Adaptation to Changing Crude Oil Markets

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this legislation for several reasons. First, except in very narrow circumstances, the bill does not allow any limits--not any limits--on exports of domestic oil regardless of potential threats to our national security, and that is our top responsibility as Members--our national security.

For decades there has been a bipartisan commitment in Congress and several administrations to energy independence and reducing our reliance on foreign oil. Given the continued dependence of our economy and our military on oil, energy independence remains critical to our national defense. But with little consideration of any national security implications, this bill allows unlimited exports of a critical strategic resource.

Mr. Chairman, the United States still imports 26 percent of the oil we consume and remains the world's top importer. Every barrel exported under this bill would have to be replaced by a barrel imported from elsewhere, leaving us more reliant on foreign countries.

The bill allows the President to limit exports only if he declares an emergency under the National Emergencies Act or the International Emergency Economic Powers Act or if he is directed by the International Energy Agency to respond to an international supply crisis. Outside of these narrow circumstances, the bill permits no restrictions on exports of crude oil. This means strategic considerations such as decreasing our reliance on imports from unfriendly regimes can play no part in deciding whether to allow exports. I don't think that is a good deal at all.

The bill also will have drastic impacts on the U.S. shipbuilding industry, tanker fleet, and refineries, all of which are critical to our national defense. Congress has recognized for nearly 100 years that it benefits our national security to maintain a robust domestic shipbuilding industry and commercial shipping fleet. For example, crude exports from Alaska which were legalized in 1995 must be carried on U.S.-flagged vessels crewed by Americans. This bill contains no requirement that exports be carried on U.S.-flagged tankers.

Under current law, the President can allow exports of crude oil if he finds they are in the national interest. This bill would allow unlimited exports regardless of whether they are in the national security interests of the United States or not. I think that this is a slippery slope.

Commander Kirk Lippold, the retired Navy Captain of the USS Cole, testified before Congress earlier this year.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. ESHOO. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, the retired Navy Captain of the USS Cole said the following: ``The national security implications of changing the existing policy regulating the export of crude oil are rife with unknown and probably unintended consequences that must be fully considered and addressed.''

I agree with Commander Lippold. This bill largely ignores those important national security concerns, and it is why I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source