1020
and recreational vessels account for 2 percent of
such oil.
(23) Various national security organizations
and experts have warned the United States of the
escalating risks to our national security of relying on
transoceanic oil imports from unstable regions of the
world for a significant part of our oil supplies, and
they have urged the Nation to reduce its dependence
on oil.
(24) Polls consistently have found that a major-
ity of individuals in the United States strongly sup-
port reducing our reliance on foreign energy sources.
(25) A recent report on ‘‘Energy and National
Security’’ issued by Sandia National Laboratories,
SAND2003–3287, September 2003, found that our
national security is threatened by our continued reli-
ance on vast quantities of oil from unstable foreign
sources. The report found that supply disruptions,
caused by terrorists or otherwise, could immediately
remove many millions of barrels of oil per day from
the world supply, and noted that the EIA has esti-
mated that for every one million bbl/d of oil supply
disrupted, world oil prices might increase $3–$5 per
barrel. 
Sandia 
found 
six 
solution 
options,
including—
1021
(A) maintenance of strategic reserves;
(B) support of foreign government regimes
likely to maintain production;
(C) military deterrence, protection, or
intervention to secure production sources and
facilities;
(D) diversification of production sources;
(E) reduction of oil intensity through con-
servation or through more efficient energy use;
and
(F) development and deployment of alter-
natives to oil (or gas).
Sandia noted ‘‘that none of these measures seems
likely to emerge from business-as-usual market proc-
esses. Thus implementation of these measures will
usually require public policy decisions. In the case of
the first three, they would be foreign and military
policy decisions; in the case of the latter three, they
would be legal, regulatory, or governmental subsidy
decisions.’’. Sandia mentioned oil shale and tar
sands as potential diversified sources of oil supplies,
and hydrogen, coal, renewables, nuclear fission, and
methane hydrates as alternatives to oil.
(26) President Clinton concluded, on February
16, 1995, under section 232 of the Trade Expansion
1022
Act of 1962, that ‘‘* * * the nation’s growing reli-
ance on imports of crude oil and refined petroleum
products threaten the nation’s security because they
increase U.S. vulnerability to oil supply interrup-
tions.’’. In 1994 crude oil imports were 7.051 million
barrels per day. On March 24, 2000, President Clin-
ton, upon further review under section 232, found,
‘‘I have reviewed and approved the findings of your
investigative report * * * that imports of crude oil
threaten to impair the national security.’’. Between
the two statements by President Clinton, United
States crude oil imports increased 21.6 percent to
8.581 million barrels per day in 1999.
(27) Economists have found that while OPEC
is an important source of oil price increases, the
United States government is also partly to blame be-
cause overly burdensome government regulations on
domestic energy exploration, production, and sales
have supported OPEC’s monopoly power and re-
stricted competition from American energy compa-
nies, in addition to making expansive highly prospec-
tive areas off-limits to leasing and production.
(28) In addition to jeopardizing our national
and energy security, importing the majority of our
oil also injures our economic security. The United
1023
States imported approximately 4.7 billion barrels of
oil in 2004, of which 1.4 billion barrels were from
Canada and Mexico. Imported energy creates very
few jobs in the United States and makes only a very
minor contribution to our Gross Domestic Product
(GDP). If we substitute North American production
for the remaining 3.3 billion barrels of imports per
year, at $40 per barrel the new production would
sell for $132 billion. A widely used commercial eco-
nomics model projects that GDP would increase by
$336 billion, creating 1,667,160 jobs, each with an
average total annual compensation of $50,356. Fur-
ther, such activity is projected to generate approxi-
mately $22 billion in indirect business taxes, includ-
ing sales, excise, and severance taxes. At a one-
eighth royalty, total royalty payments to mineral
rights owners would approximate $16.5 billion per
year. Further, our imported energy represents more
than 25 percent of our international trade deficit.
American production could eliminate two-thirds of
the 25 percent, strengthening our economy.
SEC. 2303. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this title is to establish a United
States commission to make recommendations for a coordi-
nated and comprehensive North American energy policy