Government. Because we stayed here in August, we 
funded up to 75 percent of the government. That was the first time in 
22 years that we had gotten that far. As a matter of fact, in the last 
45 years, this Congress has only funded the Federal Government on time 
four times. We have actually shut the government down 21 times because 
of the lack of funding. That is almost once every 2 years. It is 
unbelievable.
  This year, in July, we had an agreement. We did a caps deal between 
the Democrats and Republicans. It was a bipartisan deal. Everybody went 
kumbaya and said: Yes, this is what we agreed to. We agree to this 
topline number. Appropriators had already been working all year. We had 
agreements in committee. All we had to do was come back in September 
and appropriate these bills, go to conference on the NDAA, and get the 
Defense Department funded along with the other major departments and go 
ahead down the road and get the government funded.
  Here we are at the end of September. That obviously did not happen. 
Why? Our good friends across the aisle violated what we thought was a 
good-faith agreement in July that there would be no poison pills when 
we started appropriating. We see clearly now that wasn't the case. They 
are holding this up over $5 billion that the President wants to move 
from military spending over to border security spending. It is almost 
like they want open borders. I just don't understand this.
  We know President Obama built 135 miles of wall, and we know one 
thing now. We know that where President Obama built a wall, where 
President Bush built a wall, where President Clinton built a wall, 
where President George H. W. Bush--in every single case, illegal 
crossings at the border went down 95 percent.
  By voting no on this spending bill, we are now getting into a 
situation where we have to go into a continuing resolution. Last week, 
we voted on the Defense bill, and Democrats voted it down. They voted 
against a 3.1-percent pay increase for our military brethren.
  What is even worse than that, by going into a continuing resolution 
and by voting no last week, the Democrats are encouraging the Defense 
Department to actually spend $4 billion. We did an audit last year. It 
was the first one in the history of the United States. President Trump 
ordered it. We had a law in 1991 that required it. Now we had that 
audit. This is the first pass. This is the tip of the iceberg. Because 
of that, we know that we found at least $4 billion that they don't want 
to continue spending, yet are going to be obliged to continue to spend 
against those obsolete programs under a continuing resolution, in 
addition to not

[[Page S5646]]

getting a pay raise to our people in the military.
  We should not have been here in the first place. We had a joint 
select committee last year, and we have been working on this for 5 
years. It is time to fix this budget process once and for all. We have 
to hold Congress accountable, though. In most States, we don't have 
this problem. In 44 States, No. 1, you have a balanced budget law, but 
more importantly than that, in States like Georgia, if the legislature 
doesn't fund the government by the end of the legislative session, by 
law, the legislators don't go home.
  Senator Lankford and I and others have bills that would require the 
same thing here. As a matter of fact, some of us have actually put in 
bills that would stop the pay for staff and employees and would stop 
Members' compensation until we get this done. A requirement of our job 
here is to get the government funded.
  It is very simple. It is time for Congress to do its job. I am 
chagrined that we face another continuing resolution that we have 
educated people about and will cost hundreds of billions of dollars 
over a decade because of the damage it will do to the supply chain when 
we are trying to get readiness and recapitalization back in our U.S. 
military and talk about rationalization. It keeps us from doing each of 
those three things right now.
  Anybody in the military who is before us in committee tells us over 
and over and over of the damaging effects a continuing resolution has 
on our military at the very time when we are trying to stand up to peer 
pressures in a unique, new way. We have five threats across five 
domains. We have never faced that before. Yet here we are, hamstringing 
our military once again.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GARDNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              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.


                              Saudi Arabia

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor today to discuss 
the need to bolster our Nation's energy security following the recent 
attacks on Saudi Arabian oil.
  Having read the classified briefing in full, I am convinced that Iran 
is absolutely behind the attacks. Now, Iran wants to drive up world oil 
prices to hopefully, in their mind, increase the amount of revenue they 
would get from selling their oil. Basically, they need the money, and 
that is because the sanctions that the United States has imposed on 
Iran have worked. They have been punishing. That is why President 
Trump, I believe, made the right call in adding even tougher sanctions. 
The sanctions have been biting, and Iran's currency has been 
significantly devalued. Now is the time to step up our own American 
energy production.

  Since my Senate arrival in 2007, I have worked to advance pro-growth 
energy policies throughout that entire time. My goal has always been to 
promote American energy, to safeguard U.S. workers, and to protect this 
great Nation.
  Today, the United States is the world's top energy producer. We are a 
global leader in oil, as well as in natural gas. In fact, the United 
States is poised to become the world's top energy exporter, as well, 
and my home State of Wyoming has been a key driver in all of this 
success.
  To reach this goal, we are going to need to leverage our energy 
sources. This includes zero-emission nuclear power, as well as 
renewable energy. We need it all. In the Senate, I believe both parties 
want Americans to use more carbon-free energy. So both parties should 
embrace sensible, scientific solutions. Yet Democrats, once again, are 
pushing more of their radical proposals. That is what we have to deal 
with.
  Two weeks ago, House Democrats passed several anti-energy bills. 
These measures would lock up key offshore and Alaskan oil reserves. The 
majority of House Democrats have cosponsored these scary schemes that 
would damage our economy.
  If the House Democrats' anti-energy bills ever were to become law--
and I assure you that the Republican Senate and President Trump will 
never allow that to happen--they would be a real gift to our foreign 
enemies and to our adversaries, like Russia, because Russia routinely 
uses natural gas as a geopolitical weapon.
  Still, 2020 Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren, a Member of our 
Senate, recently unveiled a plan to ban hydraulic fracturing. This 
revolutionary technique has led to a renaissance for American energy 
production, and she wants to ban it.
  Last year, Senator Warren's home State of Massachusetts imported 
Russian natural gas. Where did they import it from? People all across 
the country and the world saw the Russian natural gas tanker in Boston 
Harbor. Let me repeat. Let me be very clear. Last year, Senator 
Warren's home State of Massachusetts imported Russian natural gas 
through the Boston Harbor. At the same time, the Senator has denounced 
U.S. pipelines and other U.S. energy infrastructure projects--this, as 
her own State pays one of highest utility rates anywhere in the 
country.
  Not only do the Democrats' politicized policies dramatically increase 
Americans' energy costs, but they are also a threat to our national 
security. No matter, Senator Warren also wants to ban nuclear power. 
She doesn't like fracking. She doesn't like natural gas. She now wants 
to ban nuclear power. Has she forgotten that nuclear energy is 
America's chief carbon-free power source? Twenty percent of U.S. 
electricity comes from nuclear power. These reckless Democrat proposals 
would make the United States more dependent on unstable foreign energy 
markets.
  Working families here in the United States should never overpay on 
their energy bills due to foolish policies--and that is what they are, 
foolish policies that make us all vulnerable. The American public is 
not going to stand for it.
  According to a recent Washington Post-Kaiser Foundation poll, more 
than 70 percent of Americans have said they don't want to pay even $10 
more on their monthly electric bills to lower carbon emissions. We want 
to lower carbon emissions. How much are families willing to pay? 
Seventy percent say not $10 a month. How about $2 a month? A majority 
said, no, that is too much to pay.
  So we need to pursue a commonsense energy strategy--one that keeps 
working families' costs down, one that keeps the economy strong, and 
one that helps keep our Nation safe.
  Republicans are committed to protecting and advancing America's 
energy independence. President Trump understands how important this is. 
In the wake of the attacks on Saudi Arabia, not only is the President 
working to expand sanctions, but he is moving to approve major pipeline 
projects as well.
  One of the energy issues I am addressing now in the Senate is 
reforming the permit process for American energy exploration. Earlier 
this Congress, I introduced a piece of legislation called the ONSHORE 
Act. It stands for Opportunities for the Nation and States to Harness 
Onshore Resources for Energy. The ONSHORE Act will simplify the process 
for Federal onshore oil and gas permits. Whether we are talking about 
promoting energy exploration, utilities, carbon capturing, or nuclear 
power, we must engineer our way to American energy solutions.
  Republicans recognize our Nation's unique ability to fill in the gaps 
from global supply disruptions. So our focus needs to be on promoting 
American energy independence. It is time to reject the Democrats' 
extreme schemes once and for all. What the Democrats are proposing is a 
real threat to our U.S. energy security, and they are offering a gift 
to American enemies.
  We need to continue our America-first energy policy. That is what we 
are going to continue to do to keep us strong, to keep us safe, and to 
keep us prosperous as a nation.
  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.
  Ms. ROSEN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the McGuire 
nomination?
  Ms. ROSEN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. 
Jones), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 6, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 298 Ex.]

                                YEAS--88

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer

[[Page S5649]]


     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--6

     Brown
     Casey
     Gillibrand
     Markey
     Merkley
     Warren

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Booker
     Harris
     Jones
     Sanders
     Tillis
     Whitehouse
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.

                          ____________________