[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 97 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7141-S7142]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                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

[[Page S7142]]

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.

                          ____________________