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.
“ENERGY POLICY CONSERVATION ACT EXTENSION” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Energy was published in the Senate section on pages S7141-S7142 on June 27, 1996.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
ENERGY POLICY CONSERVATION ACT EXTENSION
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to bring the attention of this body to a piece of legislation that is pending, S. 1888, the Energy Policy Conservation Act extension. I think my friend from Georgia will find it does have an application to the defense of our Nation, because this bill is very simple, and its immediate passage is extremely important to our Nation's energy security as well as our Nation's national security.
The administration strongly supports the passage of this bill and the language is not controversial. However, as chairman of the Energy Committee, we have been trying to clear this for 2 weeks now. We continue to have, unfortunately, objections from our friends on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats. But I know it is not the content of S. 1888 that they are objecting to. So let me make the situation very clear. I appeal to my friend from Georgia, the manager of the bill, that the authorization for two vital energy security measures, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the U.S. participation in the International Energy Agency are due to expire at the end of this month.
S. 1888 simply extends those two vital authorities through September, until a more comprehensive reauthorization bill can be enacted. So if we do not pass S. 1888 by the time we recess, the President will not have the authority to withdraw oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve if an energy emergency occurs in this country. Further, our Government will not have the authority to participate in International Energy Agency emergency actions in an international energy emergency.
It has been evident in the last few days, the significance of our dependence on Mideast oil, and the fact we are willing to have United States troops in Saudi Arabia to ensure that peace is maintained and that energy from that part of the world flows. Currently we are about 51.4 percent dependent on imported oil. It is estimated by the Department of Energy that by the year 2000, roughly 4 years from now, that will increase up to about 66 percent.
Here we are with our authority to operate the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in jeopardy. There will be no antitrust exemption available to our private oil companies to allow them to cooperate with the International Energy Agency and our Government to respond to the crisis. Although it appears to be an easy one for some to simply disregard these dangers, I again indicate that recent events have underscored exactly how precarious the Nation's energy security is. As I have indicated, the bombing in Saudi Arabia is further evidence of the instability of the region that we rely on to supply the oil that keeps the Nation moving.
As proven during the Persian Gulf war, the stabilizing effect of a Strategic Petroleum Reserve drawdown far outstrips the volume of oil sold. The simple fact that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is available can have a calming influence on oil markets.
There are those, myself included, who were dismayed to some extent by a recent trend toward use the SPR as a piggy bank to pay for other programs. We will continue to debate the long-term prospects for the SPR in the future. In any case, we have already invested a large amount of taxpayer money in the stockpiles. The oil is there, ready to dampen the effects of an energy emergency on our economy. However, if we do not ensure we have the authority to use the oil when it is needed, we will have thrown tax dollars away. So, as I stand here before you, I implore my colleagues to release the hold and allow this simple extension to take place in the interests of our national security and our national energy security. If we do not ensure that there is authority to use the oil when it is needed, it simply will be to no avail.
So, as I stated earlier, the content of this legislation is noncontroversial. I understand the Department of Energy has been strongly urging Members on the other side to remove their objection. It is clear the objection from a few Democratic Members has nothing to do with the substance of this bill. It is intended only to gain leverage on unrelated issues.
Some of my fellow Republican Senators have problems with other parts of EPCA that they would like to raise on the larger reauthorization legislation. However, they have acted in concert to agree to allow this bill to proceed without amendment simply because of the strategic significance of it.
So I think it is reckless, I think it is irresponsible to knowingly place our Nation's energy security at risk, to try to gain some small political advantage. American service men and women, as we have seen time and time again, have given their lives to ensure our Nation's energy security. We have seen that with the tragic bombing in Saudi Arabia the other day. Make no mistake about it, part of our presence there is to ensure the supply of oil for the Western World would continue uninterrupted. We fought a war over that. We tried to put Saddam Hussein in a cage. So I think it is shameful that today we would hold this legislation hostage to a political will.
I encourage my colleagues to allow the immediate passage of S. 1888. I think it certainly is germane to the defense matters we are discussing here on the floor tonight, because you cannot move military or defense capability if you do not have the oil availability. So I encourage my colleagues to address their attention to the fact that, unless we get this authority, SPR will simply be unable to be utilized if there is an emergency.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
____________________
