Volume 167, No. 101, covering the 1st Session of the 117th Congress (2021 – 2022), was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“Foreign Policy (Executive Session)” mentioning Dan Sullivan was published in the Senate section on pages S4033-S4035 on June 10.
Of the 100 senators in 117th Congress, 24 percent were women, and 76 percent were men, according to the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.
Senators’ salaries are historically higher than the median US income.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
Foreign Policy
Mr. President, since this administration–the Biden administration–
came into office, I and a number of Senators, Democrats and Republicans, have been trying to work with them on a number of important foreign policy issues, particularly as it relates to China.
The President is now in Europe, and a couple days ago, he wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post where he stated that the United States must lead the world from positions of strength.
By the way, his National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, also has made this argument. It is actually a really good argument, that the United States needs to lead the world, particularly competition with countries like Russia and China, from positions of strength. I couldn’t agree with that more.
But let me just talk about two areas where we have strength relative to any other country in the world and where this administration is not reinforcing that but is undermining it. And I really, really hope they change. Let me begin with the obvious one in terms of our foreign relations and national security–the U.S. military.
We have a position of strength; there is no doubt about it. We have the finest fighting force in the world, maybe in the history of the world. We need to continue to lead with strength and value the men and women who raise their right hand and volunteer for this incredible fighting force, not with words but, most important, with actions and with funding.
Here is where this administration is clearly missing the mark. This is a breakdown of the Biden administration’s blowout $6 trillion budget. As you can see, it lays out priorities, and I think we can all agree that if you look at this chart, the military and national defense are simply not priorities. To the contrary, they are dead last in terms of this administration’s priorities.
Look at this. Every Agency you can imagine–Commerce, HHS, EPA, Interior–there are double-digit–20 percent or more–increases in their budget. Where are the two national security Agencies in the Biden administration’s priorities? They are down here. Actually, we see a 2-
percent increase in Defense, a 0.2-percent increase in Homeland Security, but inflation is now estimated at 4.2 percent, so the numbers here are actually declines–inflation-adjusted decreases in the Department of Defense’s budget and Homeland Security’s budget. Dead last.
We had an Armed Services hearing today with the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs–two gentlemen I have a lot of respect for. They have a tough job because they had to come up to the Hill and pitch this budget, when I believe they didn’t agree with that budget. I don’t think Secretary Austin and General Milley want to cut defense spending, but guess what–that is what they had to pitch today
In the hearing, I asked them this question. Budgets are a reflection of an administration’s priority. If you look at this chart, it is clear that the Biden administration prioritizes defense spending in our military and our national security last–dead last. So my question to them was, how can you tell our troops that we are prioritizing their mission, defending America, when it is clear, again, from this document and from the Biden administration’s budget that it is dead last? To be respectful to General Milley and Secretary Austin, they didn’t have a very good answer because there is no good answer. There is no good answer.
But we know that one country is prioritizing their defense spending.
I also showed General Milley and Secretary Austin this chart. This chart, if you look at it, is where the U.S. annual change in defense spending is–that is the blue–and where the Communist Party of China’s annual defense spending is. That is the red.
Again, if you take a look, these big declines here, that is the second term of the Obama administration, where they cut defense spending in the United States by 25 percent. Not good. Not good for our troops. The increases here are when the Republicans had control of the U.S. Senate during the Trump administration era, when we were increasing our defense spending and increasing readiness. And now we are starting to go back to the previous Biden-Obama era of cutting defense spending. What have the Chinese been doing? Every year, at least 6 percent and sometimes 12, 13 percent.
Again, this is not being from a position of strength for the United States, as the President of the United States says we must.
Let me just make one final point in another area in terms of a position of strength. One of the other areas of our country’s strength right now–and nobody disagrees with it–is in the area of energy. In the last 10 years, we have had an energy renaissance in our country, turning us into a true global superpower of energy: Largest producer of natural gas in the world; bigger than Russia. Largest producer of oil in the world; bigger than Saudi Arabia. Largest producer of renewables in the world. All of the above.
Our country has been trying to get to this point where we are the world’s energy superpower–again, we were in this position during World War II–for the last several decades, and this has always been a bipartisan endeavor. Jimmy Carter wanted energy independence, and so did every other President before and after him, and we are there.
But we are on the cusp of seeing this enormous strategic advantage to our Nation, to working families, to our environment, disappear. Why? Because the Biden administration is restricting energy production in America, is having senior officials like John Kerry and Gina McCarthy go to Wall Street and tell our Wall Street executives: Don’t invest in the energy sector, and they are stopping the permitting of pipelines where we need to move our energy. In fact, the President is fine with killing the Keystone Pipeline and the 10,000 jobs that go with it but is approving the Russian Nord Stream Pipeline. That is a gift to President Putin.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a Wall Street Journal editorial today entitled “America’s Energy Gift to Dictators.’
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
America’s Energy Gift to Dictators
(By The Editorial Board)
China, Russia and Iran will exploit the US. retreat on fossil fuels:
The U.S. is barreling toward one of the greatest self-inflicted wounds in its history. This came into sharper focus last week when President Biden suspended oil leases in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), even as Russia and the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) announced production increases.
Mr. Biden’s anti-carbon fusillade will have no effect on the climate as global demand for fossil fuel will continue to increase for decades no matter what the U.S. does. Meantime, Russia, China and Iran will take advantage of America’s astonishing fossil-fuel retreat.
Not long ago, the U.S. depended on OPEC for much of its oil supply. But hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling enabled producers to extract oil and natural gas once believed unrecoverable. Shale frackers from North Dakota to Texas unleashed a surge of oil and gas onto global markets, breaking OPEC’s dominance on supply. OPEC tried to break U.S. producers by flooding markets, but frackers became more efficient. By 2019 the U.S. was producing nearly two-and-a-half times as much crude as in 2008. OPEC and Russia have had to limit their production to lift prices to shore up budgets that depend on petrodollars.
U.S. producers reduced investment during the pandemic as demand plunged. While prices have since recovered to a two-year high, a larger U.S. retrenchment driven by government and progessive investors is on the way.
Two weeks ago the hedge fund Engine No. 1 allied with big asset managers, government pension fund and proxy advisers ousted three Exxon Mobil board members in a climate proxy battle. Shareholders also passed a resolution requiring Chevron to reduce its downstream emissions. The latter is a de facto mandate to withdraw from oil and gas.
America’s big banks have red-lined U.S. coal companies and refused to finance oil projects in ANWR, which the 2017 GOP tax reform opened up to development. Now the Biden Administration is trying to wall off the Arctic again as it launches a regulatory assault on fossil fuels–from tighter emission rules to endangered-species protections.
The anti-carbon left says the U.S. must banish fossil fuels to meet the Paris goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius relative to pre-industrial temperatures. This is incompatible with a worldwide population that is expected to grow by two billion by 2050. It would require an enormous reorganization of the global economy that would keep billions in poverty.
Electric vehicles would have to make up 60% of worldwide car sales by 2030, according to a recent International Energy Agency report. “You have 800 million people who do not have access to electricity. You can’t say that they have to go to net zero [carbon]. They have to develop,” Indian Minister of New and Renewable Energy Raj Kumar Singh said in March.
Unless there is some technology breakthrough, demand for fossil fuels will continue to grow for decades. And Russia and China will take advantage of U.S. energy disarmament. Russian oil giant Rosneft warned last fall that retrenchment by U.S. and European companies would result in higher prices and shortages. “Someone will need to step in,” Rosneft senior executive Didier Casimiro said.
In November Rosneft announced a $170 billion oil and gas project in Russia’s north, which it claims can supply the entire world’s oil demand for a year. It says the project will become the world’s largest liquefied natural gas producer by 2030. Russia is also laying down thousands of miles of oil and gas pipelines to supply Europe and Asia.
Vladimir Putin is gloating that Russia’s Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany will soon be finished, as Mr. Biden has refused to sanction Russian companies running the project. But he didn’t care about upsetting Canada when he killed the Keystone XL pipeline. Nor Alaskans when he suspended the ANWR leases. Mr. Biden wants to curtail North American energy development while he stands by as Russia uses its natural resources for strategic gain.
That includes coal, by the way. Russia is spending more than $10 billion on railroad upgrades to boost its coal exports. According to a new report by the Global Energy Monitor, coal producers–in Australia, China, India, Russia and South Africa–are planning mining projects that would increase global output by 30%. China has 112 coal mines under construction. It is also developing shale.
Progressives want to surrender one of America’s major strategic economic advantages in the name of saving the climate. But banishing fossil fuels in the U.S. won’t eliminate carbon emissions, which will be produced somewhere else. So will the jobs, economic growth and geopolitical leverage.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, here is how this excellent editorial begins:
The U.S. is barreling toward one of the greatest self-inflicted wounds in our country’s history.
I could not agree more.
The editorial goes on to list the different actions that I just mentioned–restricting energy production in America, including in Alaska, with ANWR, restricting pipelines, encouraging defunding of the energy sector. It is not good for the country.
The editorial also notes that this will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. None. None. It is virtue signaling at the expense of working families, working Americans, and our national security.
Right now, we are beginning to import more oil from Russia than we ever have. How does that make any sense? How does that help a working family in Alaska or Maryland or anywhere? It doesn’t. It does one thing: It empowers countries like Russia and Putin and Saudi Arabia at the expense of the United States. This is a fact. Yet, every day you hear a new action. You read a new quote from someone in this administration focused on killing the energy sector of the United States. Again, as the Wall Street Journal just mentioned, this will be recognized in history as one of the greatest self-inflicted wounds, with no upside. No upside.
We have the highest environmental standards in the world in Alaska when we produce oil. Highest in the world. Russians have the lowest, and yet we are now preferring Russian oil over American oil.
Can anyone tell me how this makes sense? It doesn’t.
Here is how the editorial concludes:
Progressives want to surrender one of America’s [most] strategic economic advantages in the name of [so-called] saving the climate. But banishing fossil fuels in the [United States] won’t eliminate carbon emissions, which will [just] be produced [elsewhere]. So will . . . jobs [and] economic growth and [the] geopolitical [advantage that comes with our energy dominance].
Let me conclude by saying this. As I mentioned, I agree with President Biden and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. We need to address challenges, particularly with our adversaries like China and Russia, from positions of strength. Two of the most prominent positions of strength–the U.S. military and our energy dominance–right now are being undermined by this very administration.
They need to change course, and if they do, we will support their actions.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
