S6650 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 15, 1995 

and ambulance crews, Federal law enforcement officers and firefighters, are 

all covered under the Public Safety Officers Benefits Act, which provides 

death benefits and permanent disability benefits for those who are injured with some traumatic injury while 

in the line of duty. 

Excluded under this act are those 

who work for civil defense agencies and 

the employees of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. This had 

been brought to my attention a few 

years ago, and during the confirmation 

hearings in our Governmental Affairs 

Committee of James Lee Witt, the current FEMA Director, I asked him his 

reaction to legislation that would expand coverage of this act and his responses were very favorable. 

I introduced the legislation. It was 

not adopted in the last Congress, but I 

have recently reintroduced the bill and 

it is now pending in the Senate as S. 

791. I hope Senators will take a look at 

this bill and consider cosponsoring the 

legislation, or supporting its passage. 

I am today sending a letter to all 

Senators, inviting their attention to 

this legislation and the circumstances 

of it. The enactment of this bill will 

provide these civil defense employees 

and emergency management employees 

with the same kind of assurance that 

others who are similarly employed will 

have, should death or disabling injury 

result from the performance of their 

duty. Their families would receive survivor benefits, and they could be made 

eligible for disability benefits. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a copy of my ‘‘Dear Colleague’’

letter to which I have referred be printed at this point in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the letter 

was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

U.S. SENATE, 

Washington, DC, May 15, 1995. 

DEAR COLLEAGUE: I recently introduced S. 

791, a bill to extend coverage under the Public Safety Officers Benefits Act to employees 

of the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) and employees of State and 

local emergency management and civil defense agencies. 

The Public Safety Officers Benefits Act 

provides benefits to the eligible survivors of 

a public safety officer whose death is the direct result of a traumatic injury sustained in 

the line of duty. The Act also provides benefits to those officers who are permanently 

and totally disabled as the direct result of a 

catastrophic personal injury sustained in the 

line of duty. 

The Act now covers State and local law enforcement officers and fire fighters, Federal 

law enforcement officers and fire fighters, 

and Federal, State, and local rescue squads 

and ambulance crews. However, an employee 

of a State or local emergency management 

or civil defense agency, or an employee of 

FEMA who is killed or permanently disabled 

performing his or her duty in responding to 

a disaster is not covered under the Act. 

Enactment of S. 791 will remedy this situation by extending the Act to those employees. This will ensure that the survivors and 

family members of an employee killed in the 

line of duty will receive benefits and that an 

employee permanently and totally disabled 

as a result of injury sustained in the line of 

duty will also receive disability benefits of 

the Act. 

During his confirmation hearing in the last 

Congress, FEMA Director James Lee Witt 

said that emergency management and civil 

defense employees put their lives on the line 

just about every time they respond to an 

event. Enactment of this legislation will provide them with some assurance that, should 

death or disabling injury result from the performance of their duty, their families will 

receive survivor benefits or they will receive 

disability benefits. 

If you would like to cosponsor this bill, 

please have your staff contact Michael 

Loesch at 4–7412. 

Sincerely, 

THAD COCHRAN, 

U.S. Senator. 

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the order 

for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

THOMAS). Without objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION 

ASSET SALE AND TERMINATION 

ACT 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, the Senate will now 

proceed to the consideration of S. 395, 

which the clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

A bill (S. 395) to authorize and direct the 

Secretary of Energy to sell the Alaska Power 

Marketing Administration, and for other 

purposes. 

The Senate proceeded to consider the 

bill which had been reported from the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, with amendments; as follows: 

(The parts of the bill intended to be 

stricken are shown in boldface brackets and the parts of the bill intended to 

be inserted are shown in italic.) 

S. 395 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

øTITLE I 

øSECTION 101. SHORT TITLE. 

øThis title may be cited as the ‘‘Alaska 

Power Administration Sale Act’’. 

øSEC. 102. SALE OF SNETTISHAM AND EKLUTNA 

HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS. 

ø(a) The Secretary of Energy is authorized 

and directed to sell the Snettisham Hydroelectric Project (referred to in this Act as 

‘‘Snettisham’’) to the State of Alaska in accordance with the terms of this Act and the 

February 10, 1989, Snettisham Purchase 

Agreement, as amended, between the Alaska 

Power Administration of the Department of 

Energy and the Alaska Power Authority. 

ø(b) The Secretary of Energy is authorized 

and directed to sell the Eklutna Hydroelectric Project (referred to in this Act as 

‘‘Eklutna’’) to the Municipality of Anchorage doing business as Municipal Light and 

Power, the Chugach Electric Association, 

Inc., and the Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. (referred to in this Act as 

‘‘Eklutna Purchasers’’), in accordance with 

the terms of this Act and the August 2, 1989, 

Eklutna Purchase Agreement, as amended, 

between the Department of Energy and the 

Eklutna Purchasers. 

ø(c) The heads of other Federal departments and agencies, including the Secretary 

of the Interior, shall assist the Secretary of 

Energy in implementing the sales authorized 

and directed by this Act. 

ø(d) The Secretary of Energy shall deposit 

sale proceeds in the Treasury of the United 

States to the credit of miscellaneous receipts. 

ø(e) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to 

prepare or acquire Eklutna and Snettisham 

assets for sale and conveyance. Such preparations and acquisitions shall provide sufficient title to ensure the beneficial use, enjoyment, and occupancy to the purchasers of 

the asset to be sold. 

øSEC. 103. EXEMPTION. 

ø(a)(1) After the sales authorized by this 

Act occur, Eklutna and Snettisham, including future modifications, shall continue to 

be exempt from the requirements of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 791a et. seq.). 

ø(2) The exemption provided by paragraph 

(1) does not affect the Memorandum of 

Agreement entered into between the State of 

Alaska, the Eklutna Purchasers, the Alaska 

Energy Authority, and Federal fish and wildlife agencies regarding the protection, mitigation of, damages to, and enhancement of 

fish and wildlife, dated August 7, 1991, which 

remains in full force and effect. 

ø(3) Nothing in this Act or the Federal 

Power Act preempts the State of Alaska 

from carrying out the responsibilities and 

authorities of the Memorandum of Agreement. 

ø(b)(1) The United States District Court for 

the District of Alaska has jurisdiction to review decisions made under the Memorandum 

of Agreement and to enforce the provisions 

of the Memorandum of Agreement, including 

the remedy of specific performance. 

ø(2) An action seeking review of a Fish and 

Wildlife Program (‘‘Program’’) of the Governor of Alaska under the Memorandum of 

Agreement or challenging actions of any of 

the parties to the Memorandum of Agreement prior to the adoption of the Program 

shall be brought not later than ninety days 

after the date of which the Program is adopted by the Governor of Alaska, or be barred. 

ø(3) An action seeking review of implementation of the Program shall be brought not 

later than ninety days after the challenged 

act implementing the program, or be barred. 

ø(c) With respect to Eklutna lands described in Exhibit A of the Eklutna Purchase 

Agreement: 

ø(1) The Secretary of the Interior shall 

issue rights-of-way to the Alaska Power Administration for subsequent reassignment to 

the Eklutna Purchasers—

ø(A) at no cost to the Eklutna Purchasers; 

ø(B) to remain effective for a period equal 

to the life of Eklutna as extended by improvements, repairs, renewals, or replacements; and 

ø(C) sufficient for the operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement of, and access 

to, Eklutna facilities located on military 

lands and lands managed by the Bureau of 

Land Management, including land selected 

by the State of Alaska. 

ø(2) If the Eklutna Purchasers subsequently sell or transfer Eklutna to private 

ownership, the Bureau of Land Management 

may assess reasonable and customary fees 

for continued uses of the rights-of-way on 

lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and military lands in accordance 

with current law. 

ø(3) Fee title to lands at Anchorage Substation shall be transferred to Eklutna Purchasers at no additional cost if the Secretary 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 15, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6651 

of the Interior determines that pending 

claims to, and selection of, those lands are 

invalid or relinquished. 

ø(4) With respect only to approximately 

eight hundred and fifty-three acres of 

Eklutna lands identified in paragraphs 1. a., 

b., and c. of exhibit A of the Eklutna Purchase Agreement, the State of Alaska may 

select, and the Secretary of the Interior 

shall convey, to the State, improved lands 

under the selection entitlements in section 

6(a) of the Act of July 7, 1958 (Public Law 85–

508), and the North Anchorage Land Agreement of January 31, 1983. The conveyance is 

subject to the rights-of-way provided to the 

Eklutna Purchasers under paragraph (1). 

ø(d) With respect to the approximately two 

thousand six hundred and seventy-one acres 

of Snettisham lands identified in paragraphs 

1. a. and b. of Exhibit A of the Snettisham 

Purchase Agreement, the State of Alaska 

may select, and the Secretary of the Interior 

shall convey to the State, improved lands 

under the selection entitlement in section 

6(a) of the Act of July 7, 1958 (Public Law 85–

508). 

ø(e) Not later than one year after both of 

the sales authorized in section 2 have occurred, as measured by the transaction dates 

stipulated in the purchase agreements, the 

Secretary of Energy shall—

ø(1) complete the business of, and close 

out, the Alaska Power Administration; 

ø(2) prepare and submit to Congress a report documenting the sales; and 

ø(3) return unused balances of funds appropriated for the Alaska Power Administration 

to the Treasury of the United States. 

ø(f) The Act of July 31, 1950 (64 Stat. 382) is 

repealed effective on the date, as determined 

by the Secretary of Energy, when all 

Eklutna assets have been conveyed to the 

Eklutna Purchasers. 

ø(g) Section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 

1962 (Public Law 87–874; 76 Stat. 1193) is repealed effective on the date, as determined 

by the Secretary of Energy, when all 

Snettisham assets have been conveyed to the 

State of Alaska. 

ø(h) As of the later of the two dates determined in subsection (f) and (g), section 302(a) 

of the Department of Energy Organization 

Act (42 U.S.C. 7152 (a)) is amended—

ø(1) in paragraph (1)—

ø(A) by striking out subparagraph (C); and 

ø(B) by redesignating subparagraphs (D), 

(E) and (F) as subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) 

respectively; 

ø(2) in paragraph (2), by striking out ‘‘the 

Bonneville Power Administration, and the 

Alaska Power Administration’’ and inserting 

in lieu thereof ‘‘and the Bonneville Power 

Administration’’. 

ø(i) The Act of August 9, 1955 (69 Stat. 618), 

concerning water resources investigation in 

Alaska, is repealed. 

ø(j) The sales of Eklutna and Snettisham 

under this Act are not considered a disposal 

of Federal surplus property under the following provisions of section 203 of the Federal Property and Administration Services 

Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 484) and section 13 of 

the Surplus Property Act of 1944 (50 U.S.C. 

app. 1622).¿ 

TITLE I 

SECTION 101. SHORT TITLE. 

This title may be cited as the ‘‘Alaska Power 

Administration Asset Sale and Termination 

Act’’. 

SEC. 102. SALE OF SNETTISHAM AND EKLUTNA 

HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS. 

(a) The Secretary of Energy is authorized and 

directed to sell the Snettisham Hydroelectric 

Project (referred to in this Act as ‘‘Snettisham’’) 

to the State of Alaska in accordance with the 

terms of this Act and the February 10, 1989, 

Snettisham Purchase Agreement, as amended, 

between the Alaska Power Administration of the 

United States Department of Energy and the 

Alaska Power Authority and the Authority successors. 

(b) The Secretary of Energy is authorized and 

directed to sell the Eklutna Hydroelectric 

Project (referred to in this Act as ‘‘Eklutna’’) to 

the Municipality of Anchorage doing business 

as Municipal Light and Power, the Chugach 

Electric Association, Inc., and the Matanuska 

Electric Association, Inc. (referred to in this Act 

as ‘‘Eklutna Purchasers’’), in accordance with 

the terms of this Act and the August 2, 1989, 

Eklutna Purchase Agreement, as amended, between the Alaska Power Administration of the 

United States Department of Energy and the 

Eklutna Purchasers. 

(c) The heads of other Federal departments 

and agencies, including the Secretary of the Interior, shall assist the Secretary of Energy in implementing the sales authorized and directed by 

this Act. 

(d) Proceeds from the sales required by this 

title shall be deposited in the Treasury of the 

United States to the credit of miscellaneous receipts. 

(e) There are authorized to be appropriated 

such sums as may be necessary to prepare, survey and acquire Eklutna and Snettisham assets 

for sale and conveyance. Such preparations and 

acquisitions shall provide sufficient title to ensure the beneficial use, enjoyment, and occupancy by the purchaser. 

SEC. 103. EXEMPTION AND OTHER PROVISIONS. 

(a)(1) After the sales authorized by this Act 

occur, Eklutna and Snettisham, including future modifications, shall continue to be exempt 

from the requirements of the Federal Power Act 

(16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.) as amended. 

(2) The exemption provided by paragraph (1) 

does not affect the Memorandum of Agreement 

entered into among the State of Alaska, the 

Eklutna Purchasers, the Alaska Energy Authority, and Federal fish and wildlife agencies regarding the protection, mitigation of, damages 

to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife, dated 

August 7, 1991, which remains in full force and 

effect. 

(3) Nothing in this title or the Federal Power 

Act preempts the State of Alaska from carrying 

out the responsibilities and authorities of the 

Memorandum of Agreement. 

(b)(1) The United States District Court for the 

District of Alaska shall have jurisdiction to review decisions made under the Memorandum of 

Agreement and to enforce the provisions of the 

Memorandum of Agreement, including the remedy of specific performance. 

(2) An action seeking review of a Fish and 

Wildlife Program (‘‘Program’’) of the Governor 

of Alaska under the Memorandum of Agreement 

or challenging actions of any of the parties to 

the Memorandum of Agreement prior to the 

adoption of the Program shall be brought not 

later than ninety days after the date of which 

the Program is adopted by the Governor of Alaska, or be barred. 

(3) An action seeking review of implementation of the Program shall be brought not later 

than ninety days after the challenged act implementing the Program, or be barred. 

(c) With respect to Eklutna lands described in 

Exhibit A of the Eklutna Purchase Agreement: 

(1) The Secretary of the Interior shall issue 

rights-of-way to the Alaska Power Administration for subsequent reassignment to the Eklutna 

Purchasers— 

(A) at no cost to the Eklutna Purchasers; 

(B) to remain effective for a period equal to 

the life of Eklutna as extended by improvements, repairs, renewals, or replacements; and 

(C) sufficient for the operation of, maintenance of, repair to, and replacement of, and access to, Eklutna facilities located on military 

lands and lands managed by the Bureau of 

Land Management, including lands selected by 

the State of Alaska. 

(2) If the Eklutna Purchasers subsequently 

sell or transfer Eklutna to private ownership, 

the Bureau of Land Management may assess 

reasonable and customary fees for continued use 

of the rights-of-way on lands managed by the 

Bureau of Land Management and military 

lands in accordance with existing law. 

(3) Fee title to lands at Anchorage Substation 

shall be transferred to Eklutna Purchasers at no 

additional cost if the Secretary of the Interior 

determines that pending claims to, and selections of, those lands are invalid or relinquished. 

(4) With respect to the Eklutna lands identified in paragraph 1 of Exhibit A of the Eklutna 

Purchase Agreement, the State of Alaska may 

select, and the Secretary of the Interior shall 

convey to the State, improved lands under the 

selection entitlements in section 6 of the Act of 

July 7, 1958 (commonly referred to as the Alaska 

Statehood Act, Public Law 85–508, 72 Stat. 339, 

as amended), and the North Anchorage Land 

Agreement dated January 31, 1983. This conveyance shall be subject to the rights-of-way provided to the Eklutna Purchasers under paragraph (1). 

(d) With respect to the Snettisham lands identified in paragraph 1 of Exhibit A of the 

Snettisham Purchase Agreement and Public 

Land Order No. 5108, the State of Alaska may 

select, and the Secretary of the Interior shall 

convey to the State of Alaska, improved lands 

under the selection entitlements in section 6 of 

the Act of July 7, 1958 (commonly referred to as 

the Alaska Statehood Act, Public Law 85–508, 72 

Stat. 339, as amended). 

(e) Not later than one year after both of the 

sales authorized in section 102 have occurred, as 

measured by the Transaction Dates stipulated 

in the Purchase Agreements, the Secretary of 

Energy shall— 

(1) complete the business of, and close out, the 

Alaska Power Administration; 

(2) submit to Congress a report documenting 

the sales; and 

(3) return unobligated balances of funds appropriated for the Alaska Power Administration 

to the Treasury of the United States. 

(f) The Act of July 31, 1950 (64 Stat. 382) is repealed effective on the date, as determined by 

the Secretary of Energy, that all Eklutna assets 

have been conveyed to the Eklutna Purchasers. 

(g) Section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 

1962 (76 Stat. 1193) is repealed effective on the 

date, as determined by the Secretary of Energy, 

that all Snettisham assets have been conveyed 

to the State of Alaska. 

(h) As of the later of the two dates determined 

in subsection (f) and (g), section 302(a) of the 

Department of Energy Organization Act (42 

U.S.C. 7152 (a)) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (1)— 

(A) by striking subparagraph (C); and 

(B) by redesignating subparagraphs (D), (E), 

and (F) as subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) respectively; and 

(2) in paragraph (2) by striking out ‘‘and the 

Alaska Power Administration’’ and by inserting 

‘‘and’’ after ‘‘Southwestern Power Administration,’’. 

(i) The Act of August 9, 1955, concerning 

water resources investigation in Alaska (69 Stat. 

618), is repealed. 

(j) The sales of Eklutna and Snettisham under 

this title are not considered disposal of Federal 

surplus property under the Federal Property 

and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 

U.S.C. 484) or the Act of October 3, 1994, popularly referred to as the ‘‘Surplus Property Act of 

1944’’ (50 U.S.C. App. 1622). 

TITLE II 

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE 

This title may be cited as ‘‘Trans-Alaska 

Pipeline Amendment Act of 1995’’. 

SEC. 202. TAPS ACT AMENDMENTS. 

Section 203 of the Act entitled the ‘‘TransAlaska Pipeline Authorization Act,’’ as 

amended (43 U.S.C. 1652), is amended by inserting the following new subsection (f): 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6652 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 15, 1995 

‘‘(f) EXPORTS OF ALASKAN NORTH SLOPE

OIL.—

‘‘(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any regulation), any oil transported 

by pipeline over a right-of-way granted pursuant to this section may be exported. 

‘‘(2) Except in the case of oil exported to a 

country pursuant to a bilateral international 

oil supply agreement entered into by the 

United States with the country before June 

25, 1979, or to a country pursuant to the 

International Emergency Oil Sharing Plan of 

the International Energy Agency, the oil 

shall be transported by a vessel documented 

under the laws of the United States and 

owned by a citizen of the United States (as 

determined in accordance with section 2 of 

the Shipping Act, 1916 (46 U.S.C. App. 802)). 

‘‘(3) Nothing in this subsection shall restrict the authority of the President under 

the Constitution, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 

et seq.), or the National Emergencies Act (50 

U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) to prohibit exportation of 

the oil.’’. 

SEC. 203. SECURITY OF SUPPLY. 

Section 410 of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline 

Authorization Act (87 Stat. 594) is amended 

to read as follows: ‘‘The Congress reaffirms 

that the crude oil on the North Slope of 

Alaska is an important part of the Nation’s 

oil resources, and that the benefits of such 

crude oil should be equitably shared, directly 

or indirectly, by all regions of the country. 

The President shall use any authority he 

may have to ensure an equitable allocation 

of available North Slope and other crude oil 

resources and petroleum products among all 

regions and all of the several States.’’. 

SEC. 204. ANNUAL REPORT. 

Section 103(f) of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6212(f)) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: ‘‘In the first quarter report for each 

new calendar year, the President shall indicate whether independent refiners in Petroleum Administration District 5 have been 

unable to secure adequate supplies of crude 

oil as a result of exports of Alaskan North 

Slope crude oil in the prior calendar year 

and shall make such recommendations to the 

Congress as may be appropriate.’’. 

SEC. 205. GAO REPORT. 

The Comptroller General of the United 

States shall conduct a review of energy production in California and Alaska and the effects of Alaskan North Slope crude oil exports, if any, on consumers, independent refiners, and shipbuilding and ship repair yards 

on the West Coast. The Comptroller General 

shall commence this review four years after 

the date of enactment of this Act and, within 

one year after commencing the review, shall 

provide a report to the Committee on Energy 

and Natural Resources in the Senate and the 

Committee on Resources in the House of 

Representatives. The report shall contain a 

statement of the principal findings of the review and such recommendations for consideration by the Congress as may be appropriate. 

SEC. 206. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

This øAct¿ title and the amendments made 

by it shall take effect on the date of enactment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the 

Senator from Washington and I have 

been in discussion. It is my understanding that the Senator from Washington has agreed to taking up the debate on the bill at this time. 

I ask the Chair for unanimous consent that the committee amendment be 

adopted and considered to be the original text for further amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection? 

Mrs. MURRAY. I object. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in 

view of the objection, it would be my 

intent to announce to the body that I 

would move to table. I want to accommodate my friend from Washington, 

but I will suggest that at 2:30 I will 

move to table the committee amendment at that hour. 

Mr. President, let me begin with my 

opening statement relative to S. 395. 

Mr. President, on February 13, the 

senior Senator, Senator STEVENS, and I 

introduced Senate bill 395. Title I of 

this bill provides for the sale of the 

Alaska Power Administration—known 

as the APA—the assets of that and the 

termination of the Alaska Power Administration once the sale occurs. 

Further, title II would allow exports 

of Alaska’s North Slope oil, referred to 

as ANS crude oil, when carried only on 

U.S.-flag vessels. It is my understanding that Senator FEINSTEIN and 

Senator KYL later cosponsored S. 395. 

On March 1 the committee heard testimony from the administration, from 

the Lieutenant Governor of Alaska, the 

State of California, the California independent producers, maritime labor, and 

other proponents of Senate bill 395. The 

administration testified in support of 

lifting the Alaska North Slope crude 

oil export ban, and they indicated that 

the bill should be amended to provide 

for an appropriate environmental review to allow the Secretary of Commerce to prevent anticompetitive behavior by exporters and to establish a 

licensing system. And then on March 

15, after agreeing to work with the administration on these concerns prior to 

bringing the bill to the floor, the committee adopted Senate bill 395 by an 

overwhelming vote. The vote on that 

was 14 to 4. So it was truly bipartisan 

support relative to the merits of S. 395. 

Further, Mr. President, Senator 

JOHNSTON and I were pleased to offer a 

committee substitute. We propose that 

now as in the original bill. Title I 

would provide for the sale of the assets 

of the Alaska Power Administration 

and title II would authorize exports of 

Alaska North Slope crude carried on 

American flag vessels with changes to 

satisfy some Members and administration concerns. 

Title I of S. 395 provides for the sale 

of the Alaska Power Administration’s 

assets and the termination of the Alaska Power Administration once the sale 

is completed. 

Further, I am pleased to state that 

the Department of Energy has testified 

in support of the Alaska Power Administration’s asset sale and agency termination. 

In addition, on April 7, 1995, the administration submitted legislation to 

Congress substantially similar to title 

I of S. 395. The transmittal letter says: 

This legislation, which is proposed in the 

President’s FY 1996 budget, is part of the administration’s ongoing effort to reinvent the 

Federal Government. 

The Alaska Power Administration is 

quite unique among the Federal power 

marketing administrations. First, unlike the other Federal power marketing administrations, the Alaska 

Power Administration owns its powergenerating facilities, which consist of 

two hydroelectric projects. 

Second, these single-purpose hydroelectric projects were not built as a result of the water resource management 

plan as is the case or was the case with 

most other Federal hydroelectric 

dams. Instead, they were built to promote economic development and the 

establishment of essential industries. 

Third, the Alaska Power Administration operates entirely in one State, the 

State of Alaska. 

Fourth, the Alaska Power Administration was never intended to remain 

indefinitely under Government control. 

That is specifically recognized in the 

Eklutna national project authorizing 

legislation. The Alaska Power Administration owns two hydroelectric 

projects, one near Juneau at 

Snettisham and the other near Anchorage at Eklutna. Snettisham is a 78- 

megawatt project located 45 miles from 

Juneau to the south. It has been Juneau’s main power supply since 1975, 

accounting for up to 80 percent of its 

electric power. Eklutna is a 30-megawatt project located 34 miles northeast 

of Anchorage. It has served the Anchorage and Matanuska valleys since 

about 1955 and accounts for 5 percent of 

its electric power supply. 

The Alaska Power Administration’s 

assets will be sold pursuant to the 1989 

purchase agreement between the Department of Energy and the purchasers. Snettisham will be sold to the 

State of Alaska. Eklutna will be sold 

jointly to the municipality of Anchorage, Chugach Electric Association, and 

the Matanuska Electric Association. 

For both, the sale price is determined 

under an agreed upon formula. It is the 

net present value of the remaining debt 

service payments that the Treasury 

would receive if the Federal Government had retained ownership of the 

two projects. The proceeds from the 

sale are currently estimated to be 

about $85 million. However, the actual 

sales price will vary with the interest 

rate at the time of purchase. 

S. 395, in a separate formula agreement, provided for the full protection 

of the fish and wildlife in the area. The 

purchasers, the State of Alaska, the 

U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. 

Marine Fisheries, and the U.S. Department of the Interior, have jointly entered into a formal binding agreement 

providing for postsale protection, mitigation and enhancement of fish and 

wildlife resources affected by Eklutna 

and Snettisham. The agreement makes 

that legally enforceable. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 15, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6653 

As a result of the formal agreement, 

the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Commerce will all argue that 

the two hydroelectric projects warrant 

exemption from FERC licensing under 

the Federal Power Act. The August 7, 

1991 purchase agreement states in part 

that 

The National Marine Fisheries Service, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the State 

agree that the following mechanism to develop and implement measures to protect 

and mitigate damages, to enhance fish and 

wildlife, including related spawning grounds 

and habitat, obviate the Eklutna purchaser 

and the EAE to obtain licenses. 

This agreed upon exemption from the 

Federal Power Act’s requirements to 

obtain a FERC license will save the 

purchasers and their customers as 

much as $1 million in licensing costs 

for each project plus thousands of dollars in annual fees. 

The Alaska Power Administration 

has 34 people located in my State of 

Alaska. The purchasers of the two 

projects have pledged to hire as many 

of these as possible. For those who do 

not receive offers of employment, the 

Department of Energy has pledged that 

it will offer employment to any remaining Alaska Power Administration 

employees although the DOE jobs are 

expected to be in other States. 

Let me turn to title II, Mr. President, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline 

Amendment Act of 1995. 

Title II of S. 395 would at long last 

allow exports of Alaska’s North Slope 

crude oil when carried on U.S.-flag vessels. This legislation will finally allow 

my State to market its major product 

in the global marketplace and let the 

marketplace determine its ultimate 

usage. The export restrictions were 

first enacted shortly after the commencement of the 1973 Arab-Israel war 

and the first Arab oil boycott. At that 

time, many people believed that the 

enactment of the export restrictions 

would enhance our Nation’s energy security. Indeed, following the major oil 

shock of 1979, Congress effectively imposed a ban on exports. 

Well, Mr. President, much has 

changed since then. In part, due to conservation efforts and shift to other fuel 

sources, total U.S. petroleum demand 

in 1993 actually was lower than in 1978. 

However, in the last 2 years, our consumption of oil has significantly increased and our productive capacity 

has declined. Our dependence on foreign oil sources has now gone up. We 

now produce almost 3 billion barrels a 

day less than we did in 1973. Employment in the oil and gas production industry has fallen by more than 400,000 

jobs since 1982. Production on the 

North Slope has now entered a period 

of sustained decline. Throughput in the 

Trans-Alaska pipeline has dropped 

from 2.2 million barrels a day in 1989 to 

about 1.5 million barrels a day currently. In California, small independent producers have been forced to 

abandon wells or defer further investments to increase production. By precluding the market from operating normally, the export ban has had the unintended effect of discouraging, discouraging, Mr. President, oil production in 

California and Alaska. Lifting the ban 

on Alaska North Slope crude oil exports is the first step, the first step toward stopping the decline of this Nation’s oil production. ANS oil exports 

will increase our oil production capacity by opening new reserves to production. This is oil production that our 

country can count on if it needs it. 

With an efficient market brought 

about by exports, we would not have 

this increased production and resultant 

increase in energy security. With this 

market distortion eliminated, producers will make substantial investments, will make investments in California, they will make investments on 

the marginal field on the North Slope 

that will lead to additional production. 

Every barrel of additional oil produced 

in California and on the North Slope is 

one less that would have to be imported from the Mideast or elsewhere 

in the world. 

In an effort to quantify the likely 

production response and to evaluate 

benefits and costs of Alaska oil exports, the Department of Energy has 

concluded a very comprehensive study 

last year on the matter. In its June 

1994 report, the department concluded 

‘‘Alaska oil exports would boost production in Alaska as well as California 

by approximately 100,000 to 110,000 barrels per day by the end of the century.’’

The study also concluded ANS exports 

could create up to 25,000 jobs. These are 

new jobs that will be created in California and to a lesser degree Alaska. 

Now, Mr. President, some Senators 

have expressed concern that lifting the 

ANS oil export ban will jeopardize the 

supply of ANS crude on the west coast. 

This is just simply not the case. Washington and California are and will remain the natural markets for ANS 

crude. Washington and California ports 

are the closest to Alaska and the ANS 

crude will continue to be supplied to 

those refineries. The economics simply 

dictate that as the closest point from 

Alaska and the closest point to significant distribution capability because of 

the populations in those areas near 

those west coast refineries. 

Furthermore, the only major refinery 

that opposes lifting the ban is one that 

has a 5-year contract with British Petroleum to keep their refinery supplied. It is my understanding there is 

still approximately 4 years left on that 

contract, so there is no immediate suggestion that this or any other refinery 

is about to have its operation jeopardized by this action. 

Further, the lifting of the oil export 

ban would relieve pressure that forces 

some of the ANS crude oil down to 

Panama, where it is unloaded, transported across Panama via a pipeline, 

and then reloaded onto vessels to take 

it to the gulf coast. It simply makes no 

economic sense to handle the oil that 

many times and transport it that long 

distance. That oil is the oil we are 

talking about, the available oil from 

75,000 to 200,000 barrels a day that 

would be exported. The market in our 

opinion should determine the price and 

destination of the ANS crude oil. 

Mr. President, there has been a long 

concern in the domestic maritime community that lifting this ban would 

force the scrapping of the independent 

tanker fleet—these are U.S.-flag vessels that make up the significant portion of the U.S. maritime fleet under 

the American flag—and this lifting of 

the ban would destroy employment opportunities for merchant mariners who 

remain a vital contributor to our national security. 

In recognition of this concern, the 

proposed legislation before this body 

would require, and I emphasize require, 

the use of U.S.-flag vessels to carry the 

available oil that would be exported. 

This is not the first time the law was 

changed. Some would suggest that this 

is an issue of precedent, but it is not. 

The law was changed to allow the export of ANS crude oil in 1988 when Congress passed legislation to implement 

the United States-Canadian Free-Trade 

Agreement. 

It agreed at that time to allow the 

50,000 barrels a day of ANS crude to be 

exported to and subject to the oil being 

carried on Jones Act, that is U.S.-flag, 

vessels. 

Mr. President, we have been trying to 

lift the oil export ban for some time. In 

the past, maritime unions opposed our 

efforts because they believed it would 

increase job losses in that industry. 

Last year, the maritime unions came 

to the realization that their unions 

were facing virtual extinction if Alaska oil production continued to decline; 

in other words, there would be no oil to 

haul and, as a consequence, no ships to 

man. So they initiated support for lifting the ban to help both Alaska and 

California production if—and I want to 

emphasize this—if it were transported 

on U.S.-flag vessels with U.S. crews. 

Mr. President, this current ban no 

longer makes economic sense. For far 

too long, it has hurt the citizens of my 

State. It has severely damaged the 

California oil and gas industry and has 

precluded the market from functioning 

normally. In other words, you have a 

free market out there. It should function as a free market. If this ban is left 

in place any longer, there is no question that it will further discourage energy production. It will destroy jobs in 

California, or the prospects for jobs, as 

well as in my State of Alaska, and it 

will ultimately be the end of our seafaring mariners, the independent U.S. 

tanker fleet and, as a consequence, the 

shipbuilding sector of our Nation because, under the current law, these vessels are required to be built in U.S. 

shipyards. And, clearly, if there is no 

oil to haul, you are not going to need 

any ships, regardless of the mandate 

that they be U.S. vessels with U.S. 

crews. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6654 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 15, 1995 

I am sure we are going to hear from 

some of our colleagues today expressing concerns that prices will go up, gas 

prices, gasoline prices, on the west 

coast, if exports of ANS oil are authorized. 

Well, Mr. President, there is no indication that this is the case. The Department of Energy carefully studied 

this issue and concluded that consumers would not see a discernible increase in the price at the gas pump. 

The DOE showed that west coast refineries enjoy the widest refiner gross 

profit margins in the country. Some 

would ask: Why? Well, we will get into 

that later on in the debate, I am sure. 

In other words, the west coast refineries have been able to buy crude oil 

for less per barrel than anywhere else 

in the country because of the proximity of the refiners to the origin of 

the oil in Alaska, yet they are selling 

the gasoline or other refined products 

for more than anywhere else in the 

country. 

In 1993, the refiners’ gross margin on 

the west coast was more than $4 higher 

than the U.S. average, according to the 

Department of Energy. Wholesale gasoline prices in California are consistently 3 or 4 cents higher than in New 

York, despite the fact that California 

refiners are purchasing cheaper crude 

than the foreign crude oil shipped into 

the east coast. One wonders why. 

Another concern we will probably 

hear today is ANS oil exports will create environmental hazards, including 

increased chances of oilspills. However, 

the DOE study has taken that into consideration and found that exports of 

Alaskan oil will actually decrease 

tanker traffic in U.S. waters. And this 

is the simple reality. Furthermore, any 

tankers exporting ANS oil exported 

from Alaska will proceed some 200 

miles off our coast and stay 200 miles 

or more off our coast while proceeding 

overseas. In other words, this oil, a 

small amount, in excess, will move 

from the Port of Valdez and go straight 

across the ocean, we assume, to refiners in perhaps Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, as opposed to this oil going down 

to the west coast of Alaska, the west 

coast of British Columbia, the west 

coast of the State of Washington, the 

State of California, and Oregon, as 

well. 

So to suggest that there is an increase in environmental hazards of oil 

spills is simply not true because we are 

simply not moving this oil down the 

west coast. It is much safer, as a matter of fact, to transport it across the 

ocean than down the west coast of the 

United States. 

It is interesting to point out, Mr. 

President, that this oil, this excess oil, 

would ordinarily have gone all the way 

down the west coast beyond California 

and into the pipeline at the Pacific 

isthmus in Panama, where it would 

have been unloaded, gone across Panama in the pipeline, and then again reloaded on smaller United States-flag 

vessels to be delivered to the refineries 

in the gulf coast. The economics of this 

double handling is the reason this is no 

longer a viable alternative and why we 

have this excess oil on the west coast. 

Now there are other concerns that 

exporting ANS crude will decrease 

work for the U.S. shipyards. However, 

in my opinion, it will have the reverse 

effect, simply because more tankers 

will be needed to trade, it will be necessary to bring a few more ships out. 

The lay-up fleet will provide significantly more jobs in the maritime market. The reason for that is you are 

moving the oil further and when you 

move it further, it takes more time 

and, as a consequence, you need more 

ships. 

Now, the question that somehow this 

will result in tankers being repaired 

overseas if the ban is lifted, I think 

bears some examination. Because if 

Alaska crude oil production continues 

to decline, in part because of the depressed prices caused by the export 

ban, there will be more tankers put in 

lay-up and unavailable for repair. And 

I would further advise the Chair that, 

as far as the threat of tankers being 

lifted overseas, there is a 50-percent 

surcharge that must be paid to the U.S. 

Government for tankers that are lifted 

in foreign yards. 

So, Mr. President, the reality is that 

it simply makes no sense to continue 

this ban at this time. And the lifting of 

the ban will, in my opinion, increase 

jobs, certainly increase domestic oil 

production without any cost to the 

country. It will be of great benefit to 

the country. 

Mr. President, I would like to refer a 

little bit to a little of the history relative to this matter and try and put 

into perspective the situation in the 

State of Alaska as it exists today. 

We are all aware that Alaska was a 

pretty good bargain when we purchased 

it from Russia and we paid a favorable 

price for it. 

But, you know, we are a little unique 

in having come into the Nation of 

States in 1959. We have a population of 

some 560,000 people spread out over a 

vast area roughly one-fifth the size of 

the United States. Until a few years 

ago, we had four time zones in our 

State; now we have three, simply to 

make it simpler living in Alaska. We 

have some 33,000 miles of coastline. 

We have a unique ownership of our 

land. We have 365 million acres. But if 

you look at the ownership of that land, 

you find that the Federal Government 

still owns over 65 percent of that land. 

Our State of Alaska, the State government itself, has about 28 percent. The 

native people, the aboriginal people of 

our State, have some 12 percent, and 

the private ownership in our State is 

somewhere in the area of 3 to 4 percent. 

Our State has been producing nearly 

25 percent of the Nation’s total crude 

oil for the last 16 or 17 years. That production was as high as 2 million barrels 

a day. Now it is about 1.6 million barrels a day. 

Coming into the Union in 1959 with 

the State of Hawaii, while we had camaraderie and a friendship, we in many 

ways did not have much in common. 

We were a large land mass federally 

owned; Hawaii, a much smaller island 

land area. 

We were separated by the Nation of 

Canada from the continental United 

States and, as a consequence, as we 

began to develop, a rather curious set 

of circumstances came about. We found 

ourselves subject to pretty much the 

whims of the Federal Government with 

regard to development, because the 

wealth and resources of our State, unlike many other States, were not controlled by private individuals or private groups in residence. We found ourselves subject to outside ownership and 

outside control. 

So, as we look at Alaska today, we 

really have to look at what constitutes 

the ownership of our resources, what 

contributes to our economy, where 

they are domiciled, where our jobs 

come from in relationship to the development of those resources. 

As we look at who owns Alaska 

today, setting aside the 65-percent Federal Government ownership, and identify our industries, we first look at our 

oil industry and find that our oil industry, which is such a significant factor, 

is not an Alaska-based industry. It is 

based in Texas, it is based in California, it is based in England, as a consequence of large international companies and not independents domiciled in 

our State. 

Our second-largest industry, fishing, 

for all practical purposes, is controlled 

by interests out of the State of Washington, primarily in Seattle, and 

Japan, where a large percentage of the 

ownership is concentrated. Very little 

of our fishing industry, as far as the 

processing is concerned, is domiciled 

with ownership in our State. We have a 

significant number of fishing vessels in 

our State, but many of the fishing vessels that fish in our State are domiciled in other States. 

Timber, which is our third-largest industry, is primarily controlled by the 

Japanese and interests in the State of 

Oregon and, to a lesser degree, in the 

State of Washington. 

Mining, which is a tremendous resource potential for Alaska, is primarily situated in British Columbia, in 

England, and in Utah. 

Our airlines, Mr. President, our largest carrier, Alaska Airlines, is domiciled in the Washington State area in 

Seattle. We are serviced by Delta, 

Northwest, United. As a consequence, 

the point I am making is virtually everything that comes in or goes out of 

Alaska goes through the State of 

Washington. Even our shipping, and 

virtually everything we use in our 

State, comes through the State of 

Washington. Sea-Land is associated in 

the Seattle area, yet it is a New Jersey 

corporation. Tote, which is a carrier 

that brings two to three ships a week 

in Alaska, is also domiciled in the 

State of Washington. Previous to that, 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 15, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6655 

the State was dependent on transportation by Alaska Steamship Co. 

Some of the more senior Members 

will undoubtedly recall the ongoing debate that occurred for many years between the late Senator Gruening and 

the Alaska Steamship Co. which he 

claimed had a vice grip on Alaska, its 

transportation system and, as a consequence, controlled, to some degree, 

the level of Alaska development. 

As we look at everything we consume 

in Alaska—virtually everything—our 

foodstuffs, our beverages, our mattresses, our light bulbs, our toilet 

paper, everything comes up through 

the State of Washington. 

We find many of our oil rigs or activities on the North Slope relative to 

oil and gas production are fabricated in 

the State of Louisiana and brought up. 

We have our own transportation system, a ferry system, which sails out of 

Bellingham, WA, to Alaska. It has been 

estimated that as much as 20 percent of 

all the economic activity in the State 

of Washington is directly associated 

with activities in Alaska. So one can 

say anything that happens in Alaska 

stimulating the economy also has a 

multiplying factor on the State of 

Washington. Even our oil tankers that 

haul oil go to shipyards, not in Alaska, 

but shipyards in Portland and San 

Diego, and those ships are not crewed 

with Alaskan crews, but rely on crews 

supplied from Washington, Oregon, and 

California. 

Our cruise ships that come up to our 

State during the summer months sail 

out of Vancouver, BC, where they are 

supplied and crewed. They are owned 

by Florida and British interests. 

So as we look at Alaska coming into 

the Union after all the rest of the 

States have established their land patterns, and so forth, we found that we 

had a rather curious set of circumstances. We have the reality that 

we are dependent, in a sense, for supply 

by our States to the south. The benefits are primarily concentrated in the 

State of Washington. 

I think perhaps a little further history is appropriate as we look back on 

how some of these policies developed, 

and it is fair to say that back in the 

twenties there was a fear from the 

State of Washington, the Seattle area, 

that perhaps Vancouver, BC, or Prince 

Rupert, BC, might begin to supply the 

frontier country of Alaska. To ensure 

this profitable business activity generated through the State of Washington was not lost, there was an action by the Washington State delegation. That delegation was basically responsible for getting the Jones Act 

passed. 

This was a rather interesting piece of 

legislation that said that goods and 

services that moved between two U.S. 

ports had to go in U.S. vessels with 

U.S. crews, built in U.S. shipyards. 

This action basically eliminated the 

British Columbia supplying Alaska 

goods originating in the United States 

and carrying them to ports in Alaska. 

The question is, Who was Jones? You 

may have guessed it. He was a U.S. 

Senator from the State of Washington. 

He served in this body 23 years, from 

1909 to 1932. Some would say, why, he 

was doing his job, as some of the opponents today of this legislation can certainly justify, but we have to question, 

if you will, in Alaska that we were 

theoretically at that time denied an 

opportunity to let the market dictate 

the transportation modes to our State. 

I wonder how the Senator from Alaska would be treated today if I were up 

here suggesting Washington and Oregon not be allowed to export their 

timber products to the markets of the 

world or that Boeing would not be allowed to sell their airplanes outside 

the United States or perhaps people in 

the State of Washington have to eat all 

their own delicious apples. This is a 

part of the issue as some of us in Alaska see it. 

Our Washington State opponents say 

oil export of Alaska’s surplus oil that 

has been on the west coast, formerly 

went through the Panama Canal, would 

harm Washington State because the excess oil on the west coast would not 

make it favorable for one of their 

major independent refiners in that area 

to be able to buy this oil at perhaps a 

favorable price that is pending. 

They say the refinery jobs are threatened. I really think this argument has 

no foundation in reality. As I stated 

earlier, this refinery in question has 5- 

year contracts and 4 years remaining 

with British Petroleum to supply the 

amount of oil that it needs to that refinery. Perhaps we will get into refinery returns a little later in the debate. 

But it is fair to say the consumers of 

Washington State are not benefiting by 

the abnormally high rate of return on 

investment in comparison to the refining industry as a whole in this area. 

In other words, the profits are not 

necessarily passed on to the consumer. 

That is really a case for the Washington delegation to address. But it 

certainly appears that way from the information supplied us by the Department of Energy, which I will make a 

part of the RECORD at a later date. 

Further production of Alaska oil will 

always find its natural markets in the 

nearest area where there is a refining 

concentration simply because of the 

costs of transportation; and that 

equates to the existing refineries on 

the west coast, which are the closest 

source of Alaskan oil. 

Oregon’s opposition is a little different. Washington State does not 

have, as I understand it, shipyards with 

the capacity of lifting many of the 

larger U.S.-flag tankers. Several years 

ago, the Portland area, on the basis of 

the assumption that there would be 

perhaps more oil produced in Alaska, 

floated a public bond issue and bought 

a large dry dock from the Columbia 

River and solicited business of hauling 

out and dry-docking Alaskan tankers 

that were in the Alaskan trade as well 

as other commercial shipping. 

As we look at the merits of the volume of oil, a quarter of all U.S. production, except a small amount, goes to 

the Virgin Islands—I might add, in foreign vessels—that is exempt, and it 

goes in in these U.S. tankers moved 

down from Alaska to ports in Washington, California, and Panama. The 

Oregon delegation fears that some of 

this excess oil that used to move 

through the Panama Canal, now with 

the proposed legislation that would 

allow it to move into foreign markets, 

the free market, even though it would 

still have to move in U.S. ships with 

U.S. crews, these ships might be drydocked in foreign shipyards, even 

though there is a more, I think, protective piece of legislation in place that 

addresses this. As I have said before, 

this requires U.S. owners to pay a 50- 

percent penalty to the U.S. Government on top of the foreign shipyard 

bill. 

So what we have here is understandable sensitivity. But not much is said 

by our Oregon neighbors as to where 

their shipyard was built. It was built in 

Japan. That is obviously a question 

that they saw fit to purchase that yard 

there rather than build it in the United 

States. Unfortunately, that shipyard 

has had its ups and downs. It has been 

out of work from time to time. And in 

making some inquiries, we found that 

most of the tanker traffic that used to 

be repaired in Portland is now being repaired in San Diego because we can 

only assume that yard appears to be 

more competitive, even though, at our 

urging, the tanker industry has contracted for the repair of two tankers in 

the Portland yard recently, and we will 

continue to support that yard as much 

as possible. 

I hope that we can address the concerns of the Oregon delegation because 

we are quite sensitive to the fact that 

they floated a bond issue and those 

bonds are still being retired, and without an adequate volume of business, 

the ability to retire those bonds is 

questionable. So we want to assist in 

every way possible, and we are working 

with the Oregon delegation at this 

time to try to work out some accord. 

I do not want to mislead the President about the real issue. There is an 

effort to stop Alaska from exporting its 

excess oil, and I wanted the RECORD to 

reflect on the real story and the reasons why. 

Now, the issue of why excess oil on 

the west coast needs relief now deserves a brief, expanded explanation. 

When we were at an all-time high of 

our production—some 2 million barrels 

a day—we simply had to move this excess oil because the west coast refineries could not consume it; the markets were not big enough. So a pipeline 

was built, and it was very interesting. 

I went down for the opening of it. It 

was built by the Government of Panama in partnership with Northfield Industries, which is an east coast firm, 

and Chicago Bridge & Iron. It was built 

to move the excess oil, so the oil would 

go down from Valdez to the Pacific 

isthmus in U.S.-flag vessels, unloaded, 

and moved in the pipeline. I might add, 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6656 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 15, 1995 

that pipeline was simply a cat trail in 

the jungle, and the pipe, for the most 

part, was on the surface. But it did the 

job. 

In any event, once the oil was unloaded, the Pacific isthmus went 

through the pipeline, reloaded on U.S. 

small ships and was taken into the 

Houston refineries in the Gulf of Mexico. Well, as one can easily ascertain, 

the economics of that double handling 

is no longer efficient. As a consequence, they can bring in oil in the 

gulf and Houston refineries from South 

and Central America, offshore Louisiana, and Mexico as well, so they are 

not interested in taking the volumes of 

the United States oil which is no 

longer competitive in that market. 

That is the reason we have this excess 

on the west coast today. 

Now, letting the Pacific rim market 

absorb the excess oil also deserves a 

brief explanation. First of all, we are 

not talking about very much oil. The 

excess is estimated to be somewhere 

between 75,000 to 200,000 barrels per 

day. The rest of our 1.6 million acres is 

consumed on the west coast refineries 

and will continue to be. So if one looks 

at the economics of this excess oil, it is 

a pretty tough set of facts, because it 

will have to compete on some rather 

difficult terms. I ask the Chair to just 

compare the costs of marketplaces 

such as Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, to 

take the oil from Alaska, shipped in 

United States-crewed tankers that operate at obviously much higher costs, 

when those same countries can bring in 

oil much cheaper in foreign tankers 

than they can bring in oil from the 

Mideast. 

So there you have an analysis of the 

economics associated with the merits 

of getting some of this excess oil off 

the west coast. But the real concern is 

the stimulation of oil production in 

California and bringing on the small 

producers that have been down for 

some time. And once this excess is removed, you have the capability of this 

relatively large volume of small producers being able to bring their oil in 

because of the close proximity and reduced transportation costs associated 

with bringing that oil into the California refiners. 

So there you have the real issue before this debate. Alaskans, of course, 

are sensitive to the significance of sovereignty as it applies to what a State 

produces in the free market system, 

having the capability of making a determination of just where those resources will be utilized. 

Furthermore, Mr. President, I have 

some more detail that I would like to 

present to substantiate our concerns 

over this legislation. I think the best 

way to do it is to go into some detail 

relative to the background associated 

with the support for this legislation. 

Last year, for the first time, imports 

met more than half of our domestic 

consumption because the domestic production has drastically declined. By 

precluding the market from operating, 

the export ban has had an unintended 

effect of discouraging further energy 

production. 

With this market disorientation 

eliminated, producers would make substantial investments in California and 

the North Slope that would lead to additional production. 

Every barrel of additional oil produced in California and on the North 

Slope is one less than would have to be 

imported from the Middle East or elsewhere in the world. As I have said before, Mr. President, Washington and 

California are the natural markets for 

crude. Washington and California ports 

are closest to Alaska, and the ANS 

crude will continue to be supplied to 

their refiners. 

It simply no longer makes economic 

sense to handle the oil as many times 

and transport it the long distance that 

has previously been the disposition of 

that oil on the west coast of the United 

States. That is the oil that we are talking about. That is the excess. 

Let me refer to a report from the Department of Energy that addresses this 

issue. Lifting the Alaska crude oil export ban would, one, add as much as 

$180 million in tax revenue to the U.S. 

Treasury by the year 2000. It would 

allow California to earn as much as 

$230 million during the same period. It 

would increase U.S. employment, U.S. 

jobs, by some 11,000 to 16,000 jobs by 

1995 and 25,000 new jobs by the year 

2000. It would preserve as many as 3,300 

maritime jobs. It would increase American oil production by as much as 

110,000 barrels a day by the year 2000. It 

would add 200 to 400 million barrels to 

Alaska’s oil reserve. 

Now, Mr. President, these are not figures that have been put together by the 

Senator from Alaska. These are figures 

released by the Department of Energy. 

Mr. President, as we address further 

consideration of the issues covering 

Alaska’s oil export, I think we have to 

again rely on the credibility of the information. I was very pleased that the 

Department of Energy did such an exhaustive study relative to this issue, 

before the administration took a position. 

I am pleased to say that the President of the United States supports this 

legislation because this legislation is 

good for America. It is good for America because it decreases our dependence 

on foreign imports. By so doing, we basically keep our dollars home and keep 

our jobs home. 

As a consequence, Mr. President, we 

find that this report by the Department of Energy, in substantiating our 

efforts, keeps America in a position of 

ensuring that we can, through the incentives offered by this legislation, 

keep our production again flowing from 

marginal wells that previously have 

not been capable of being competitive 

in the marketplace. 

I am told that several fields in Alaska adjacent to Prudhoe Bay that are 

currently marginal at this time would 

be brought into production. When one 

begins to add up all the benefits of this, 

why, clearly, it benefits the maritime 

industry as well. 

As a consequence, Mr. President, I 

note that the maritime unions, without exception, support this legislation. 

As a consequence, they are urging 

Members to evaluate the merits of the 

legislation before this body. 

I have already addressed at some 

length the issue of increased oil production. I want to talk very briefly 

now as to the position of the administration in supporting the lifting of the 

North Slope crude oil export ban. Inasmuch as their indication that the bill, 

as proposed, should be amended to provide for an appropriate environmental 

review, now the question of an environmental review would be to allow the 

Secretary of Commerce to address 

anticompetitive behavior by exporters, 

and to establish a licensing system of 

some kind. 

We have addressed those concerns in 

the committee amendment. Before 

making his national interest determination, the President would be required, under this legislation, to complete an appropriate environmental review. 

In making his national interest determination, the President could impose conditions other than a volume 

limitation. The Secretary of Commerce 

then would be required to issue any 

rules necessary to implement the 

President’s affirmative national interest determination within some 30 days. 

If the Secretary later found that 

anticompetitive activity by an exporter had caused sustained material 

oil shortages or sustained prices significantly above the world level, and 

that the shortages or high prices 

caused sustained material job losses, 

he could recommend appropriate action by the President against the exporter, including modifications of the 

authority to export. 

Under Senate bill 395, the President 

would retain his authority to later 

block exports in an emergency. In addition, Israel and other countries, pursuant to an international oil sharing 

plan, would be exempted from the 

United States flag requirement. The 

compromise also would retain a requirement of an annual report by the 

President on the ability of the refiners 

to acquire crude oil, and a GAO report 

assessing the impact of ANS exports on 

consumers, independent refiners, shipbuilders, and ship repair yards. 

Now, Mr. President, let me be specific on some of the principal benefits. 

The principal benefit, of course, is increased oil production. The Department of Energy, as I have stated, 

projects Alaska and California production will increase by 100,000 to 110,000 

barrels per day by the end of the decade. Thus, by the end of this decade, 

exports would stimulate an additional 

36.5 million to 40 million barrels per 

year. 

And it would create energy sector 

jobs. Specifically, some 25,000 jobs on 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 15, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6657 

the west coast, as well as an undetermined number in Alaska. Revenues for 

the Federal Government, according to 

the Congressional Budget Office scoring, raising $55 million to $59 million 

over 5 years. It would raise State revenues. 

Using different assumptions, the Department of Energy concluded that the 

ANS exports would generate up to $1.8 

billion in revenues for California and 

Alaska by the end of the decade. 

It would decrease net import dependence. It would reduce, as I stated, tanker movements by stimulating onshore 

production in California. Enactment of 

the bill would actually reduce tanker 

movements off the California coast, 

and it would preserve repair opportunities by helping preserve the independent fleet that otherwise would be 

laid up for scrap. 

The bill would provide shipyard repair work for shipyards in Portland, 

California, and others, that would be 

lost with the death of the fleet. 

So, the importance of continued production from Alaska is absolutely vital 

to the continuity of America’s merchant marine. And the fact that this 

legislation would provide relief for the 

excess oil speaks for itself. 

Let me now draw your attention to 

some charts that I think explain this 

in detail, so we will have a little better 

understanding of just what the issues 

are before us. This is the area in Alaska. I wonder if I could have the staff 

provide me with a pointer, if there 

might be one available at this time, so 

I can continue my presentation? I 

think it will be a little more beneficial 

to have it. 

What we have here is a chart that depicts in detail the disposition of Alaska’s north shore crude oil. 

Let me give this to my associate over 

here and perhaps he can point out 

where the oil begins, the production 

area in Prudhoe Bay, which went into 

production in the 1970’s. An 800-mile 

pipeline was built across the breadth of 

Alaska. At that time that pipeline was 

one of the engineering wonders of the 

world. It was first estimated to cost 

somewhere in the area of $900 million. 

By the time it was completed, it was 

somewhere in the area of $7 to $8 billion. There are numerous pump stations along the 800 miles of pipeline. 

The terminus is the Port of Valdez, and 

that port handles 25 percent of the 

total crude oil that is produced in the 

United States. 

Let us look at the destination of this 

oil. Alaska, my State, consumes 70,000 

barrels a day in three relatively small 

refineries. That oil is used in our State 

for jet fuel, for heating oil, diesel, gasoline, and other purposes. 

Then, first of all we ship from Valdez 

to our neighboring State of Hawaii directly, in U.S.-flag vessels, some 60,000 

barrels per day. That is utilized in the 

refinery outside of Honolulu. 

The second route is a rather curious 

one. This was by congressional action, 

where we authorized a small amount of 

oil to go in foreign-flag vessels to the 

Virgin Islands, to the refinery at St. 

Croix, that is the Amerada Hess refinery in the Virgin Islands which is currently under U.S. flag, obviously, but is 

not considered a U.S. port in the interpretation of the Jones Act. Some 90,000 

barrels of oil go that great distance 

around Cape Horn, the southern point 

of land of South America. 

Then we go to the next half circle. 

This is the oil we are talking about allowing free market flow, to be exported. This is oil that moves down to 

Panama. The reason it moves to Panama is, simply, these tankers cannot 

go through the Panama Canal, so they 

built a pipeline across Panama, and it 

goes to the gulf coast. 

As a consequence of developments in 

Colombia, which is down below, developments in Venezuela and other areas, 

including Mexico, the economics of 

moving this Alaskan oil this great distance, unloading it, moving it across 

the pipeline and loading it again, and 

taking it into the gulf coast, when 

other oil is available, as I have stated, 

from Central America, South America, 

and Mexico to the gulf coast—it is simply no longer competitive. So we have 

this excess of some 75,000 to 200,000 barrels a day. 

Let us look at where this oil goes, remaining, in the larger areas. The State 

of Washington receives some 440,000 

barrels per day from Alaska. A good 

portion of Washington—I would say 

somewhere in the area of 95 percent of 

Washington’s consumption is Alaskan 

oil—as it should be because of the proximity. 

The rest of the west coast, down in 

California where we have, in the San 

Francisco area and Los Angeles area, 

large accumulations of refined product. 

I am told California is currently consuming about 770,000 thousand barrels a 

day. I am very pleased to note the Senator from California, Senator FEINSTEIN, is with me on this legislation to 

allow this export, because she and 

other Californians recognize the significant impact of relieving this excess, 

what it would do to stimulate the 

small operators, and for the creation of 

new jobs. 

So that is where the oil goes. I just 

want to make one more point. As Alaska oil declines, the obvious alternative 

is for these areas to look toward imported oil. That imported oil would not 

be in U.S.-flag vessels. It would come 

in, in foreign vessels, as some of it currently does to California and, to a 

smaller extent, the State of Washington. So that is where the oil goes. It 

goes in U.S.-flag vessels. 

What we are talking about, if this 

legislation is approved by this body, 

and we do move that surplus out, is a 

chart very similar to the this one, although you will note there is no oil 

moving through the Panama Canal. We 

should have included the Virgin Islands 

as continuing to receive their oil, 

which they will. 

But the point is the west coast—

Washington, Oregon, California—clearly are going to receive the same 

amount of oil. Hawaii will receive the 

same amount of oil. And this excess 

that previously went down here is 

going to be available in the Pacific 

rim. We have no idea what the dictate 

will be, other than it will have to go in 

U.S.-flag vessels and we have reason to 

believe that those countries have an interest in this oil because of its viscosity and it will be acceptable in the 

marketplace. 

Mr. FRIST assumed the chair. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Let us see what 

we have next. These are some rather 

interesting charts. I talked some time 

ago about refined gasolines and the 

price relative to the east coast and 

west coast. Of course, the east coast is 

dependent on oil coming in from various places around the world. Virtually 

no Alaskan oil comes on the east coast. 

It is oil that comes from Central America, Venezuela, the Mideast, and other 

places. What we have is the average 

wholesale price of unleaded regular gas 

from California versus New York. 

We notice in 1985, California was 

slightly higher than New York; in 1986 

the margin was again substantially 

higher, 4 cents a gallon; in 1987 it 

equalized; in 1988 it equalized. Then, in 

1989 we found that New York was higher. In 1990 we found New York was 

higher. In 1991 we found New York was 

higher. 

One would expect the east coast to 

have higher costs simply because of 

longer transportation to market, 

bringing that oil in through the Mideast and other areas. 

Then, in 1992 we saw a rather curious 

change. In 1992, we saw New York at 66 

and California at 69. 

When I say California, I am talking 

about the entire west coast average as 

opposed to a specific State. When we 

are talking about New York, we are 

talking about the entire east coast. 

In 1993, we saw a differential gain 

where it was more expensive on the 

west coast than on the east coast. In 

1994, again we saw 57 compared to 60. 

So the point is that California was 

higher in the wholesale price of unleaded regular gasoline. When one considers that we have had a surplus of oil 

on the west coast, during that time 

that we have close proximity from the 

standpoint of Alaskan oil coming down 

to the refiners, one may begin to question why that is the case. 

This chart attempts to compare—unfortunately, we could not get more current figures than 1993—the refiner 

growth margins in 1992 dollars per barrel. This chart was a consequence of information that was provided us by the 

Department of Energy. It lists PADD V 

average, which are the distributors of 

the west coast U.S. refiners. It shows 

their growth margins vis-a-vis the U.S. 

average. As one can see, the west coast 

gross profit margin per refiner is rather interesting in comparison to the rest 

of the country. I have no hesitation to 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6658 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 15, 1995 

point out that the business community 

is entitled to what the traffic will bear. 

But it is interesting to see comparisons 

of one part of the country vis-a-vis another. 

This chart actually belonged to the 

one earlier when we were comparing 

New York and California or the east 

coast vis-a-vis the west coast. But as 

you can see, the spread lengthened over 

here in 1992 when California wholesale 

price exceeded that of the east coast 

price. Maybe we will have a chart that 

will give us a little further explanation. 

I would like to defer a little bit to address a concern that we have in Alaska. 

It is evident as we address future years. 

Clearly, you can see the projections of 

Alaskan North Slope production. We 

are here in 1995, and we are somewhere 

around 1.6 million barrels per day. 

That production, if you will look at the 

light gray, continues to decline. So 

this shows how, if we can significantly 

reduce the decline in the Trans-Alaska 

Pipeline oil production, the pipeline 

will be economically viable for a longer 

period of time. That is what we are 

talking about here, trying to bring this 

margin of reserves on line and provide 

more jobs and import less oil, all of 

which I think everyone would agree 

makes good sense and is in the national interest of our Nation. 

We have had discussions that would 

suggest that Alaska North Slope exports will increase consumer prices at 

the gas pump. The reality dictates otherwise. The Department of Energy I 

think carefully studied the issue and 

found that the consumers would not 

see any discernible increase in the 

price at the gas pump. The Department 

of Energy showed that the west coast 

refiners, as I have shown on the chart—

this is the Department of Energy talking—enjoyed the widest refiner growth 

margin in the country. West coast refiners are buying crude oil for less per 

barrel than anywhere in the country. 

Yet, they are selling their gasoline and 

other refined products for more than 

anywhere else in the country. Wholesale gasoline prices, as I have said, in 

California are consistently 3 or 4 cents 

higher than in New York. 

Some say that energy production will 

not go up, that Alaska North Slope exports will not increase oil production 

in California and Alaska. Again, I 

would defer to the Department of Energy report which carefully studied the 

issue and concluded that oil production 

would increase by 100,000 to 110,000 barrels per day by the end of the decade. 

Both California independents and British Petroleum testified on March 1 that 

they expect substantial production increases in California and Alaska. 

Some believe that there will be an increase in oil spills if ANS crude is exported. The reality is that the DOE 

carefully studied the issue and found 

that the exports will actually reduce 

tanker traffic in U.S. waters, especially 

in California as a result of the increased on-shore production. 

Furthermore, any tankers exporting 

ANS oil exported from Alaska will proceed as I have said to cross the ocean 

and not along the shore. 

Mr. President, I think the Senator 

from Alaska—I would be happy to yield 

to the Senator from Alaska, if I may 

retain my right to the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection? 

Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection to the unanimous-consent request? 

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Does that take a 

unanimous-consent? 

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator use 

the microphone, please, so we might 

hear what she is saying? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Unanimous consent is required. 

Is there objection? 

Mrs. MURRAY. I object. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. 

Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Alaska has the floor. 

Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska. 

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I 

thank the President. 

I am saddened to see the opposition 

that is coming to the proposal to deal 

with the distribution of Alaska’s oil in 

the fashion that we are facing right 

now. I am one of the few Senators who 

was here at the time the original Mondale amendment passed that restricts 

the export of Alaskan oil. I remember 

commenting on it at the time that I 

did not think we would ever sell Alaskan oil to Japan. At that time, we were 

working on a theory that would have 

established a crude stream internationally so that Alaskan oil would not be 

sold to Japan but it would be delivered 

to Japan, the Saudi Arabian oil would 

not be sold to our east coast but it 

would be delivered to our east coast, 

that we would reduce the transportation distance for tankers on the 

oceans of the world by establishing a 

crude stream theory, that the crude oil 

would be delivered to the closest port 

where it could be utilized, and the sales 

would take place through arrangements that were made throughout the 

world with accommodation being made 

to every producer for the savings on 

transportation. We were never allowed 

to establish that concept for a lot of 

reasons. 

Just as we still have in place in Alaska the Jones Act that restricts transportation to Alaska of all goods and 

services from Seattle and other places 

in American-built ships, we are the 

only place in the United States where 

the export of oil is prohibited, and it is 

only prohibited really as far as the oil 

that is transported in the Alaskan oil 

pipeline. I have always said it was unconstitutional. I would invite anyone 

to read the Constitution. It is not constitutional to require that the products 

of one State be exported only through 

the ports of another State, and that is 

exactly what happens to Alaskan oil. 

Alaskan oil goes to the west coast; it 

goes to Washington; it goes to Oregon 

and California, and it is refined there 

and then the products are exported. 

They do not consume our oil. It is 

amazing to see this kind of reaction. I 

wonder what would happen if we said 

that the corn produced in Iowa can 

only be exported through a Chicago exporter. This is the same kind of restriction. It makes no sense. 

Interestingly enough, the author of 

the amendment that originally led to 

this prohibition is now the United 

States Ambassador to Japan, and he is 

seeking the removal of the prohibition, 

as I understand it. We come to the time 

now where the question is whether 

there can be an exception made for the 

export of Alaskan oil in U.S.-made vessels, U.S.-manned vessels, entirely in 

accordance with the current situation, 

and have some of the surplus oil that 

has been developed on the west coast 

be exported. 

At the time we passed this amendment, the projections were that what 

was then known as district 5, the west 

coast, would be short of oil during this 

period. To the contrary, because of 

other imports that are coming into the 

west coast, there is a surplus of oil in 

southern California and along the west 

coast in general. It now appears it 

would be to the best advantage of our 

Nation if there is this authority to export a portion of the oil that comes 

through the oil pipeline. 

Mind you, Mr. President, that will 

not apply to any oil discovered in Alaska that is now transported through the 

Trans-Alaska oil pipeline. It was one of 

the conditions we had to agree to at 

the time we got the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, authorized by one vote, I might 

add. It was the vote of the then Vice 

President which broke the tie that developed when we considered the Alaskan oil pipeline amendment to the 

Right-of-Way Act, when that act was 

originally passed. 

I find myself in the strange position 

of wondering why, after so many years, 

we still have this opposition to Alaskan oil production. It is a strange 

thing that the area of the country that 

has benefited most, more than Alaska 

has ever benefited—Seattle, WA, and 

Washington State have benefited more 

from Alaskan oil production than we 

have in terms of jobs and in terms of 

basic income—it does seem to me it is 

an odd thing that there is opposition to 

having it go where market forces would 

take it. I wish we could go back to the 

concept of the crude stream that we 

were working on at that time. It still 

makes no sense to me to see Middle 

Eastern oil go around the horn or 

through other mechanisms to get to 

the Far East, travel all that distance 

on the oceans by tanker, and have 

Alaskan oil reverse that and go down 

the west coast and through the pipeline 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 15, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6659 

and up into the east coast of the 

United States. 

That is the system which was 

brought about by the Mondale amendment that prohibited the export of oil 

from the United States that had been 

transported by the Trans-Alaska oil 

pipeline. I do think it is time we recognize that is an unconstitutional restriction on the export of oil from 

Alaska only, and remove the obstruction to the export of that amount that 

would be exported in American-flag 

vessels. 

Now, Alaskans do support the concept of American-flag vessels. That is, 

we like the idea that the American-flag 

vessels are the vessels that come to the 

Prince William Sound to receive Alaska’s oil for transport. This is a period 

of time, I think, when we have to recognize that the maldistribution has led 

to a strange pricing system on the west 

coast and clearly it will be in the best 

interests of the United States if we 

modify this law now. 

I was most pleased to see the vote on 

this bill, the amendment to this bill, as 

it came from the Energy Committee, 

and I congratulate my colleague and 

good friend, Senator MURKOWSKI, for 

the work he has done in shepherding 

this amendment through the committee and to the floor. This was really 

the subject of the bill that Senator 

MURKOWSKI and I introduced. S. 395 was 

introduced in February of this year, 

and the bill has, for all intents and purposes, been added to the bill which 

deals with the subject of the Alaska 

Power Administration sale. This is an 

amendment that I think is timely, as I 

said. We are now in a situation where 

the pricing of oil is changing drastically. I am sure we have all read the 

forecasts that are coming now. There is 

no question that the concepts of the 

projections that were made in the 

1960’s when we considered this Alaska 

oil pipeline originally have not now 

been proven accurate. 

I do believe that conditions have 

changed. They have really improved to 

a great extent. In 1978, world crude reserves were estimated to be 649 billion 

barrels. But last year, the reserves that 

had been proven reached 1,009 billion 

barrels. That is a 55-percent increase in 

the world’s known reserves of oil. 

As a consequence, prices have reflected that increase in reserves. The 

oil price has dropped. If you put it on a 

deflator basis and carry it through 

from the times we were debating this 

basic Mondale amendment, oil prices 

are substantially lower than they were 

then, even at today’s nominal values. 

I do believe the Senate ought to take 

note that even the Washington Post reported last year gasoline has never 

been cheaper than it has this year compared with what people pay for other 

goods and services. In other words, the 

distribution system for oil has changed 

with the discovery of reservoirs for 

production of oil throughout the world. 

We have maintained a protection 

against a sudden shortage or stoppage 

such as we had at the time we had the 

Arab oil embargo. We now have a strategic petroleum reserve that has about 

600 million barrels of oil. We have other 

reserves under the control of the Federal Government. There is no reason 

for us to have a prohibition against the 

export of Alaskan oil based upon a 

worldwide shortage of reserves. 

That is also what was talked about 

back at the time the Mondale amendment was approved. We thought we 

were running out of oil and oil was so 

finite it would not meet the demand of 

the industrial economies over the period ahead, so there was a necessity, 

they felt, to maintain the oil to be produced from Alaska’s North Slope for 

U.S. markets. 

Those U.S. markets have been satisfied now, many of them, for years, from 

oil from outside the United States at a 

much lower price than any oil is produced in the United States. And that is 

why we are buying it from overseas. 

I do not support the concept that we 

should not have a basic oil and gas industry in this country to produce oil 

and to meet our needs. I do think we 

should do everything we can to stimulate that industry so it has the productive capability to meet our needs and 

to continue, along with the strategic 

petroleum reserve, to meet our needs 

even in times of crisis or embargoes 

against our purchase from offshore. 

There is no question that the production of Alaskan oil has changed the 

overall structure of oil pricing for the 

great benefit of the United States, as a 

matter of fact. We have had considerable impact on the pricing from 

abroad, and I think that will continue. 

This is not a bill to bring about the 

total export of all production of Alaskan oil. It is to allow exports on the 

basis of them being transported out of 

the United States by American-flag 

vessels at considerable cost difference 

to the prices paid for transportation by 

foreign producers of oil that are bringing oil into the United States. 

I think that at this time right now, 

when we need to spur the creation of 

jobs in the United States, this is a good 

way to do it. If Congress approves this 

oil export legislation, we believe it will 

spur the creation of new jobs, spur energy production, and raise revenues for 

both the Federal and local governments. 

Small, independent, and other oil 

producers, maritime labor, and independent tanker owners hope Congress 

will enact this bill as quickly as possible, because they have told us just 

that. It will create jobs. It will give an 

incentive to additional energy production and raise Federal and State revenues and enhance our basic economic 

security. 

I think that energy security is a subject we ought to explore sometime. 

This is part of that concept of spurring 

the economy to go further into exploration and discovery of oil. In particular, I think it will spur the restoration of the stripper oil wells in the 

southwestern part of the United 

States. The Department of Energy has 

concluded that if we do export a portion of Alaskan oil, it would result in a 

substantial net increase in U.S. employment, stimulating about 25,000 new 

jobs by the end of the decade. 

As we review this bill, I hope people 

from throughout the country will understand that approving it will mean 

that Congress has taken action to preserve the independent tanker fleet and 

to maintain the thousands of skilled 

maritime industry jobs that will be required as we go into this new phase of 

distribution of Alaskan oil, and it will 

be done at no cost to the taxpayers. 

This is a segment of the American merchant marine. They face a bleak future 

unless there is a stimulus to export 

some of this oil. The Alaska North 

Slope exports will help solidify the demand for this tanker fleet. 

The act of Congress making these exports possible, the Department of Energy has concluded, would raise royalty revenues for the Federal Government and tax and royalty revenues for 

the States of Alaska and California. 

Federal revenues are projected to increase by $99 billion to $180 billion in 

terms of 1992 dollars between 1994 and 

the year 2000. The Congressional Budget Office [CBO], has told us that this 

legislation will raise a net revenue of 

$55 million. It is a revenue-sound proposal. 

By lifting this ban, Congress will, as 

I said, restore demand in California and 

in the Southwest region of the United 

States. The Department of Energy 

projects that oil production will increase by at least 100,000 barrels per 

day by the end of the decade in that 

part of the country. That is because 

the independents face a squeeze in 

terms of the price, due to the fact that 

there was an excessive amount of oil in 

southern California, in particular. And 

the stripper wells, the small producing 

wells, have gone out of production. 

We believe that, by giving an incentive to produce, it will bring these new 

jobs and will give us the chance to have 

a signal from Washington that we believe enhanced drilling activity should 

take place in that part of the country 

and create new jobs in the area. 

There is very little, if any, impact of 

this proposal on the east coast or the 

gulf coast of the United States. The oil 

has been going through the Panama 

Canal pipeline, the oil that would be 

exported, and there, too, the markets 

that the Alaskan oil goes to now have 

a surplus of oil due to the increase of 

imports in the United States from the 

Middle East and other parts of the 

world. 

My point, Mr. President, is that this 

is a different oil world than we had 

when we considered the Alaska oil 

pipeline amendments in the 1970’s. 

There is a much greater reserve of oil 

worldwide, a proven reserve, and there 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6660 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 15, 1995 

is a much different distribution pattern. The effect of the current distribution pattern is we have created surpluses on the west coast where, at the 

time, we had projected that there 

would have been a shortage if it were 

not possible to limit Alaska’s oil production to distribution to south 48 demand only. 

The administration has supported 

this bill. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is in support 

of this legislation. I think we should 

act on it as soon as possible. 

The difficulty that I have, really, 

with the bill is it should have happened 

a long time ago. We have tried at times 

to remove this prohibition. As the Senate knows, over the years, we had a series of votes on the subject, and always 

the opposition came from the same 

source. 

I hope that the Senate now, with new 

information, with support of the Energy Department, with the administration’s overall support of the legislation, with the concept of American industry now understanding what it 

means to them—we now have support 

from the west coast industries; we have 

support from the independent tanker 

operators; we have support from the 

maritime unions; we have support from 

the maritime industry in general; and 

we certainly have support from people 

who understand what this will mean in 

terms of restoring jobs along the west 

coast, as I said, an estimated 25,000 

jobs—will support this legislation. 

This bill also has the sale of the regional Power Marketing Administration, as originally proposed, strangely 

enough, about the same period of time 

that the Alaskan oil pipeline amendments were adopted, as offered by Senator Mondale, which restricted the export of oil transported through the 

pipeline. The administration at that 

time recommended that the Alaska 

power authority be sold. 

We still are working toward getting 

that approved. The sale of these assets 

will generate between $1.6 and $4.9 billion in terms of the Department’s sale 

of the regional power marketing administrations. We now have Alaska’s 

marketing agency, a portion of a national plan, and I am hopeful that the 

Congress will approve the national 

plan, which will go ahead with the recommendations I originally made to the 

Senate in behalf of the administration 

in 1973. 

I think that this will reduce, by the 

way, the responsibilities of the Department of Energy. There will be a substantial reduction in cost to the taxpayers to maintain these regional 

power marketing administrations, and 

it makes sense for us to do this now, to 

take advantage of the circumstances 

that exist throughout our country and 

take the Federal Government out of 

the business of running regional power 

marketing administrations. 

On permitting export of Alaskan 

crude, there has been this glut that has 

been created on the west coast. It 

keeps the crude oil price artificially 

low. It has meant, as I said, the small 

stripper wells, even some of the medium-sized operators, have gone out of 

business. They have had no incentive 

to develop new reserves or to really 

reach out in wildcat areas of great 

promise. 

We believe the Mondale amendment 

has brought about a dependence upon 

the southwestern area of the United 

States on cheap oil that comes about 

because of the cost of transporting that 

oil beyond California down to Panama 

through the Panama Canal pipeline, 

onto another tanker and taken up to a 

market someplace in the south 48 

States in the eastern part of our country. 

The result of that long trip for the 

Alaskan oil to reach a market, under 

the prohibition against export, cannot 

be sold except in the United States, is 

that the sales have been taking place 

in California far below the market 

price of oil. It has established, as I 

said, a glut of oil on the west coast. It 

has kept the prices there so low that 

they have lost their own industry. We 

now feel that the California people understand that the result has not been 

good for that State nor for the Nation. 

We need the ability to produce from 

the areas that have capability of producing oil in times of crisis when there 

is a stoppage, when there is a shortage, 

and this bill before us now will give us 

that incentive. 

The Department study that was released in June 1994—I am sure my colleague has talked about it already—has 

indicated that this will be the case. It 

has been tested in many places. I do 

not see anyone discounting the study 

that was made by the Department of 

Energy that led to the conclusion that 

it was in the national interest to pass 

this bill. There are a few local spots 

where there is a willingness to prevent 

the enactment of legislation in the national interest because of some special 

or private interest on their part. That 

was an interest that was created, in my 

judgment, by an unconstitutional provision to begin with, one that should be 

eliminated. If I had my way it would be 

a bill to eliminate it altogether. 

But this legislation will give authority to export under specific conditions. 

It is a concept that would be consistent 

with the American merchant marine 

concept of requiring that our oil be exported in American-flag, Americancrewed, American-built vessels. I do believe there is a great benefit to the 

American people as a whole. It is a step 

that should have been taken a long 

time ago. 

It is an interesting thing, I think, to 

go back and examine some of the history of Alaska’s oil industry, Mr. 

President. When we were seeking statehood, there were a great many people 

who opposed statehood for Alaska because they said such a vast area could 

not afford self-government. And so a 

series of people made suggestions as to 

how we might be able to finance our 

own future, and one of them was to increase the amount of land that Alaska 

received as compared to other States. 

The State received from the Federal 

domain section 16 and 34 out of every 

township. They had to wait until those 

townships were surveyed, and we find 

the strange situation that California 

still is waiting for a substantial 

amount of its land, and Utah also and 

Nevada, because the lands have never 

been surveyed. When we looked at the 

situation for Alaska, when we realized 

people were willing to allow Alaska to 

have a greater land grant, and we did 

obtain a greater land grant, Mr. President. Congress approved the transfer of 

103.5 million acres to Alaska out of our 

375 million acres. What we did, however, is we permitted Alaska to select 

its land from vacant, unappropriated, 

unreserved lands, and the net result 

was that we had the opportunity to decide the lands we wanted for our future. 

The difficulty developed in what we 

call (D)(2), section 17(D)(2) of the Alaska Statehood Act required us to have a 

study of the portions of our State that 

should be set aside in the national interest. We then proceeded to produce 

what is known to us as ANILCA, Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. 

That lands act restricted our right to 

the lands we could have and required a 

substantial portion of Alaska to be set 

aside in national withdrawals and no 

longer available to us for selection. 

In the process, unfortunately, we 

have gone back to, again, a real delay 

factor in the surveying of lands that we 

have selected. The last time I had an 

estimate, it would be 2050 before all of 

the lands we have selected are surveyed 

and the native lands, Congress subsequently passed an act which confers on 

Alaska Natives a substantial amount 

of land, almost 45 million acres of land, 

in satisfaction of claims against the 

United States for the taking of their 

lands at the time Alaska was acquired 

from Russia. 

The reason I mention these delays, 

Mr. President, is that we have a series 

of sedimentary basins in Alaska that 

are capable of producing oil or gas. 

Only three of them have been drilled so 

far. I believe there are 17 of them—I 

think 15 of them are onshore—that are 

capable, these areas are capable of producing oil and gas. This bill before us 

has nothing to do with additional exploration or use of Federal lands, but if 

you just look at the lands that the 

State of Alaska has, the lands that the 

native people have a right to under legislation that has been passed by Congress previously, the great difficulty 

that we have is establishing a mechanism for transport of that oil to market, and beyond that establishing a demand for it. 

As long as there is a surplus of oil on 

the west coast, I do not perceive that 

there will be a demand for development 

of the oil and gas capability of the 

State of Alaska lands or Alaska Native 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 15, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6661 

lands. But I do believe that if we can 

have a bill such as this passed and have 

that glut be removed and restore the 

incentive to the industry to explore for 

and develop oil in the promising areas 

of the west that are not on Federal 

lands, they are not in any way restricted by Federal Government policy, 

then I think we will have a different future for our State. 

That was the intent of the people 

who brought about the amendments to 

the Alaska Statehood Act to increase 

the amount of land to be given to our 

State. I think that our State, in surveying the lands that we would select, 

tried to select the lands that had potential resource value. 

However, that resource value is really not predictable now because of this 

glut of oil. No one really wants to put 

money into developing oil and gas opportunities on Alaska State or Native 

lands so long as there is an existing restriction on the export of oil produced 

in those slopes. 

Incidentally, that oil is produced 

from State lands. Many people think 

the oil is from Federal lands. The State 

of Alaska owns the land from which 

the Prudhoe Bay oil field is produced. 

We view it as an unconstitutional restriction on our State’s powers to have 

this restriction against the export of 

oil produced from lands owned by the 

State of Alaska. 

Again, one of the things that makes 

us so interested in this legislation is 

the future viability of the lands that 

we own. Those lands are valuable for 

oil and gas, and I do believe we will see 

the day, when this bill passes, that the 

independent oil industry will come to 

Alaska and start inventorying these 

potentials because of the fact that 

there will be a potential increase in demand for the oil and gas from our 

State. 

We are in a very strange circumstance here, apparently, and that 

is that we want to try to get this bill 

to a vote. I, particularly, very much 

would like to see that. 

Mr. President, I am having a little 

discussion with staff as to the accuracy 

of a comment I made. My memory is 

that it was the Mondale amendment. 

My staff says the amendment that was 

finally enacted by the Congress at the 

time was the Jackson amendment—the 

amendment that was finally adopted 

by the Senate in July 1973. They are 

right. But I am also right that it was 

Senator Mondale that raised the subject. I had a debate at length with him 

at the time, and his amendment was 

subsequently modified by the former 

Senator from Washington. It was the 

Jackson amendment that finally 

passed. The initiative for the restriction on the export of Alaskan oil originated with Senator Mondale. I have, 

since that time, called it the Mondale 

amendment. If I have offended anyone 

by having so referred to it, I am sorry 

about that. But there is no question 

that we discussed at length with Senator Mondale the proposal to restrict 

the export of oil. I do recall at the time 

that in order to offset Senator Mondale’s proposal, I introduced an amendment which would have prohibited the 

export of oil from any State in the 

Union, which I think would be within 

the constitutional powers of Congress. 

I did not pursue that, and although 

Senator Jackson opposed the basic 

Alaska pipeline amendment, he was the 

one that did offer the amendment that 

was adopted. It was the amendment 

that currently is in the law as far as 

the exporting of Alaskan oil. I hope 

those on my staff are satisfied. 

I see my colleague is back. I might 

say to him, Mr. President, that I do 

hope that the bill will pass. And as I 

have said in the Senator’s absence, I 

believe as chairman of the Energy 

Committee, you have done a great 

service for the country, for California, 

and for our State in bringing this subject to the floor in a positive way. I 

hope other Members of the Senate will 

address the report he has presented and 

show the support that we have for the 

concept now. I do hope that there is an 

overwhelming vote in support of the 

bill that we have before us to bring 

about both the sale of the power administration, as well as to enable the 

export of Alaskan oil under the circumstances described in the bill. 

Several Senators addressed the 

Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska [Mr. MURKOWSKI], is 

recognized. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my senior 

colleague from Alaska regarding his 

comments on this very vital issue, 

which is important not only to our 

State but to the Nation as well. 

Mr. THOMAS. Will the Senator yield 

for a question? 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am happy to 

yield without losing my right to the 

floor. 

Mr. THOMAS. I have a couple of 

questions that refer to both aspects of 

the bill. 

First, the power marketing agency. 

It is my understanding that there is a 

uniqueness to this power marketing 

agency; for example, the Western Area 

Power Administration that is in the 

West, in that instance, it serves a number of States and different municipalities in a great many uses. It also does 

not have the generating facility but 

simply the distribution facility. So it 

is my understanding that in this bill 

the Alaska Power Authority is substantially different in composition, is 

that correct? 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from 

Wyoming is correct. These two power 

marketing associations are separate. 

They are not connected. The distance 

between Snettisham and Juneau and 

Anchorage is 600, 700 miles, so they are 

not dependent on one another. The provision for the sale—unlike other Federal marketing administrations, the 

Alaska Power Administration owns its 

power-generating facilities and hydroelectric projects. It was never contemplated that these two relatively 

small projects remain under Federal 

determination. It was the considered 

opinion that once they were up and operating, the contribution to utilize the 

tremendous hydro potential, even 

though it is a very small percentage, 

that they be disposed of, and as a consequence, we have been working with 

the administration in the State of 

Alaska to achieve this. We feel that the 

support base is there and, of course, 

the fact that the Department of Energy 

and the administration support this, I 

think, is evidence that we have a constructive proposal here. 

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Senator. 

With respect to the oil export portion, 

I recall the hearings that we had in the 

Energy Committee. I ask the Senator if 

it is not true that we had substantial 

testimony, not only from Members of 

Congress from the California delegation, but also representatives of the 

private sector that dealt with this 

whole business of seeking to develop 

and encourage the domestic oil market, as is the case in Wyoming. We 

have been very much affected by that. 

There have been nearly half a million 

jobs lost in the domestic oil industry 

over the past 10 years. We now have, of 

course, the highest imports that we 

have had for a very long time—the 

highest ever, I believe. And the testimony, as I recall, was that the opportunity to export some of the oil from 

Alaska would strengthen the domestic 

oil industry, which would result, I 

think, in more jobs not only in Alaska 

but perhaps in other parts of the country as well. 

There was testimony about the assistance to the oil production aspect to 

the California economy, as well, of 

course, as providing an opportunity to 

strengthen the domestic industry as a 

matter of national security. That 

seemed to me to be the tenor of the 

testimony. I ask the Senator if that is 

the impression that he had? 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, 

yes, the Senator from Wyoming is correct. As I recall specifically, the Department recommended in their Department of Energy report to the U.S. 

Treasury that by the year 2000 that 

would be approximately $180 million in 

tax revenue to the Treasury and there 

would be an increase of employment by 

some 11,000 to 16,000 U.S. jobs immediately, and by the year 2000, 25,000 

jobs. 

I think that was evident in the base 

of support that was evident when the 

vote came out of the committee, 14 to 

4. The Senator from Wyoming will recall, Senator DOMENICI, Senator NICKLES, Senator CRAIG, Senator THOMAS, 

Senator KYL, Senator GRAHAM, Senator 

JEFFORDS, Senator BURNS, Senator 

CAMPBELL, Senator JOHNSTON, Senator 

FORD, Senator BRADLEY, and Senator 

BINGAMAN voted to vote out of committee the issue of the oil export relief, 

as well as the proposal on the Alaska 

power authority. I think the jobs issue 

was well covered in that report. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6662 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 15, 1995 

Mr. President, I would like to refer to 

an article that appeared on February 

22, and it appeared in the Seattle 

Times. I think it was an editorial or an 

op-ed. It was a column, in any event. It 

suggests a number of reasons why it 

might not be in the national interest 

to continue the restrictions on the export of Alaska’s North Slope crude oil. 

I feel that the facts as confirmed by 

the U.S. Department of Energy report, 

the General Accounting Office, and 

other objective sources show that the 

export of ANS crude oil on what has 

been agreed upon, that is U.S.-flagged 

and U.S.-crewed vessels would, indeed, 

create jobs, increase our energy production, and as a consequence our national security, and increase Federal 

and State revenues. 

Now, in that particular column there 

was a reference to the Senator from 

Washington that suggested that exports would ‘‘not meet the statutory 

test designed to protect broader national interests.’’ Further, exports 

would ‘‘seriously hurt consumers, jobs, 

and the environment in our own 

State.’’

Again, I would refer to the comprehensive June 1994 study by the Department of Energy which concluded 

that exporting ANS crude oil on U.S.- 

flagged vessels would, one, again add as 

much as $180 million in tax revenue to 

the U.S. Treasury by the year 2000; 

two, increase U.S. employment by 

11,000 to 16,000 jobs immediately and by 

25,000 jobs by the year 2000; third, preserve as many as 3,300 maritime jobs; 

fourth, increase American oil production by as much as 110,000 barrels a day 

by the year 2000; fifth, probably decrease crude oil tanker movement in 

U.S. waters; six, have minimal or nonexistent effect on prices to consumers, 

since the benefit of the current subsidy 

to west coast refiners from exports is 

not shared with consumers of refined 

products. 

Now, the statement in the article indicated and was referenced to the Senator from Washington that ‘‘over the 

years Alaska North Slope crude oil has 

fueled Washington State. Ninety percent of our crude oil comes from the 

North Slope and our refineries are operating at 90 percent capacity. Today 

this secure supply of oil faces a 

threat.’’

The fact is, if exports are permitted, 

the Pacific Northwest will continue to 

be the closest market for ANS crude. 

Given the low cost of transporting oil 

to Puget Sound, there is no economic 

reason why any oil now going there be 

in jeopardy. 

Even the Coalition To Keep Alaskan 

Oil, which is a rather interesting organization—it is an oil refinery-sponsored 

group, just a few refiners are supporting it now—is opposed to exports. 

They admitted in a paper last year 

that if exports were permitted, only 

the ANS crude oil surplus to the west 

coast requirements would be exported. 

Excess west coast oil formerly went 

to Panama and was transported across 

the isthmus for transfer to smaller 

United States tankers that moved the 

oil to gulf coast refineries. That process, which involved dual handling of 

the oil, is now prohibitively expensive 

given the low world price of oil. 

Now, the article further attributes to 

the Senator from Washington that the 

North Slope has given us a reliable oil 

supply. Carried aboard U.S.-flagged 

vessels, the ships employ Washingtonians as crew members, and ‘‘the 

tankers, that transport Alaska oil are 

repaired in the Pacific Northwest. If 

export restrictions are lifted, this work 

will go overseas. We could lose 5,000 

jobs within our own region and $160 

million in annual employment income. 

This is more than half of the maritime 

industry’s total west coast employment.’’

That is not the case. The fact is that 

exports will aid substantially the maritime industry, and all North Slope 

crude oil would continue to be carried 

aboard U.S.-flagged vessels with American crews. Labor leaders representing 

50,000 members have written the President supporting exports, stating that 

‘‘ANS exports will create jobs, help 

maintain our merchant marine and encourage energy production.’’

Estimates of job losses are completely unsupported. Further, most of 

the U.S.-flagged tankers are lifted for 

repairs in yards currently in San Diego 

and, to some extent, Portland. The 

Portland shipyard being built in Japan 

and floated to Portland, portions of 

that yard have been facing financial 

problems. 

I understand there is a competitive 

posture between Portland and San 

Diego. We have encouraged that consideration be given to the Portland 

bids. As a consequence, it is my understanding that there are two ships that 

are currently under contract to be repaired in the Portland yard. 

Further, the article attributes the 

Senator from Washington saying, 

More than 2,000 jobs at refineries, and 

Anacortes, Bellingham, and Takoma would 

be lost. Ninety percent of Alaskan oil is consumed by west coast refiners, and these refiners go into refineries as attributed to the 

Atlantic Richfield Company, Texaco Company, and Shell, plus independents such as 

Tosco and a smaller refinery, Summit Oil. 

Six of these refineries are in our State, the 

State of Washington, competing against foreign barges willing to pay premium prices. 

Industry experts predict our refineries will 

shut down or be forced to pay a premium 

price to keep their Alaskan supply or to purchase substitute foreign crude. 

That argument just is not based on 

fact. The facts, the hard, cold facts, are 

that two of the refiners mentioned support exports—that is ARCO and British 

Petroleum—and we have evidence of 

that, which will be entered into the 

RECORD. And for Texaco, which has not 

taken a position on the issue, supply 

will be sure. In fact Tosco, one of the 

refiners, has a supply agreement with 

British Petroleum that offers, in 

Tosco’s own words, ‘‘a reliable, economic supply of Alaska North Slope 

crude oil for the next 5 years,’’ although it is my understanding there 

are some 4 years to go on that contractual agreement. Foreign buyers have 

no reason to pay premium prices for 

Alaska crude, because they can get 

their crude oil elsewhere. As stated 

above, even export opponents have admitted at world prices for Alaska crude 

oil now going to Puget Sound, it will 

not be exported. 

Some independent refiners have opposed exports because the market distortion created by the current restrictions allow these refiners to enjoy, according to the Department of Energy, 

‘‘the largest gross refining margins in 

the world.’’

No credible evidence supports the assertion that, ‘‘If forced to compete in a 

world market like everyone else in the 

United States, any refiner would have 

to lay off workers.’’

Again, I remind my colleagues, one 

refiner in question, Tosco, already has 

a long-term contractual supply. 

Further attributed to the article, the 

Senator from Washington states: 

Tosco alone has predicted a $1 per gallon 

increase if exports are permitted. 

The fact is, the Department of Energy has concluded that the ‘‘economic 

benefits of export could be achieved 

without increasing prices either in 

California or in the Nation as a whole, 

and that the current subsidy to west 

coast refiners from exports is not 

shared with consumers of refined products.’’

The refiner, Tosco, in their 1994 quarterly report to the U.S. Securities and 

Exchange Commission stated that: 

At the Ferndale refinery in Washington, 

refining margins average $4.66 per barrel; retail margins continue to be strong, averaging 11 cents per gallon on sales of some 2.4 

million gallons per day. 

Tosco, of course, may be worried 

about losing this price advantage, but 

that will not hurt consumers or the national interest. It will continue to 

allow this firm to reap profits, which 

they are entitled to. But they are certainly not passing on any savings to 

the consumer. 

It is kind of interesting to note why 

Washington State has some of the 

highest gasoline prices in the country 

while the refiners, including Tosco, 

have the highest profit margins between the price paid for crude oil and 

the amount at which they sell their refined product or gasoline. In the sense 

these refiners are closest to the point 

of the Alaska oil coming down from 

Valdez, these refiners are those that 

have the shortest shipping distance; as 

a consequence, the least transportation 

costs. But one might conclude the consumers in the State of Washington are 

certainly not recipients of the transportation advantage that is enjoyed by 

the geographic location of the proximity of the refiners to the Alaska oil 

supply at Valdez. 

Further reference in the article by 

the Senator from Washington: 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 15, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6663 

Since the Arab oil embargoes of the seventies, our reliance on foreign oil has not diminished and the arguments for retaining 

[that is, the oil export restrictions] remain 

strong. 

The fact is that exporting Alaska’s 

North Slope—ANS—crude would increase U.S. energy security by stimulating additional production, estimated 

by the Department of Energy at 100,000 

to 110,000 barrels per day. This will reduce U.S. net oil imports. 

The United States has already removed restrictions in place in the 

1970’s on petroleum product exports 

and on the price and allocation of oil, 

thus improving the efficiency of the 

market. Exports from every State 

other than Alaska are allowed if certain regulatory requirements are met. 

The effective ban on ANS exports is 

unique and discriminatory. 

Further, the article makes reference 

to comments from the Senator from 

Washington: 

With 99 percent of Alaska’s crude coming 

through Puget Sound and 94 percent of this 

carried on U.S. tankers, foreign replacement 

oil would not only be more costly, but would 

be carried on more environmentally risky 

tankers. The U.S. Coast Guard rates as highrisk one-half of the current foreign tanker 

fleet that carries crude oil through Puget 

Sound. 

The fact is, there is simply no basis 

to assert that the Pacific Northwest 

will need to import oil to replace ANS 

crude for the reasons already listed, or 

that foreign-flag tankers in Puget 

Sound waters are environmentally 

risky. 

In fact, the Department of Energy 

has concluded that exports would 

‘‘probably decrease crude oil tanker 

movement in U.S. waters.’’ Further, 

virtually all the oil coming into Vancouver, BC, comes in through the 

Straits of San Juan, adjacent to the 

State of Washington and British Columbia, and it comes in foreign tankers. So there is a high concentration of 

foreign tanker activity already coming 

into the San Juan area, and some of its 

goes into Puget Sound as well. 

Another contention is that British 

Petroleum Corp. would also save 

money by having its tankers built and 

repaired in foreign countries. The fact 

is that British Petroleum uses and 

would continue to use U.S.-flag, U.S.- 

built, U.S.-crewed tankers to carry 

Alaska crude because, Mr. President, 

they are a foreign corporation and cannot own U.S. vessels. It would make no 

economic sense for British Petroleum, 

or any other exporter, to reflag foreign-built tonnage to carry Alaska 

crude, when abundant U.S.-flag, foreign-built tonnage is already in existence in the trade. 

The ban on the exports of Alaska 

North Slope crude oil simply makes no 

sense. Reality dictates that it creates 

an inefficient market that breeds extraordinary returns for a few special 

interests. And some of these, unfortunately, do not seem to be inclined to 

pass the benefits along to the consumers. Meanwhile, maritime and oil 

industry jobs would be lost to this destructive trade restriction. 

I am sure the Senator from Washington does not begrudge the fact that 

Alaska might benefit from lifting the 

ban, any more than the fact that Alaskans recognize activity in Alaska is 

very beneficial to the State of Washington. I would again suggest, even on 

this issue, what is good for Alaska is 

good for the State of Washington. 

Our States are too close and too 

intertwined to believe that restrictions 

on each other’s commerce will be good 

for one at the expense of the other. 

Mr. President, there are some other 

items that I want to bring to your attention; that is, some of the charges 

relative to what the passage of this legislation would do. 

Some have made the argument that 

as part of the original deal in 1973 to 

authorize construction of the pipeline, 

Congress saw fit to ban the ANS exports. Again, I think it is important to 

note that is not totally accurate. Congress did not ban exports in 1973. Instead, for the first time, it restricted 

all domestically produced crude oil, including ANS oil, to the same general 

export restrictions. At the committee’s 

hearing on March 1, Senator STEVENS, 

one of the few Senators still sitting in 

this body today who actually cast a 

vote in 1973, confirmed that there had 

been no such deal. 

Mr. President, there is a question of 

increased foreign oil reliance. The argument is made that by exporting ANS 

oil, we will increase our dependence on 

the Mideast and other foreign sources 

of oil. The reply to that is quite simple. 

The Department of Energy concluded 

that enactment of the legislation will 

decrease our net dependence on imports by spurring additional domestic 

energy production. 

We have heard the concern expressed 

from time to time about the potential 

that refinery workers would lose their 

jobs because refiners would have to pay 

more for crude oil. Yet, again in response, the Department of Energy concluded that independent refiners on the 

west coast have such high gross operating margins that they will be able to 

absorb any increased crude oil acquisition costs without significant job 

losses. And as the chart that I previously showed, based on the figures at 

hand, clearly there is justification to 

understand that is indeed the case. 

There is a question of lost work to 

foreign yards that would provide repairs. The argument has been made 

that once exports are authorized, the 

tankers in the Alaska oil grid will all 

be repaired in those subsidized foreign 

shipyards permitting domestic ship repair yards to be no longer economic. 

Tankers in the Alaskan oil trade are 

free to go abroad for repairs today. 

They rarely do, however, because foreign repairs are subject to a 50-percent 

ad valorem duty. One might wonder 

about some of our restrictive and protectionist types of legislation. This is 

one of them. A recent court decision, 

the Texaco Marine decision, will ensure that U.S. Customs will aggressively enforce collection of that 50-percent duty, as they should. Some suggested that customs is not doing it adequately. I certainly see no reason why 

customs should not actively enforce 

the law. 

Furthermore, every tanker that is 

scrapped as a result of the declining 

ANS production is one less tanker that 

will ever come in for need of repair. By 

spurring energy production, the bill 

will actually increase repair opportunities for U.S. shipyards. As long as U.S. 

shipyards, such as the Port of Portland, San Diego, and others, remain 

competitive, they should expect to do 

most of the repair work on the fleet 

simply because the vessels are traversing the waters of the west coast. 

An argument has been made that 

ANS exports will destroy the shipbuilding sector opportunity to build 

1,200 to 1,500 120,000-dead-weight-ton 

tankers over the next 5 years. After 

this charge was made at the committees hearings, the leading trade association for the tanker industry advised 

us that not one of its members had a 

vessel under construction and not one 

planned any new building with so many 

vessels sitting. 

Furthermore, there have been suggestions that there has been some violation of GATT or OECD. The argument has been made that the U.S.-flag 

requirement is an unprecedented extension of cargo preference and violates 

our international obligation under 

GATT and GATT’s standstill agreement and the OECD code. The reply to 

that is that the U.S. Trade Representative formally advised the committee 

that the U.S.-flag requirement did not 

violate our internal obligations. In 

adopting the United States-Canada 

Free-Trade Agreement, Congress specifically required the use of so-called 

Jones Act vessels to carry Alaska oil 

exports to Canada. No foreign government currently complained at that 

time. 

There has been some concern that 

the U.S.-flag requirement violates the 

Treaty of Friendship. That is the FCN, 

commerce and navigation with many 

nations. The reply to that is that just 

this past week the administration testified again that the U.S.-flag requirement does not violate any of our international obligations. The FCN treaties 

permit measures in furtherance of our 

national security such as preserving a 

militarily useful tanker fleet. 

California offshore production. There 

has been an argument that exports will 

encourage or increase pressure for California offshore production. I reply to 

that that the Department of Energy 

concluded that the California offshore 

production will not increase because 

State moratoriums are effectively in 

place. They simply block any further 

development. At the committee’s 

March 1 hearing the witnesses representing the State of California especially rejected the argument saying 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6664 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 15, 1995 

that the moratoriums in effect ban further offshore development. 

Mr. President, let me enter into the 

RECORD at this time a letter from our 

U.S. Trade Representative, Mr. Kantor, 

to Senator BENNETT JOHNSTON, dated 

March 9, 1955. 

DEAR SENATOR JOHNSTON: This replies to 

your letter of March 2, 1995, requesting information on the implications of cargo preference provisions of Senate bill 395 on our 

obligations under the World Trade Organization and the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD. 

Specifically, you asked if the legislation 

violates any trade agreements, the potential 

legal and practical affects of a challenge as 

well as its effect on the ongoing negotiations 

on maritime in Geneva. 

As to WTO violation, I can state categorically that Senate bill 395, as currently drafted, does not present a legal problem. 

Further, we do not believe that the legislation will violate our obligations under the 

OECD’s code of liberalization of current invisible operations or its companion common 

principles of shipping policy. However, the 

OECD does not have a mechanism for the 

settlement of disputes and its associations 

and the rights of retaliation. 

While parties to the OECD are obligated to 

defend practices that are not consistent with 

the codes, the OECD process does not contain a dispute mechanism with possible retaliation rights. The OECD shipbuilding 

agreement, by contrast, does contain specific 

dispute settlement mechanisms although the 

agreement does not address flag or crew 

issues. 

Your letter requests guidance on the implications of Senate bill 395 on the GATT’s ministerial decision on negotiations of maritime 

transport service . . . which is the document 

that guides the current negotiations on maritime and the WTO. The maritime decision 

contains a political commitment by each 

participant not to adopt restrictive measures 

that would improve its ‘‘negotiating position’’ during the negotiations which expire 

in 1996. 

This political commitment is generally referred to as a ‘‘peace clause.’’ Actions inconsistent with the ‘‘peace clause’’ or any other 

aspect of the maritime decision cannot give 

rise to a dispute under the WTO since such 

decisions are not legally binding obligations. 

There are, of course, potential implications for violating the ‘‘peace clause’’ by 

adopting new restrictive measures during 

the course of the negotiations. These implications could include changes in the willingness of other parties to negotiate seriously 

to remove maritime restrictions that might 

lead to certain parties simply abandoning 

the negotiating table. But the maritime decision does not provide the opportunity for 

retaliation. 

Our view is that the U.S.-flag preference 

provisions of Senate bill 395 do not measurably increase the level of preference for U.S.- 

flag carriers and actually present opportunities for foreign flag vessels to carry more oil 

to the United States in light of the potentially new market opportunities resulting 

from enactment of S. 395. Thus, it would be 

very difficult for foreign parties to make a 

credible case that the U.S. has ‘‘improved its 

negotiating position’’ as a result of S. 395. 

For reasons I have explained, we are certain that the U.S.-flag preference does not 

present legal problems for us under the WTO. 

However, in the event any U.S. measure were 

found to violate our obligations, WTO does 

not have authority to require alterations to 

affect statutes. That remains the sovereign 

decision of the country affected by an adverse panel ruling. A losing party in such a 

dispute may alter its law to conform to its 

WTO obligations to pay compensation or accept retaliation by the prevailing party. 

Finally, we agree with you that it would 

not be appropriate to include a requirement 

that ANS export in U.S.-built vessels. 

I trust this information is of assistance to 

you. Please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

MICKEY KANTOR. 

VOTE ON MOTION TO TABLE COMMITTEE

AMENDMENT BEGINNING ON PAGE 1, LINE 3

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the 

hour of 2:30 has come, and I would 

move to table the first committee 

amendment and ask for the yeas and 

nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the motion 

to table. The yeas and nays have been 

ordered. The clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk called the roll. 

Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. FAIRCLOTH], the Senator from Texas [Mr. 

GRAMM], the Senator from Texas [Mrs. 

HUTCHISON], the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. INHOFE], the Senator from 

Vermont [Mr. JEFFORDS], and the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. SPECTER] 

are necessarily absent. 

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. BAUCUS], the 

Senator from New Jersey [Mr. BRADLEY], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. 

EXON], the Senator from Massachusetts 

[Mr. KERRY], the Senator from New 

Jersey [Mr. LAUTENBERG], the Senator 

from Illinois [Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN], the 

Senator from Georgia [Mr. NUNN], and 

the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. 

WELLSTONE] are necessarily absent. 

I further announce that, if present 

and voting, the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. WELLSTONE] would vote 

‘‘yea.’’

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

KYL). Are there any other Senators in 

the Chamber who desire to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 80, 

nays 6, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 167 Leg.] 

YEAS—80 

Abraham 

Akaka 

Ashcroft 

Bennett 

Bingaman 

Bond 

Breaux 

Brown 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Burns 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Conrad 

Coverdell 

Craig 

Daschle 

DeWine 

Dodd 

Dole 

Domenici 

Dorgan 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Frist 

Glenn 

Gorton 

Graham 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Harkin 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Heflin 

Helms 

Hollings 

Inouye 

Johnston 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kohl 

Kyl 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Mikulski 

Moynihan 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Packwood 

Pell 

Pressler 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Roth 

Santorum 

Sarbanes 

Shelby 

Simon 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

NAYS—6 

Biden 

Boxer 

Byrd 

D’Amato 

Feingold 

Murray 

NOT VOTING—14 

Baucus 

Bradley 

Exon 

Faircloth 

Gramm 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Jeffords 

Kerry 

Lautenberg 

Moseley-Braun 

Nunn 

Specter 

Wellstone 

So the motion to table the amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I 

move to reconsider the vote by which 

the motion was agreed to. 

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion 

on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the 

Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, 

what is the pending business? 

COMMITTEE AMENDMENT ON PAGE 17, LINE 10

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question now before the Senate is the 

second committee amendment. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we 

have had an extended discussion on the 

matter of the sale of the Alaska Power 

Marketing Association, as well as the 

proposal to allow the export of surplus 

oil on the west coast of the United 

States. 

During the course of the day, the 

Senate came in at 9:30 a.m. and a proposal was to take up the bill. There 

was an objection to moving to the bill 

from my friend from the State of Washington. As a consequence, from approximately 9:30 a.m. until noon, the 

Senator from Washington had a 

quorum call in effect, and I had hoped 

that we could hear the particular position of the Senator from the State of 

Washington. 

Unfortunately, that was not the case. 

There was an agreement to move to the 

bill at 12 o’clock, and it is now 3 

o’clock. The amendment that we just 

tabled is significant and I think was an 

expression of the attitude of the Senate 

towards this. Mr. President, furthermore, the majority leader tried to accommodate Members. 

Mr. President, in view of some of the 

changes——

Mr. BOND. Will the Senator yield? 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes. 

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, may I address a question to the manager and 

sponsor of this legislation? The Banking Committee’s Subcommittee on 

International Finance has jurisdiction 

which looks remarkably as though it 

may be appropriate to this measure. 

While I am in general support of the 

position of my distinguished friend 

from Alaska, I would like to have an 

explanation for this body as to the jurisdiction and what he feels is the appropriate committee referral. Might I 

ask that question of the Senator from 

Alaska? 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I 

will be happy to respond. It is my understanding the Senator from Missouri 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 15, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6665 

is a subcommittee chairman of the 

Banking Committee. The question of 

jurisdiction has been addressed by him 

in the subcommittee context, and I 

wonder, for the RECORD, if he could 

give us some background with regard 

to the manner in which they have studied that. 

Is it not, indeed, the fact that that 

particular jurisdiction under the Banking Committee, as well as other prohibitions on the export of Alaska oil, 

such as the Mineral Leasing Act, the 

Export Administration Act, and others, 

were presented in such a way, once the 

proposal was made with the substantiation falling to include the sale of the 

two generating plants in Alaska, that 

the Chair ruled that it was appropriate 

that it be under the jurisdiction of the 

Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and it is my understanding 

that ruling of the Chair still stands. 

I ask the Chair if there is any reference to anything to the contrary to 

that? 

I am sorry; I guess the Chair was preoccupied. But the issue that we have 

before us is the jurisdiction potentially 

of the Banking Committee, and the 

Alaska oil export ban is not in the jurisdiction of the Senate Banking Committee because the Alaska oil export 

originated in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act, the bill that is 

strictly within the jurisdiction of the 

Energy Committee. 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, which is EPCA, includes a provision that generally restricts crude oil 

exports. This bill is also within the jurisdiction of the Energy Committee. 

The bill was introduced but did not reference the Export Administration Act. 

Furthermore, the Export Administration Act expired, so it no longer governs the export of Alaskan crude oil. 

And that is the understanding of the 

Senator from Alaska with regard to 

the jurisdiction of this matter before 

the Senate being referred to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. 

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, let me 

thank the Senator from Alaska. We 

will have further discussions on that. I 

appreciate the discussion he has conducted and the ruling of the Chair. I 

think we are going to do some further 

investigation of that matter. At this 

point, I appreciate very much his stating his views. We will continue to review that and work at the staff level to 

assure there is no problem. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I 

wonder if the Senator from Alaska will 

yield for a question. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator is 

happy to yield for a question from the 

Senator from California. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I want to commend 

the two Senators from Alaska for their 

work on this measure. I also want to 

thank them for seeking my support. 

Early on in the discussions, because of 

concerns, I took the time to discuss 

this with virtually all of the parties involved. In a meeting in my office in 

September of last year, one of those 

parties was British Petroleum. British 

Petroleum would be a major supplier or 

purveyor of Alaskan crude. 

One of the concerns that I had was 

that we not create jobs somewhere else 

and take jobs from our people, specifically the merchant marine. The two 

authors have been good enough to see 

to it that the legislation reflects that 

the oil must be transported on American-flag and American-crewed vessels 

and has secured that as a part of the 

legislation. There is another part to 

this, and that is American-built vessels. But because of a GATT problem, 

it is not possible to put this in the legislation. 

In September, I received a letter and 

I would like to quickly read this letter 

and ask the Senator directly the question. The letter is addressed to me and 

it says: 

Further to discussions with you held September 30, 1994, if the ban on Alaska exports 

is lifted, BP will commit now and in the future to use only U.S.-built, U.S.-flag, U.S.- 

crewed ships for such exports. We will supplement or replace ships required to transport Alaskan crude oil with the U.S.-built 

ships as existing ships are phased out under 

the provisions in the Oil Pollution Act of 

1990. 

I hope that this commitment satisfies your 

request that Alaska oil exports be carried on 

U.S.-built, U.S.-flag ships, manned by U.S. 

crews. 

Yours, sincerely, 

STEVEN BENZ, 

President, 

BP Oil Shipping Company, USA. 

My question to the Senator from 

Alaska is: Is this agreement still in effect? 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. In response to the 

Senator from California, it is my understanding, Mr. President, that indeed 

it is still in effect. I should point out, 

however, as I know the Senator from 

California is aware, British Petroleum, 

being a foreign corporation, cannot 

own U.S.-flag, U.S.-documented vessels. So British Petroleum contracts 

with private U.S. owners that own the 

U.S. vessels. It is my understanding 

that since they basically—in the sense 

of having a long-term charter agreement—have dictated this position that 

they will move BP’s oil and, for that 

matter, all the other oil that would 

flow between Alaska and any other 

American port in a U.S.-flag vessel. 

But BP itself is precluded by our maritime laws from owning the vessel outright. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I appreciate that, 

Mr. President. It is very important to 

me that this U.S.-flag and crewed and, 

to the extent we can, built ships be 

used. I take this commitment from BP, 

however they are going to do it, that 

the oil that they transport will be in 

U.S.-flagged, crewed, and built vessels. 

I thank them for that. 

I ask unanimous consent to have this 

letter printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the letter 

was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD as follows: 

BP OIL, INC., 

Cleveland, OH, September 30, 1994. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN: Further to discussions with you held September 30, 1994, if 

the ban on Alaska exports is lifted, BP will 

commit now and in the future to use only 

U.S.-built, U.S.-flag, U.S.-crewed ships for 

such exports. We will supplement or replace 

ships required to transport Alaskan crude oil 

with U.S.-built ships as existing ships are 

phased out under the provisions in the Oil 

Pollution Act of 1990. 

I hope that this commitment satisfies your 

request that Alaska oil exports be carried on 

U.S.-built, U.S.-flag ships, manned by U.S. 

crews. 

Yours sincerely, 

STEVEN BENZ, 

President, BP Oil Shipping 

Co., USA. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would like to ask 

the Senator from Alaska another question. It is essentially about jobs. After 

looking at this very carefully and talking with independent oil producers and 

the Department of Energy, I believe 

that this legislation will, as the Senators from Alaska have stated on the 

floor earlier, be helpful in producing 

jobs in the State of California. 

The Department of Energy has some 

very generous estimates in their report. I am not sure I believe the totality of this, but suffice it to say that 

they predict 5,000 to 15,000 new jobs 

very quickly and as many as 10,000 to 

25,000 jobs by the decade end, most of 

which they identify as taking place in 

Kern County, CA. 

I ask the Senator from Alaska if he 

concurs with this energy observation 

and would he agree that this would be 

job-producing for the State of California? 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in 

reply to the Senator, it is my understanding that the Department of Energy has done an exhaustive analysis 

and agrees that significant job creation 

would be initiated primarily as a consequence of small, independent stripper 

producers that currently are having a 

difficult time maintaining production 

because of the excess oil on the west 

coast that would be removed if indeed 

this legislation becomes law, and that 

would stimulate production, investment and, of course, initiate numerous 

new jobs. And the proximity of that oil 

to the California refiners is such that 

it would reduce transportation costs as 

opposed to bringing the oil down—I am 

not suggesting that California production would increase to the point where 

it would replace Alaska oil, but it 

would stimulate that margin of production and cannot compete with the excess oil that is on the west coast today. 

I am very pleased that my friend 

from California recognizes that the 

mix of utilization of oil in the California refineries is both Alaskan as 

well as Californian, as well as some imported oil. But there is no question 

about the merits of the job creation 

and margin and operations coming 

back on line. I think that is why this 

legislation was so unanimously supported by the California independent 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6666 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 15, 1995 

oil producers, who have worked very 

hard on this legislation. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator. I have one last question, and I 

would like to place a statement in the 

RECORD. One of the refineries is located 

right in my area and, of course, that is 

Tosco in the San Francisco Bay area. 

Among the parties that I discussed this 

with, Tosco was one of them. It is clear 

that they had some reservations about 

the legislation. I did discuss this with 

the Senator from Alaska, and I know 

he mentioned this earlier on the floor. 

I would like him, if he would, to repeat 

it. It is my understanding that Tosco 

has been assured reasonable supplies of 

oil even with this agreement in place. I 

would very much welcome the Senator’s response to this in the affirmative or negative, whichever it may be. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, responding to my colleague from California, with regard to Tosco, I am referring to the 1993 PADD IV refinery 

slate, which is the latest one I have indicating the origin of oil from the 

Tosco refinery at Martinez, CA, which 

is, I think, the question posed by the 

Senator from California. 

The capacity of that refinery is 

148,000 barrels a day. That 148,000 comes 

from the following origins: 56,000 barrels a day comes down from my State 

of Alaska; 75,000 barrels a day of that 

refinery’s capacity comes from California, that is produced locally in California; 18,000 barrels a day of that refinery’s utilization is imported oil. 

So a little more, 75,000 California, 

56,000 from Alaska, 18,000 are imported, 

and there is another Tosco refinery, 

Ferndale, which is, I think, of interest 

to the Senator from Washington. The 

Ferndale refinery capacity is about 

89,000, currently operating at 71,000; 

64,000 come down from Alaska, 7,000 are 

imported—none comes from California, 

which I am sure is not a surprise. 

The point of the question of my 

friends from California, Washington 

and California, are certainly the natural markets for ANS crude. Washington and California ports are closest 

to Alaska as the origin of crude oil, 

and the ANS will continue to supply 

those refineries simply because of the 

proximity and the lower transportation 

costs. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator. 

It is also my understanding, Senator, 

that this bill specifies that the President shall determine on an annual 

basis whether independent refiners in 

the Western United States are able to 

secure adequate supplies of crude, and 

if not, he can so indicate and make further recommendations to the Congress; 

is this not correct? 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from 

California is absolutely correct. That is 

in the bill. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, 

what is the pending business? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

pending business is the second committee amendment. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent to adopt the 

pending amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the amendment. 

The committee amendment on page 

13, line 10 was agreed to. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1078

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I 

send an amendment to the desk and 

ask for its immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. MURKOWSKI], proposes an amendment numbered 

1078. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent further reading 

be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike the text of title II and insert the 

following text: 

TITLE II 

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE. 

This Title may be cited as ‘‘Trans-Alaska 

Pipeline Amendment Act of 1995’’. 

SEC. 202. TAPS ACT AMENDMENTS. 

Section 203 of the Act entitled the ‘‘TransAlaska Pipeline Authorization Act,’’ as 

amended (43 U.S.C. 1652), is amended by inserting the following new subsection (f): 

(f) EXPORTS OF ALASKAN NORTH SLOPE

OIL.—

(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) through (6), of 

this subsection and notwithstanding any 

other provision of law (including any regulation), any oil transported by pipeline over 

right-of-way granted pursuant to this section may be exported after October 31, 1995 

unless the President finds that exportation 

of this oil is not in the national interest. In 

evaluating whether the proposed exportation 

is in the national interest, the President—

(A) shall determine whether the proposed 

exportation would diminish the total quantity or quality of petroleum available to the 

United States; and 

(B) shall conduct and complete an appropriate environmental review of the proposed 

exportation, including consideration of appropriate measures to mitigate any potential 

adverse effect on the environment, within 

four months after the date of enactment of 

this subsection. 

The President shall make his national interest determination within five months after 

the date of enactment of this subsection or 

30 days after completion of the environmental review, whichever is earlier. The 

President may make his determination subject to such terms and conditions (other 

than a volume limitation) as are necessary 

or appropriate to ensure that the exportation is consistent with the national interest. 

(2) Except in the case of oil exported to a 

country pursuant to a bilateral international 

oil supply agreement entered into by the 

United States with the country before June 

25, 1979, or to a country pursuant to the 

International Emergency Oil Sharing Plan of 

the International Energy Agency, any oil 

transported by pipeline over right-of-way 

granted pursuant to this section, shall, when 

exported, be transported by a vessel documented under the laws of the United States 

and owned by a citizen of the United States 

(as determined in accordance with section 2 

of the Shipping Act, 1916 (46 U.S.C. App. 802)). 

(3) Nothing in this subsection shall restrict 

the authority of the President under the 

Constitution, the International Emergency 

Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), 

or the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 

1601 et seq.) to prohibit exportation of the 

oil. 

(4) The Secretary of Commerce shall issue 

any rules necessary for implementation of 

the President’s national interest determination within 30 days of the date of such determination by the President. The Secretary of 

Commerce shall consult with the Secretary 

of Energy in administering the provisions of 

this subsection. 

(5) If the Secretary of Commerce finds that 

anticompetitive activity by a person exporting crude oil under authority of this subsection has caused sustained material crude 

oil supply shortages or sustained crude oil 

prices significantly above world market levels and further finds that these supply shortages or price increases have caused sustained 

material adverse employment effects in the 

United States, the Secretary of Commerce 

may recommend to the President appropriate action against such person, which 

may include modification of the authorization to export crude oil. 

(6) Administrative action with respect to 

an authorization under this subsection is not 

subject to sections 551 and 553 through 559 of 

title 5, United States Code. 

SEC. 203. ANNUAL REPORT. 

Section 103(f) of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6212(f)) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: 

‘‘in the first quarter report for each new 

calendar year, the President shall indicate 

whether independent refiners in Petroleum 

Administration for Defense District V have 

been unable to secure adequate supplies of 

crude oil as a result of exports of Alaskan 

North Slope crude oil in the prior calendar 

year and shall make such recommendations 

to the Congress as may be appropriate.’’. 

SEC. 204. GAO REPORT. 

The Comptroller General of the United 

States shall conduct a review of energy production in California and Alaska and the effects of Alaskan North Slope crude oil exports, if any, on consumers, independent refiners, and shipbuilding and ship repair yards 

on the West Coast. The Comptroller General 

shall commence this review four years after 

the date of enactment of this Act and, within 

one year after commencing the review, shall 

provide a report to the Committee on Energy 

and Natural Resources in the Senate and the 

Committee on Resources in the House of 

Representatives. The report shall contain a 

statement of the principal findings of the review and such recommendations for consideration by the Congress as may be appropriate. 

SEC. 205. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

This Title and the amendments made by it 

shall take effect on the date of enactment. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, 

this is an act entitled Trans-Alaska 

Pipeline Authorization Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1652), is amended with the 

new subsection, ‘‘Exports of Alaskan 

North Slope Oil.’’

I believe the Chair has the amendment. 

What we have attempted to do here 

by this amendment, as reported by the 

committee, S. 395 would immediately 

authorize ANS exports carried in U.S.- 

flagged vessels. 

When the administration testified in 

support of lifting the Alaska North 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 15, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6667 

Slope crude oil export ban, they indicated the bill should be amended, one, 

to provide appropriate environmental 

review; and second, to allow the Secretary of Commerce to recommend action against anticompetitive behavior 

by exporters, and to establish a licensing system. 

Mr. President, if no one seeks recognition, I propose the question be put 

to the floor. 

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I suggest 

the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

an objection? 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I do not believe a 

quorum call is in order. 

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I asked 

for a quorum call. 

Mr. SARBANES addressed the chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska had the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection? 

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to 

object, will the Presiding Officer please 

tell me what the pending business is. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

pending business is the amendment offered by the Senator from Alaska. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I call for the question. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on the amendment. 

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I cannot 

hear the Senator from Alaska. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from 

Alaska calls for the question. 

Mr. SARBANES addressed the chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has the floor. 

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, what 

is the parliamentary situation? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The parliamentary situation is the amendment 

of the Senator from Alaska is on the 

floor. 

Mr. SARBANES. Pending? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is 

pending and open for debate. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I 

would like to try to reach a conclusion, 

as I know my colleagues would, relative to this matter. We have had an 

opportunity coming in at 9:30 this 

morning whereby we were in a quorum 

call until 12 noon, and the Senator 

from Washington had asked that we be 

placed in that quorum until such time 

and she was graciously kind to advise 

me that we could go on the bill at 12 

noon. 

Since the quorum call was placed by 

the Senator from Washington, I anticipated she would have an opportunity to 

speak at that time on the merits of the 

bill or the motion to proceed. I did not 

attempt to call off the quorum and she 

did not choose to speak. 

In all fairness, since that time I have 

held the floor, along with my senior 

Senator, Senator STEVENS. In order to 

try and resolve this, I had hoped we 

could get a vote on the question—get 

the vote today and resolve this matter. 

It is of great interest to my State, and 

I know it is of great interest to the 

State of Alaska, to my colleague, Senator JOHNSTON, as well as Senator STEVENS, because we anticipate attaching 

as part of this Senator JOHNSTON’s interest in deep water drilling. 

Last week, the majority tried to accommodate Members by offering to 

bring this bill up at 1 p.m. today, but it 

is my understanding, and I would be 

happy to be corrected, that there was 

an objection from the Senator from 

Washington. So we had to come in at 

9:30 a.m. to work out a motion to proceed. 

As I indicated initially, the Senator 

from Washington would not allow any 

agreement on getting to the bill. Then 

the Senator from Washington agreed to 

letting the bill come up at 12 noon. 

Then again at noon, unfortunately, the 

Senator from Washington objected to 

the first committee amendment being 

adopted. The Senator also let it be 

known that if we put in a quorum call 

she would object to dispensing with it, 

and as a consequence, she did. And 

that, I believe, was when Senator 

GRAMS wished to make a statement as 

if in morning business. 

We were then forced to hold the 

floor—I was somewhat reluctant, and I 

am sure somewhat repetitious in doing 

so—so we could get a vote at 2:30. Now 

we still have objections and it is my 

understanding now that the objection 

has been dropped on the second committee amendment. 

I would like to—perhaps we would 

find it expedient—without losing my 

right to the floor, to ask the Chair 

whether the Senator from Washington 

would inform the Senate what her intentions might be on the legislation 

that is pending? Specifically, I ask, 

does the Senator plan to offer any 

amendments? If so, could she inform us 

what those amendments might be so 

we can review them? 

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I will 

be happy to respond to the questions of 

the Senator from Alaska. I did come to 

the floor this morning at 9:30 and did 

object to the motion to proceed. We 

then did work out an agreement that 

the bill would begin to be debated at 

noon. 

At that time, I was here on the floor 

and ready to debate and was not able 

to say anything until the 2:30 rollcall 

vote. Since that time, obviously, there 

has been an exchange among several 

Senators. 

I do have a statement I want to 

make. I do have a great deal of information I want to submit for the 

RECORD, and I want to be able to bring 

my side out on this argument. I know 

there are a number of other Senators 

who also wish to present their points of 

view on this. The Senator from California, Senator BOXER, does, and I 

know the Senator from Oregon, Senator HATFIELD, has a statement. Several other Senators have indicated to 

me that they would like the opportunity to debate this bill. 

I also have been told there are a 

number of amendments that people 

wish to bring forward on this bill. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may respond? 

I am quite aware there are at least two 

Senators who are on the floor now. I 

am most willing and anxious to hear 

from them, as well as to hear from the 

Senator from Washington. 

So the Senator is not indicating one 

way or another whether there are 

amendments which she may be offering 

that we could review during the time 

under which she and others may speak. 

I wondered if she has amendments, if 

the Senator from Washington has 

amendments? 

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, point of information. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Sure. 

Mr. FORD. Parliamentary inquiry? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the 

Senator from Alaska yield for that purpose? 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am happy to 

yield without losing my right to the 

floor. 

Mr. FORD. Does the Senator from 

Washington retain her own right to 

make her own statement and to offer 

all amendments without trying to reveal that in advance, and not being 

able to get the floor? 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may respond? 

Mr. FORD. I asked the Chair a question. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators 

may make any statement when they 

have the floor. 

Mr. FORD. So it is not a requirement, then, that she reveal what 

amendments she would like to have entered? She may have a dozen and reduce it to six? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A Senator may make any statements when 

that Senator has the floor. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend 

from Kentucky. My purpose in making 

the inquiry was simply to try to determine whether the Senator from Washington would require the Senator to invoke cloture on the measure. 

Mr. FORD. That is your prerogative. 

That is your prerogative. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Does the Senator 

care to indicate that? It would be appreciated, simply from the standpoint 

of expediting the process. 

If not, that is certainly the right of 

the Senator from Washington. 

Mrs. MURRAY. Is the Senator from 

Alaska asking me that question? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the 

Senator from Alaska yield to the Senator from Washington? 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. No. I respectfully 

ask my friend from Washington if it is 

anticipated that the Senator from 

Washington would require the Senate 

to invoke cloture on this measure. 

Might that be her intention? 

Mrs. MURRAY. Let me just respond. 

Again, I was here at 9:30 this morning 

to object to proceeding to the bill because of the jurisdictional questions I 

had about whether the bill should have 

gone to Banking, which I sit on, which 

does oversee the Export Administration Act. It did not go through that 

committee, and that is why I voiced 

those objections. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6668 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 15, 1995 

I then later agreed to go at noon. But 

I have not had an opportunity to speak 

to the bill. I intend to do that. I know 

other Senators do. 

I also know there are amendments 

out there. I cannot give a specific number, or any time, and it will be up to 

the Senator from Alaska what he determines to do in terms of cloture. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Evidently, it is 

understood—I certainly anticipated the 

Senator from Washington, inasmuch as 

she initiated the quorum call this 

morning, I assumed she would speak 

during that time until noon. But that 

is her right and I respect that right. 

I look forward to hearing her statement and that of my other colleagues 

at this time. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the 

Senator yield the floor? 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator 

yields the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington. 

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I 

thank my colleagues. I do know Senator HATFIELD from Oregon is going to 

return to the floor and wants to make 

a statement, and I will speak until he 

does get here. 

Mr. President, I do rise today to oppose S. 395, which is a bill that, in part, 

allows the export of Alaskan North 

Slope crude oil. This issue, at first 

glance, may appear very simple. Lifting the ban on North Slope oil exports 

would increase sales and enhance revenues for many Alaskans. However, that 

additional income for a few of our citizens must be weighed against the concerns of the rest of the Nation. 

Job loss, price increases, dependence 

on foreign oil, and increased environmental risks are all issues that Congress must review—must review—before placing the needs of one State 

above the concerns of many. 

When Congress agreed to develop 

Alaska’s North Slope—ANS—crude oil 

resources 20 years ago, it prohibited exports of this oil unless the President 

and Congress find that exports serve 

national economic and energy security, 

and other interests. Those conditions 

were a direct response to the economic 

chaos and long gas lines created by the 

Arab oil embargoes of the 1970’s. 

Since then, our reliance on foreign 

oil has not diminished. The arguments 

for retaining the restrictions remain 

strong. Over the years, Alaska North 

Slope crude oil has fueled the west 

coast. Mr. President, 90 percent—90 

percent—of Washington State’s crude 

oil comes from the North Slope, and 

our refineries are operating at 90 percent capacity. The existence of export 

restrictions has created an extensive 

transportation, refining, and shipyard 

infrastructure in our region. 

The North Slope has given us a reliable oil supply, carried aboard U.S.- 

flag vessels. Ships employ Washingtonians in crew and support positions, 

as well as in ports and ship repair 

yards. 

Today, this secure supply of oil faces 

a very serious threat. The State of 

Alaska and British Petroleum, the 

principal producer of ANS crude, are 

mounting a major effort to permit ANS 

exports. They want to remove the statutory restrictions. Removal of these 

restrictions will enrich both the State 

of Alaska’s coffers and BP’s pockets. 

But it would seriously hurt consumers, 

jobs, and the environment in this region. 

The tankers that transport Alaska 

oil are repaired on the west coast. If 

export restrictions are lifted, this work 

will go overseas. We could lose 5,000 

jobs within our own region, and $160 

million in annual employment income. 

This is more than half of the marine 

industry’s total west coast employment. 

For shipyards, Alaska’s crude oil exports would result in the loss of $270 

million a year. More than 2,000 jobs at 

refineries in my State would be lost. 

In addition, the Pacific Northwest 

would forego most of the $93 million in 

annual Federal, State, and local tax 

payments made by these works and facilities. Mr. President, 90 percent of 

Alaskan oil is consumed by west coast 

refineries owned by Atlantic Richfield, 

Texaco, and Shell, plus independents 

such as Tosco and U.S. Oil. 

Six of these refineries are in my 

home State of Washington. Competing 

against foreign buyers willing to pay 

premium prices, industry experts predict our refineries either will shut 

down or be forced to pay a premium 

price to keep their Alaskan supply, or 

to purchase substitute foreign crude. 

Major oil companies may be able to 

absorb much of the price increase. But 

the independents, that own 25 percent 

of the processing capacity in the Pacific Northwest, will not. They cannot 

compete with the majors by selling 

their petroleum products at higher 

prices. As many as 2,500 people could 

lose their jobs along with the losses of 

$100 million in annual payroll income 

and $500 million in annual tax payments. 

My concern for our environment 

makes the case for export restrictions 

even more compelling. Congress opened 

Alaska’s North Slope for development 

only after it imposed strict conditions 

to protect that region’s fragile environment. Moreover, Washington State and 

other west coast States also enacted 

laws and regulations to assure the 

transportation and processing of this 

oil is done in a manner that will not injure our environment. 

With 99 percent of Alaska crude coming through Puget Sound and 94 percent of this carried on U.S. tankers, 

foreign replacement oil would not only 

be more costly but would be carried on 

more environmentally risky tankers. 

The U.S. Coast Guard rates as highrisk one-half of the current foreign 

tanker fleet that carries crude through 

Puget Sound. 

Our coastal waters would face an 

added threat: Increased pollution risks 

from offshore transfers of crude oil 

from large foreign tankers to smaller 

ships that can actually deliver the oil 

to our six refineries. 

Exporting ANS crude on less expensive foreign vessels would lower transportation costs for British Petroleum 

and raise their profits. It would also 

raise revenue for the State of Alaska 

because the State’s ANS royalty payment is based on the wellhead price, 

minus transportation costs. BP would 

also save money by having its tankers 

built and repaired in foreign countries. 

In short, North Slope’s oil exports 

would benefit British Petroleum and 

increase the Treasury of the State of 

Alaska, but they are clearly not in the 

interest of the people I represent. 

Moreover, I do not believe exports 

would meet the statutory tests designed to protect broader national interests. When I weigh the benefits to 

Alaska and BP against these very serious risks, exports make little sense to 

me. For the sake of our workers and 

their families, our environment and 

our energy security, I urge my colleagues to listen and oppose this bill 

and any other efforts to lift the export 

restrictions. 

Mr. President, I want to read into the 

RECORD some of the editorials that 

have been written in the last several 

months regarding this bill and the lifting of the Alaska oil ban. The first one 

comes in the Seattle Times, and it is 

dated March 3 of this year, 1995. 

KEEP ALASKA OIL BAN

The export ban on Alaskan crude oil has 

served this country well as a domestic source 

of valuable petroleum. Contrary to the Clinton administration’s desires, this is not the 

time to overturn the ban, nor the time to 

imply that over-dependence on foreign oil 

supplies is over. 

Oil from the North Slope of Alaska was 

drilled, pumped and shipped south as part of 

a massive enterprise intended to tap into a 

huge domestic reserve. The 800-mile Alyeska 

pipeline delivers oil to the port of Valdez, 

Alaska, but it came at enormous cost and 

large environmental and cultural questions. 

The most immediate beneficiaries are the 

residents of Alaska, who receive yearly Permanent Fund checks for the treasure they 

are sharing with the rest of the country. 

Alaska’s representatives are all in favor of 

ending the ban—probably because higher 

prices could give their state $1.6 billion more 

in royalties in just four more years. But 

while Alaskans rightly share in the profits 

from oil, those North Slope holes have since 

the beginning been considered a national resource. 

Although nothing in the Alaskan oil equation has changed, the political requirements 

of Southern California have apparently been 

heard in the Clinton White House. 

California refineries are full of Alaskan oil; 

exporting the oil to its likely buyer, Japan, 

would stimulate California’s own oil fields. 

Although Department of Energy officials testified motorists would see very little price 

change at the pump, the very premise of 

stimulating one region’s fields by exporting 

oil from another region has inherent price 

risks. 

There is something smelly about a plan 

that sends Alaskan oil abroad when the resource should be carefully used at home. The 

only reason the U.S. imports foreign oil is to 

meet domestic consumption. Depleting our 

own resources because some refineries have 

too much oil goes against the original argument for opening the fields. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 15, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6669 

Shipping Alaska’s oil abroad carries a new 

set of environmental questions for the Pacific Northwest as new maritime routes 

would be opened. That’s not the most serious 

question about dropping the oil ban, but simply another in the long list of unnecessary 

actions that would result from a misguided 

White House political strategy. 

In addition, the Portland Oregonian, 

on February 26, 1995, printed this editorial: 

[From the Portland Oregonian, Feb. 26, 1995] 

KEEP ALASKA’S OIL HERE—LIFTING BAN ON

OIL EXPORTS WOULD RAISE PRICES HERE, 

HURT PORT’S SHIP BUSINESS, INCREASE U.S. 

DEPENDENCY ON FOREIGN OIL

Congress should sink a bill to remove the 

21-year-old ban on exporting Alaskan North 

Slope crude oil. 

Instead of lifting the ban, Congress should 

support legislation introduced by Northwest 

Sons, Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Mark O. 

Hatfield, R-Ore., to extend the export restrictions in the Export Administration Act. 

Removing the restrictions that limit the 

sale of Alaska’s oil to domestic markets is 

being promoted with wildly optimistic promises. Proponents include BP America, Alaska’s largest oil producer, independent West 

Coast oil producers, five maritime unions, 

the U.S. Department of Energy and the 

states of Alaska and California. 

They say lifting the ban on Alaskan oil exports would stimulate production of at least 

100,000 barrels of oil per day and create up to 

25,000 jobs, primarily in Alaska and California, while not causing an increase in the 

cost of motor fuel prices on the West Coast. 

Those projections are very questionable. 

An Energy Department study completed last 

summer suggested that lifting the ban would 

create 11,000 to 16,000 jobs (not 25,000). That 

study also ignored potential job losses in the 

West Coast ship-supply industry. And it 

didn’t address the potential threat to the 

economic vitality of the nation’s domestic 

tanker fleet. 

Here’s a more realistic appraisal of the 

likely outcome of lifting the ban on exports 

of Alaskan oil: 

West coast gasoline prices would rise. The 

ban has depressed West Coast crude oil prices 

by an estimated $2 a barrel because Alaska 

oil is forced onto a surplus market here. 

West Coast oil refiners have enjoyed the 

world’s largest gross margins because of the 

Alaskan crude’s low price. If that oil is withdrawn and exported, don’t expect the refiners 

to swallow their increased costs for replacement crude. They’ll surely pass it on to motorists. If the total cost were passed through, 

it could result in a 7-cent-a-gallon increase 

at the pump. 

Ship repair and maintenance work at the 

Port of Portland will all but disappear. Proponents of lifting the oil-export ban say it 

would stimulate shipyard work on the West 

Coast. Not so, say Port of Portland officials. 

They say their contractors believe the lifting 

the ban would kill the shipyard business. 

Alaska tankers account for about 70 percent 

of the work now, but Port of Portland officials believe that tanker operators would do 

most of their maintenance work in Japan 

and Korea once the ban was lifted. 

U.S. dependency on foreign oil would increase markedly, because replacement of 

much of the Alaskan North Slope crude oil 

would come from overseas producers. 

This comes at a time when U.S. dependency on foreign sources of oil is at an alltime high. About half of the U.S. daily consumption of 17.7 million barrels of oil comes 

from foreign sources. That’s substantially 

greater dependency than this nation endured 

before the 1973 oil embargo or during the 

Persian Gulf War. And government officials 

predict that imports will represent 59 percent of consumption by 2010. 

Lifting the ban on exporting Alaskan crude 

would add to this dependency and make the 

nation even more vulnerable to international 

disruptions. 

The gain in maritime jobs is not worth the 

cost to this nation’s security and the adverse 

effect that foreign-oil dependency has had on 

foreign policy. 

Hatfield and Murray need other Northwest 

members of Congress to rally behind their 

leadership on Alaskan oil policy. 

Finally, I will read an editorial from 

The Bellingham Herald called: ‘‘Our 

View.’’

[From the Bellingham Herald, Mar. 19, 1995] 

OUR VIEW—DON’T EXPORT NORTH SLOPE

CRUDE OIL

Energy: Using the domestic oil ourselves 

reduces dependency on foreign supplies, protects jobs. 

U.S. Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, has 

introduced a bill to lift the export ban on 

crude oil from Alaska’s North Slope oil 

fields, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash, has introduced a rival bill that would continue the 

ban. 

Murray’s bill better protects the best interests, not only of Whatcom County and 

other regions on the Pacific Northwest 

where North Slope oil creates thousands of 

jobs, but of the nation. 

It makes little sense to propose exporting 

more domestic oil when we already depend so 

heavily on imported oil to meet needs and 

demands at home. 

Murkowski maintains that lifting the ban 

would net Alaska an additional $700 million 

from increased oil sales and create as many 

as 25,000 new jobs there by 2000. 

Murray claims that it would cost about 

2,000 refinery and ship-repair jobs in Washington, Oregon and California. 

Competing regional interests aside, Congress should look at what’s in the nation’s 

best interest. 

If the export ban were lifted, foreign vessels could be used to transport the crude oil 

to other nations. That might pose additional 

environmental risks as well as eliminate 

American jobs. 

Nations such as China are developing industrial and technological-based economies 

and need more oil. The pressure to cash in on 

supplying it is intense. Just last week, the 

Clinton administration had to pressure Conoco to abandon a plan to help Iran develop 

two large offshore oil fields. 

Best that we stay focused on what’s in our 

nation’s best interest regarding North Slope 

crude oil and use it ourselves. 

Mr. President, I think all three of 

those editorials very clearly point out 

that it is in the Nation’s best interests 

to defeat the proposal that is before 

the Senate now. It is in the Nation’s 

best interest to do so. 

I am going to respond to some of the 

points that were made by my colleague, Senator MURKOWSKI, earlier 

particularly because he mentioned 

some with which I have to disagree. 

He mentioned that the unions support the bill as he has presented it. 

I would like to read for the Senate 

who opposes the bill the Senator from 

Alaska has presented to us: 

Communication Workers of America; 

Industrial Union Department, AFLCIO; Inland Boatmen’s International 

Union; Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, International; National Farmers Organization; National 

Farmers Union; Oil, Chemical and 

Atomic Workers; Steelworkers of 

America, United; Sailors’ Union of the 

Pacific; United Auto Workers; Citizen 

Action; Consumer Energy Council of 

America; American Independent Refiners Association; Huntway Refining Co.; 

Indian Powerine LP; Kern Oil & Refining; Pacific Refining Co.; Tosco Refining Co.; U.S. Oil & Refining; Western 

Independent Refiners Association; 

WITCO Refining Corp.; Atlantic Marine; CBI Industries, Inc., Celeron 

Corp.; COSCOL Marine Co.; PacificTexas Pipeline Co.; Penn-Attransco. 

The list goes on opposing this bill: 

Avondale Industries; Dillingham Ship 

Repair; National Steel & Shipbuilding 

Co.; Northville Industries; Port of 

Astoria, OR; Port of Portland, OR; 

Shipbuilders Council of America. 

Mr. President, these are just a few of 

the people, including labor unions, who 

stand strong in opposition to lifting 

the ban on Alaskan oil. I think some of 

the unions that have written to me 

have very clearly defined why they oppose this bill. I again do this because I 

heard my colleague from Alaska say 

that unions support this legislation. 

Let me read one from the International Association of Machinists and 

Aerospace Workers written to Mr. Robert Georgine, president of AFL–CIO. 

DEAR MR. GEORGINE: I understand that an 

amendment may be offered * * * to the maritime reform bill that would eliminate restrictions on the export of Alaska oil. We are 

told Senator Stevens is planning to offer the 

change when the Senate Commerce Committee takes up the measure. 

Our organization strongly opposes this 

amendment. Exporting Alaska crude oil 

across the Pacific would place 500 to 800 jobs 

at the Portland Ship Yard at extreme risk 

because the ships used to export the oil 

would be repaired in foreign ship yards, rather than here at home as they are today. The 

jobs of more local subcontractors also would 

be threatened as well as several thousand refinery jobs on the West Coast. 

The proponents of exporting Alaskan oil 

are the State of Alaska, which stands to gain 

increased severance tax revenues from these 

exports, and British Petroleum, the major 

producer of Alaskan North Slope oil. The losers in this proposal are U.S. workers, U.S. 

energy security, and U.S. business. 

As you know, the restrictions on the export of this oil have enjoyed strong bipartisan support over the past 20 years. The last 

time an effort was made to remove the export ban, the effort lost on a 70 to 20 vote. 

We strongly oppose this amendment and 

urge you to do whatever you can to assure 

that it is not added to the maritime reform 

bill. 

Mr. President, I have a number of letters from other unions: Sailors Union 

of the Pacific, Boydoco Oil & Atomic 

Workers, Metal Trade Union, and their 

message is one and the same, that 

union members stand strongly in opposition to the legislation that is in front 

of us. 

Another point that my colleague 

from Alaska made was that the Department of Energy study supported his 

language in this bill. I want all of my 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6670 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 15, 1995 

colleagues to understand that the Department of Energy study addressed 

the concerns of Alaska and California. 

I, too, read that report in its entirety, and it does not address the 

issues that are important to Washington State, to Oregon, and indeed to 

the rest of the Nation. It is written in 

perspective as to what will be good for 

Alaska and California. I think it is 

very important to point out that the 

Clinton administration is not in support as was earlier indicated by my colleague from Alaska. The Clinton administration is not in support as the 

language stands in front of us right 

now. They believe that several important concerns need to be addressed, including job protection and environmental issues, before they are willing 

to endorse it, despite the DOE study. 

So I remind my colleagues this is not 

supported by the Clinton administration at this time. They have said that 

they have very serious concerns and 

are not supporting it as it is presently 

drafted. 

I also would like to point out the environmental concerns because I can 

speak for the jobs in my State, and certainly the Senator from Oregon, Senator HATFIELD, will speak in terms of 

jobs from Portland. But the issue that 

has not been spoken to here is the issue 

of environmental concern. 

I heard my colleague from Alaska 

say earlier this morning that this bill 

in front of us is the first step in increasing domestic oil production. I 

fear, and I feel many of my colleagues 

fear, that the second step will be lifting 

the ban on oil drilling off the coast of 

Alaska, in the Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge. ANWR has been a debate on 

this floor for many years. Allowing oil 

drilling there has been debated and defeated many times. Many of us fear 

that this is, as my colleague from Alaska said, the first step, and the second 

step will be drilling off the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And I know 

most of my colleagues do not want to 

see that occur. I think that is a real 

concern particularly since the budget 

that was passed out of the Budget Committee last week has an assumption in 

it that in order to get to the balanced 

budget one of the things we are going 

to do is allow oil drilling off Alaska. 

That is how we are going to balance 

the budget. 

So it is a very real concern. We do 

not need to pass the first step here in 

this legislation and pass the second 

step in the Budget Committee, and I 

will oppose that as adamantly as I oppose the bill in front of us. 

I do want to read to this body a letter 

from the Wilderness Society, Sierra 

Club, Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, Alaska Wilderness League, and the American 

Oceans Campaign, because I think it 

very clearly states for all of us what 

our environmental concerns should be. 

This was written last year, June 23, 

1994. 

DEAR SENATOR: The Senate will soon be 

asked to consider an amendment to the Export Administration Act to end the ban on 

the export of North Slope Alaskan crude oil. 

We urge you to oppose lifting the export ban 

for the following environmental reasons: 

Ending the oil export ban would increase 

development pressure for sensitive areas like 

the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It is 

also likely to increase pressure for oil development in fragile areas off the shores of 

Alaska and California. The expanded development pressure would result from expanded 

markets, increases in the wellhead price of 

oil per barrel, and faster depletion of North 

Slope fields. It is a serious concern that lifting the ban could give nations like Japan a 

vested interest in our natural resource decisions in Alaska. As long as sensitive areas 

like the Arctic Refuge and sensitive areas 

offshore California and Alaska are still not 

permanently protected from oil and gas development, lifting the export ban is a dangerous idea. 

Ending the ban is nonsense energy policy. 

It would be a dramatic reversal of a national 

policy we thought Congress had long ago resolved. Lifting the oil export ban is inconsistent with any attempt at conservation of 

domestic oil for domestic use. 

No environmental analysis has been done 

on ending the ban. Lifting the ban would 

open the door to tankers nearly twice as 

large. More traffic in Prince William Sound 

would pose greater risks from spills. Changed 

tanker routes would make Kodiak Island and 

the fisheries of the Bering Sea more vulnerable to chronic and disastrous spills. 

Ending the oil export ban could increase 

the flow through the aging and poorly-maintained Trans-Alaska Pipeline. A major audit 

recently conducted by the Bureau of Land 

Management said that the pipeline system 

poses imminent threats to public and worker 

safety and the environment. Until the government ensures that the more than 10,000 

safety problems with the pipeline are repaired, and that the ballast water treatment 

and air pollution problems at the Valdez marine terminal are resolved, the Congress 

should not take actions that could increase 

the environmental and safety risks. 

Lifting the oil export ban would increase 

oil imports into the United States. Because 

refineries aren’t set up to refine the heavier 

oil produced in California, the Alaska shortfall would be made up by imports which 

more closely match the Alaska oil density. 

This means that more foreign-flagged tankers, with less stringent manning standards 

than U.S. flagged tankers, would be calling 

on West Coast ports. Because increased imports would be necessary to replace the oil 

that could now be exported to the Far East, 

our trade balance would not improve and at 

the same time we would have less control 

over our U.S. domestic oil supplies. 

Ending the oil export ban breaks the promise Congress made to the American People 

over 20 years ago. At that time, Congress 

sacrificed Arctic wilderness and put Prince 

William Sound at risk of tanker spills, but 

said that the North Slope oil was only to go 

to U.S. markets. In 1973, Vice President 

Spiro Agnew went to the Senate floor to cast 

the tie-breaking vote which ended the intense debate over approval of the TransAlaska Pipeline. The oil export ban was a 

crucial part of the deal Congress brokered. 

Congress chose to override pending legal 

challenges to the pipeline, proclaiming the 

environmental impact statement to be adequate even though the major issue of risks to 

the marine environment from tankers was 

poorly considered. 

If Congress breaks the deal now and lifts 

the oil export ban, foreign oil companies like 

British Petroleum would reap the largest 

benefits, and the American consumers would 

be the biggest losers. It would be ironic for 

Congress to unravel this deal at the same 

time as Alaskan jurors found Exxon reckless 

and as 10,000 fishermen and Native residents 

finally have their day in court. 

We urge you to oppose lifting the ban on 

exports of North Slope crude oil. 

Again, that is signed by the Wilderness Society, National Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club, Alaska Wilderness League, 

and American Oceans Campaign. 

I think this letter very clearly points 

out to all of us that this is a major step 

and can put a lot of us at risk and our 

environment at risk that many of us 

care about. 

It is not a step that should be taken 

willy-nilly on a Monday, when people 

are not prepared to think about the 

long-term, serious consequences. That 

is why I came to the floor this morning 

at 9:30 to protest moving to this bill, 

because it has not gone through the 

Banking Committee where the Export 

Administration Act has had jurisdiction over this for a long time. 

I do believe we have to look much 

more carefully at all of the conditions 

that are put forth in this and all of the 

consequences that many of us will have 

to suffer for a long time to come if the 

Senate, in its haste to get legislation 

passed, does so without considering the 

consequences to many of us. 

Mr. President, I would also like to 

read into the RECORD a statement by 

the Wilderness Society and the Alaska 

Wilderness League that I think points 

to what the environmental impacts of 

ending the ban on Alaska North Slope 

crude oil exports will cause. 

‘‘The Department of Energy’s claims 

about environmental impacts are misleading,’’ which refers back to the DOE 

study. 

DOE hastily included 2 pages of ‘‘environmental implications’’ in its report on the economics of ending the oil export ban which 

were not supported by any analysis or factual substantiation. The Administration has 

failed to carry out comprehensive environmental analysis required by the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Ending the oil export ban would increase 

development pressure for sensitive areas like 

the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It is 

also likely to increase pressure for oil development in fragile areas off the shores of 

Alaska and California. If the 20-year export 

ban is lifted, its effects will be long lasting. 

Expanded development pressure as projected 

by DOE would result in faster depletion of 

domestic oil resources. It is naive at best to 

believe that the oil industry won’t battle to 

gain access to these ‘‘off-limits’’ areas when 

economic and political factors are right. As 

long as these sensitive areas are still not 

permanently protected from oil and gas development, lifting the export ban is a dangerous idea. 

Environmental and safety problems plaguing the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System 

(TAPS) should be fixed before considering 

lifting the ban. It is true that the same old 

TAPS infrastructure will continue to be used 

for exported oil, and increased flow due to 

the new markets would increase the risks. 

According to a major audit recently done for 

the Bureau of Land Management, ‘‘the pipeline system poses imminent threats to public 

and worker safety and the environment.’’

More than 10,000 problems were identified, 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 15, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6671 

including ‘‘massive violations of the National Electrical Code.’’ The ballast water 

treatment plant at the Valdez terminal is 

currently inadequate to handle large volumes of the ballast water which must be removed from cargo tanks before they are 

filled with oil, and bigger tankers may call 

at the port if the ban is lifted. 

The oil industry should not be rewarded 

with higher profits from shipping North 

Slope oil at the same time it is requesting 

exemptions from environmental laws. 

Alyeska, which runs the pipeline for British 

Petroleum and the other oil company owners, has for years avoided limiting air pollution caused by fumes that are released during tanker loading and recently requested a 

12-year delay in meeting air pollution standards for the nation’s largest tanker terminal 

at Valdez. Already, air emissions account annually for over 45,000 tons of pollutants such 

as cancer-causing benzene, and the terminal 

is the largest source of volatile organic compounds in the nation. 

Exports will expose new areas of U.S. 

coastlines in Alaska to increased risk of oil 

spills. Changed tanker routes would put Kodiak Island, the Aleutian chain, and the rich 

fisheries of the Bering Sea at greatly increased risk of chronic and disastrous oil 

spills. Tankers would still travel through 

Prince William Sound, placing it at high risk 

from new spills even as this area still suffers 

from the effects of the Exxon Valdez. Dumping of the segregated ballast water picked up 

from foreign ports could introduce exotic organisms that have serious environmental 

consequences. Lifting the ban would open 

the door to tankers twice as large. 

Serious risks to California’s coastal environment have been ignored. Increased imports to California replacing North Slope 

crude shipments would involve much larger 

foreign tankers. Because of port and draft restrictions at the refineries, there would be 

increased risks of oil spills because there 

would need to be lightering, the transfer of 

oil from the larger tankers to smaller vessels 

which bring it into port, and therefore an increased number of times cargo is offloaded. 

The lightering would be conducted by foreign 

vessels which are less fully exposed to liability claims under OPA–90 than U.S. companies. Increased refining of California heavy 

crude would result in increased foreign tanker traffic in California waters to export the 

byproducts such as residual oil which would 

be produced in excess of California demand. 

Lifting the ban will not help the U.S. meet 

its commitments to reduce Greenhouse Gas 

emissions. DOE states thermal enhanced oil 

recovery in California would increase such 

emissions, but dismisses the amounts as 

trivial. However, DOE energy policy should 

be to achieve further reductions, not to justify increases, in order to fulfill U.S. obligations under the U.N. Framework Convention 

on Climate Change and to achieve President 

Clinton’s goals in the Climate Action Plan to 

reduce emissions to 1990 levels by the year 

2000. 

Mr. President, these are just some of 

the environmental concerns that we 

have before us, but they seriously point 

out the questions that all of us should 

be asking and have answers to before 

this ban on oil is lifted from Alaska’s 

North Slope. 

Certainly I heard my colleague from 

Alaska speak this morning about a 

DOE report and referred to it a number 

of times as what the basis should be 

that we vote on, the current amendment before us. 

As I indicated earlier, the administration is not supportive of the language as we currently see it before us 

on the floor because they do have concerns still about jobs and environmental impact. But I want to read to 

this body a letter from someone who 

agrees with me on the DOE report. He 

happens to be a former adviser to the 

Governor of Alaska. So he is from that 

region; he is a former adviser to the 

Governor. 

His name is Richard Fineberg, and he 

lives in Alaska. He says: 

Re Exporting Alaska North Slope Crude Oil. 

DEAR SECRETARY O’LEARY: I read with 

great interest and disappointment your department’s report, ‘‘Exporting Alaska North 

Slope Crude Oil.’’ As a former advisor to the 

Governor of Alaska on oil and gas issues who 

subsequently prepared several reports for the 

Alaska State Legislature on North Slope 

economic issues, I had hoped that your report would answer many important questions about Alaskan oil development. I was 

disappointed because the report’s conclusions appear to be critically dependent on 

buried, dubious or false assumptions that undercut the validity of the report’s conclusions. 

Again, I remind the body I am reading from a letter of Richard Fineberg, 

who is former adviser to the Governor 

of Alaska. These are his words, not 

mine: 

. . . dubious or false assumptions that undercut the validity of the report’s conclusions. For example: 

The report asserts that Alaska would gain 

$700 million to $1.6 billion in revenues between 1994 and 2000 if the ban were lifted, and 

that under low-price scenarios most of that 

gain would come in 1994–96. Having prepared 

numerous reports on North Slope profits, 

production prospects and Alaska revenues 

since leaving my position in the governor’s 

office in 1989, I must say that these poorly 

explained estimates appear to be highly implausible. Moreover, 1994 is nearly two-thirds 

over and if the ban were lifted, ANS sellers 

and refiners would then require some time to 

revise contracts, arrange shipments and reconfigure their refinery outputs. With most 

of 1994 gone, how much of this theoretical 

amount remains to be captured and how 

much is already lost to history? I cannot 

make that calculation because I read the report from cover to cover but could never discover the bases for the $700 to $1.6 billion estimate. 

Again, this is someone who is an expert on Alaskan export of oil. 

He goes on to say: 

Although there is a known, fixed relationship between federal income taxes and state 

revenues on ANS production at the DOE 

study prices, the DOE report inexplicably estimates federal gains to be well outside that 

predictable range, at $99 to $188 million. This 

leads me to believe the DOE report either 

omitted federal income taxes or did not account for them correctly. In either event, it 

would appear that producer gains (and, consequently, jobs) may have been over-stated 

because federal tax effects were not considered, and that federal gains may have been 

understated. This is precisely the kind of 

ambiguity that would lead a careful reader 

to view with great skepticism the conclusions of the DOE report. 

Regarding incremental North Slope production that might result from lifting the 

ban, your authors note that ‘‘If exports of 

ANS crude oil raise crude oil prices or save 

on costs of shipping and handling, the resulting revenues may be invested in oil production-related projects in the geographical 

areas where the new profits are made. This is 

particularly true for small companies, but 

less so for the major integrated companies.’’

(Report, page E–1.) In a footnote, the report 

states that ‘‘The large ANS producers made 

it clear in our interviews that they . . . 

would not necessarily reinvest in Alaska the 

incremental revenues made as a result of exporting ANS oil.’’ The same section presents 

increased production rates resulting from 

the ‘‘reasonable’’ assumption ‘‘that all incremental revenues for the remaining producers’ share is invested in ANS crude production activities that add to reserves’’

(major producers Arco and Exxon—45% of 

ANS production—are factored out because 

their oil is transferred rather than sold, leaving BP as the remaining major producer). 

Because major producer BP owns 91% of the 

remaining production, by its own terms the 

report’s key assumption on reinvestment is 

clearly not reasonable. 

The report notes that data ‘‘imply that reserve additions in the range of 200 to 400 million barrels could be produced by the investment resulting from exports of... ANS 

crude. Buy comparison, [c]urrent reserves at 

Endicott and Point McIntyre, major secondary fields on the North Slope, are 262 and 

356 million barrels respectively.’’ (Report, at 

p. 12 and p. 50). For some reason, the report 

makes no reference to the largest major secondary field on the North Slope, Kuparuk, 

whose remaining reserves are three times 

that of the two fields named in the report. Is 

there a reason for this? The report’s second 

Kuparuk omission referred the reader again 

to Appendix E—the same place at which the 

dubious assumptions noted above are supposed to be demonstrated; nothing in that 

appendix told me whether Kuparuk was included or excluded from your analysis, or 

why it was omitted from the text. 

I am limiting myself here to clearly demonstrable examples because time is short; 

some in your department seem to be rushing 

toward a decision on BP’s behalf. I write, 

therefore, to make sure that you are aware 

that the DOE report released June 30 appears 

to be laced with significant technical defects. These shortcomings make it difficult 

for me to accept the conclusions one must 

adopt to assume the economic benefits your 

report claims the United States will realize 

from lifting the ban. The reader is asked to 

believe that California refinery acquisition 

costs can go up without affecting consumer 

gasoline prices, and that ANS will realize a 

premium in Japan because its product slate 

matches Japan’s needs. While I am not prepared to state that such heroic assumptions 

are invalid, it is my opinion that this report 

fails to demonstrate them. These assumptions are contradicted by the Coalition to 

Keep Alaska Oil’s June 1994 report, ‘‘Consequences of Exporting Alaska North Slope 

Crude Oil.’’ I do not presume to know who is 

correct. But I must tell you that the latter 

report is strikingly accurate in those areas 

with which I am familiar. More important, 

the challenging report is much less dependent on the kind of Herculean and undocumented assumptions required to reach the 

conclusions in the DOE report. 

I will continue reading and remind 

my colleagues that I am reading from a 

letter directly about the DOE’s study 

that has been referenced throughout 

speech of the Senator from Alaska and 

kept referring to it. I wanted someone 

who is an expert from Alaska to respond to that. I will read the last of 

this letter: 

The latter report also sets up the background of raising environmental concerns 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6672 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 15, 1995 

that are casually dismissed by the DOE report: In particular, California supply ports, 

pipelines, refinery storage facilities and refinery operations appear to be at risk. And, 

as my colleague Dr. Riki Ott of Cordova, 

Alaska, has previously advised you, the DOE 

report also dismisses serious environmental 

concerns in Alaska concerning the integrity 

of the Alaska pipeline and marine transportation delivery system. As a long-time Alaskan, I share Dr. Ott’s interests in the environmental issues the DOE report fails to address. But it is the manifest shortcomings in 

the DOE economic analysis that lead me to 

ask you to base your decision on better data 

than the report you released June 30. 

In sum, I do not believe your department’s 

report provides sound bases for its fundamental conclusions and recommendations. In 

view of the undiscussed problems associated 

with lifting the export ban and the absence 

of convincing support for taking this action, 

I oppose lifting the ban at this time and request that you address the implications of 

the DOE report’s serious defects before making your decision. 

It is signed Richard Fineberg. 

Again, I would like my colleagues to 

know that the arguments in favor of 

lifting the ban have referenced a report 

from DOE that I have just read a letter 

from, an expert from Alaska who says 

that a lot of the assumptions are incorrect. In addition, the Clinton administration itself does not support the language that is in front of us because it 

still does not address many of their environmental and job issues. 

I also heard my colleague from Alaska speak about the jobs that would be 

brought if this legislation is passed. I 

believe he referenced the number 25,000. 

From the perspective of the State of 

Washington, we have many people employed in our independent refineries. I 

know Senator HATFIELD from Oregon 

will be out here in a few minutes to 

talk about jobs in his State of Oregon. 

But while he is on his way, I want to 

share with my colleagues an article 

called ‘‘Alaskan Oil Exports Will 

Eliminate U.S. Shipyard Jobs.’’

There has been some question on 

whether or not jobs would be eliminated in the United States if this oil 

ban is lifted. I want to read this study 

to you by the Portland shipyard Port 

of Portland: 

The recommendation of the Department of 

Energy study on Alaskan—to lift the twentyyear-old restriction on the exports of that 

would a eliminate hundreds of shipyard jobs. 

First, it will cause a severe reduction in the 

U.S. flag tanker fleet. DOE—

This refers back to the report. 

assumes that exported oil will be carried on 

Jones Act ships, but Senators proposing that 

the ban be lifted would only require that the 

oil be carried on U.S. flagships, not on Jones 

Act ships. This means they need not be repaired in U.S. yards. This means lost of jobs 

in our shipyards here in the United States. 

Mr. President, I note the presence of 

my colleague, Senator HATFIELD, on 

the floor. He is a cosponsor of legislation I introduced earlier. I will yield 

the floor at this time for him to make 

his remarks. 

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I 

thank my colleague from Washington 

State, Senator MURRAY. 

Mr. President, first of all, I want to 

say we have collaborated on this as between Washington State and Oregon, 

on the basis of the impact it has on the 

Northwest, outside of Alaska. I am 

happy to say, too, that we have been 

working with Senator MURKOWSKI’s 

staff and we are hoping that we can resolve the problem we have as it impacts upon the Port of Portland. I will 

address that at a later moment. 

First of all, I would like to distinguish between title I of this bill and 

title II. Title I of this bill provides for 

the sale of the Alaska Power Administration. I support the sale of the Alaska Power Administration, but I do 

have strong objections to provisions in 

this bill which seek to alter, in a fundamental way, a longstanding agreement relating to the Alaskan North 

Slope crude oil. 

Mr. President, for over 20 years, Congress has maintained a ban on the export of crude oil from the North Slope 

of Alaska transported via the TransAlaska Pipeline. This agreement, 

which is based primarily on national 

energy security, has given rise to many 

investments and business expectations. 

The legislation now before the Senate, 

sponsored by my good friend from Alaska, the distinguished chairman of the 

Energy and Natural Resources Committee, would lift this export limitation, thus allowing unlimited export of 

oil from Alaska. 

While I understand and respect the 

motives of the Senator from Alaska, I 

must oppose his efforts in this case. I 

believe it is indisputably in the national interest to maintain our precious remaining supplies of crude oil 

for domestic use only. To export our 

Alaska reserves, which account for a 

quarter of current U.S. consumption, 

at a time when our reliance on unstable supplies of foreign oil is again in 

excess of 50 percent, would be damaging to the already fragile energy security situation of the United States. 

Again, I want to emphasize that over 

50 percent of our consumption is dependent upon foreign imports, and 

from a very fragile part of the world, 

geopolitically speaking—the Mideast. 

I have long supported the restricting 

of Alaska North Slope production for 

domestic use only. Beginning in 1979, I 

sponsored legislation in several sessions of Congress to extend these restrictions. Each time this issue has 

come before Congress, these restrictions have been extended with strong 

bipartisan support. In fact, each time 

Congress has strengthened the restrictions with respect to Alaska and has 

added similar restrictions to the export 

of oil produced in any part of the 

United States, including offshore oil 

and oil contained in the strategic petroleum reserve. 

I am also aware that sectors of the 

refining and maritime industries have 

made substantial investments based on 

the assurances of Congress that this 

ban would remain in effect. It would be 

manifestly unfair to upset these reasonable expectations at this stage. 

I should also point out, in order to 

complete the legislative picture, that 

Senate bill 414, which I have sponsored 

with Senator MURRAY, is currently 

pending before the Banking Committee. Our bill would extend the current export restrictions and is therefore directly contrary to the provisions 

in the bill presently before the Senate. 

The Senator from Alaska also has a 

bill, Senate bill 70, which would also 

lift the export restriction, and it is also 

pending before the Banking Committee. I am troubled that the Senator 

from New York, the distinguished 

chairman of the Banking Committee, 

is not present to express his views on 

these matters before his committee. 

In 1973, shortly after the beginning of 

the Arab-Israeli war and the first oil 

embargo, Congress adopted the TransAlaska Pipeline Authorization Act. 

And this legislation authorized a construction of a pipeline to move oil from 

lands belonging to the State of Alaska 

on the North Slope to a Port at Valdez. 

The act also amended the Mineral 

Leasing Act to put in place an export 

restriction on all oil carried over Federal rights-of-way. Under this provision, exports were only if the President 

determined exports would be in the national interest, would not diminish the 

total quantity or quality of oil in the 

United States and would be done under 

the licensing provisions of the Export 

Administration Act of 1969. 

A second major oil shock took place 

in 1979. At that time, in section 7(d) of 

the Export Administration Act, Congress effectively banned oil exports 

from the Alaskan North Slope. Congress further tightened section 7(d) in 

1985. No rollcall votes have taken place 

in the Senate since 1984, when this 

body tabled an amendment offered by 

my friend from Alaska, Mr. MURKOWSKI, which would have allowed a 

limited amount of exports at 200,000 

barrels per day on U.S. vessels, and the 

amendment was tabled on a vote of 70–

20. 

Since the first Alaska oil export restrictions were enacted in 1973, they 

have provided enduring benefits for our 

Nation. I speak as someone who has 

been in the Senate since this ban was 

put in place and has watched it function. As a result of this policy, we now 

have an efficient transportation infrastructure to move crude oil from Alaska to the lower 48 States and Hawaii. 

In addition, these restrictions have 

helped limit our reliance on OPEC and 

unstable Persian Gulf oil supplies. 

They have also allowed us to enhance 

our domestic merchant marine that 

continues to help supply the essential 

oil requirements of our domestic economy and our military. 

I have also been in this body long 

enough to learn quite a few history lessons. And it troubles me that despite 

two major oil crises and the Persian 

Gulf war, we continue to senselessly 

rely on foreign oil as a major energy 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 15, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6673 

source. U.S. oil imports now exceed 

half of our daily oil requirement. Government and private estimates now 

predict that by the year 2010, foreign 

oil imports will exceed 60 percent. I 

consider these levels to be worthy of 

serious concern. The Clinton administration appears to be aware of the 

gravity of the situation, but I have not 

been impressed with the administration’s proposals designed to address 

this growing problem. 

It is my belief that permitting the 

export of any Alaskan North Slope 

crude would only exacerbate our already serious problem of reliance on 

foreign oil. By allowing the export of 

Alaskan oil to Japan and other Pacific 

rim countries, we would further increase our dependency on Middle Eastern oil, something I strongly believe—

and history supports my belief—puts 

the lives of United States troops at 

risk. Exporting this oil could have the 

effect of increasing consumer petroleum costs on the west cost and threatening the vitality of our domestic 

tanker fleet. Moreover, Alaskan oil exports would cause job losses in the 

maritime and related ship-supply industries on the west coast. I see no 

sound policy reason for the Nation to 

accept these costs. 

Our ability to withstand future energy crises will certainly be tested if 

we fail to take the appropriate steps 

now to protect our own energy resources. Keeping this important domestic energy source for domestic use only 

will affirm the policy of keeping this 

country on the right path toward energy security. 

During the 1973 trans-Alaska pipeline 

authorization debate, and during the 

numerous debates on exports since the 

ban was originally put in place, a fundamental issue for me and a majority 

of Senators has been this Nation’s energy security. The Senate spent weeks 

debating the merits of allowing the 

construction of the trans-Alaska pipeline and one of the primary concerns 

and points of debate was how this precious domestic supply was to be used to 

improve the energy security of the 

United States.. 

Remarks at the time by Senator Taft 

give a sense of the direction of the debate. 

It has been stated several times that oil 

from the Alaskan North Slope will not be 

shipped to the Midwest. It has also been stated—and feared by many—that a surplus of 

crude oil on our west coast will result in the 

export of this fuel to other countries. It is 

understandable that Americans would question this action when we are so desperately 

in need of oil in this country. It is also essential that we not be forced to rely too heavily 

upon oil from Middle Eastern nations who 

have stated their intentions to play politics 

with oil to influence foreign politics. 

Recall that in 1973, we were in the 

midst of an oil embargo and our heavy 

reliance on foreign oil turned very 

quickly into an economic crisis and a 

national security emergency. So I 

think it is fair to say that the Members 

of the Senate at that time were very 

much aware of the dangers of too great 

a reliance on foreign sources of oil. The 

Members of the Senate at that time 

knew, better than probably any other 

class of Senators since the attack on 

Pearl Harbor, that oil is an important 

national, as well as natural, resource. 

Because of its ability to influence the 

events of nations, oil differs fundamentally from more benign, local commodities. 

In 1973, the Senate was very much divided over whether to allow the construction of the trans-Alaska pipeline, 

and I recall Vice President Agnew casting the tie-breaking vote on final passage. However, the Senate was very 

clear about one thing: If approval was 

to be given for the pipeline, any oil 

transported through that pipeline was 

to be for domestic consumption only. 

The oil was not to be sold to foreign 

countries. The oil was to enhance the 

energy security of this Nation by reducing our reliance on foreign imports. 

It is clear that we have yet to learn 

our lesson. This fact is illustrated well 

by the national oil consumption and 

supply figures released each year by 

the American Petroleum Institute. 

API’s reports over the past decade 

show that domestic oil production has 

continued to decline, while domestic 

oil demand has continued to increase 

by thousands of barrels of oil a day. 

In 1970, U.S. crude oil production hit 

its all time peak of 9.6 million barrels 

per day. By 1973, the year of the Arab 

oil embargo, United States production 

had fallen to 9.2 million barrels per 

day. Today, the United States produces 

about 6.6 million barrels per day, a 28- 

percent decline since 1973 and a 31-percent decline since 1970. Less crude oil is 

produced by the United States today 

than was produced 40 years ago in 1955. 

According to projections by DOE’s 

Energy Information Administration, 

U.S. crude production will continue to 

decline over the next decade, to 5.4 million barrels per day by the year 2000, 5.2 

million barrels per day by the year 

2005. The Department of Energy reports 

that the United States produced 5.2 

million barrels per day in 1950. To add 

some perspective to that number, in 

1950, there were 40 million cars on 

America’s highways; today there are 

143 million. 

This widening gap between domestic 

production and demand is being filled 

by an increasing stream of foreign oil 

imports. In fact, in 1991, the same year 

this Nation sent its young men and 

women to war in the Persian Gulf to 

protect an unstable supply of foreign 

oil, imports accounted to approximately 45.6 percent of America’s domestic oil consumption. That event 

should have shaken this Nation into a 

renewed commitment to energy conservation and convinced us to reduce 

our dangerous reliance on foreign oil. 

However, our reliance on foreign oil 

imports has increased from 45.6 percent 

at the time of the Persian Gulf war to 

approximately 54 percent today. Experts predict a steady increase, approaching 60 percent, in the coming 

years. 

This significant reliance on foreign 

sources of oil merits our serious concern and our most thoughtful judgment. Shipping domestic supplies to 

foreign markets in order to stimulate 

otherwise marginal U.S. production is 

not, in my view, a prudent way for us 

to address the long-term energy security of this Nation. Promoters of the 

trans-Alaska pipeline disavowed any 

desire to ever export oil from the pipeline, and if my memory serves me correctly, the senior Senator from Alaska 

sponsored an amendment to outlaw exports. 

In 1973, those arguing that we should 

export our domestic oil supplies did not 

prevail because exporting our domestic 

supplies was not in the national interest. Those arguing for exports are no 

more persuasive today. Exporting our 

finite domestic oil supplies is not a 

prudent method of decreasing our reliance on foreign oil. It was not prudent 

in 1973. It is not prudent today. It is reverse logic of a very dangerous sort. 

By the passage of the 1992 National 

Energy Act, we now have many of the 

tools necessary to establish a sound national energy policy. But make no mistake: We have a long way to go to 

achieve energy independence and energy security in this country. We must 

commit ourselves to partnership, to 

consensus and to cooperation if we are 

to move our Nation into the role of 

world leader on numerous energy 

fronts, including in reducing fossil fuel 

use and increasing renewable energy 

technology. 

Maintaining the current requirement 

that Alaskan North Slope crude oil is 

to be used for domestic purposes only 

is a vital part a rational energy policy 

for this country. 

Mr. President, I suggest the absence 

of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I 

have tried to outline my position in a 

general sense and then, in the historic 

context, the development of this legislation. 

I would like to turn now from the 

general to the specific. The Senator 

from California, a while ago on the 

floor, was raising the questions about 

the impact upon jobs and upon the 

local economy—in California and other 

west coast cities. I would like to further that discourse by referring to my 

own State of Oregon, and its relationship to Washington State, because the 

Port of Portland serves both sides of 

the Columbia River and the employees 

of the Port of Portland, many of them, 

traverse the bridge between the two 

States and their full-time employment 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6674 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 15, 1995 

is in the State of Oregon. We have a lot 

of exchange between Vancouver, WA, 

and Oregon, the city of Portland. 

Based upon the export restriction 

policy established by Congress in 1973, 

an infrastructure has been developed to 

transport, refine, and deliver massive 

amounts of domestic crude oil to 

American consumers. In the State of 

Washington, refineries were built by 

integrated oil companies and independent refiners to process Alaskan 

crude. The infrastructure required to 

receive this type of crude oil and deliver it to marketers was also developed. In my own State of Oregon, facilities were built or expanded to repair the dozens of Jones Act tankers 

that carry this oil. In the State of California, refineries were built or expanded, a new pipeline from Long 

Beach to Texas was built, and shipyards were expanded to build and repair tankers in the Alaskan trade. A 

pipeline was built across Panama to 

provide for the more efficient transportation to gulf coast ports of Alaskan 

crude that could not be consumed on 

the west coast. Jones Act oil tankers 

were built to transport the oil to enduse markets. Each of these infrastructure investments was encouraged by 

Congress as part of its central policy 

objective: increased energy security 

through the domestic use of this important oil supply. 

This relates to another point that I 

mentioned earlier in my remarks, and 

upon which I shall now expand. This 

point is less related to energy policy 

and more related to fairness. 

In direct reliance on this act of Congress that put the export restriction in 

place, and on the enthusiastic encouragement of the Federal Government, 

the citizens of Portland, OR, undertook 

a major investment. They voted to tax 

themselves $84 million to fund a major 

expansion of the Portland Ship Repair 

Yard. This expansion program included 

acquisition of the largest floating dry 

dock on the west coast. This dry dock 

is specially designed for the large oil 

tankers that haul oil from the TransAlaska Pipeline. These vessels are 

known as the Alaskan North Slope 

very large crude carriers [VLCC’s]. 

Of the $84 million initially borrowed 

to complete the facility, $50 million remains to be paid. It is very likely that 

this facility, which accounts for 500 to 

800 family wage jobs, will not continue 

to be viable if the bill currently before 

the Senate passes and the export ban is 

lifted. Exports will provide ship owners 

with a greater economic incentive to 

have ships repaired in the low-cost 

East Asian shipyards. 

Mr. President, $84 million is a great 

deal of money to taxpayers in Portland. This was not an investment based 

on a Federal handout, but rather, it 

was a city of moderate means putting 

up its own credit and ingenuity on the 

line to invest in a facility of integral 

importance to a stated Federal objective. It took a great deal of courage for 

Portlanders to make that investment. 

But it was not a blind venture. It was 

based on a great deal of encouragement 

by Federal officials that such a facility 

was a necessary part of the long-term 

plan for the Alaska Pipeline trade. 

Let me share some of the rhetoric of 

the time. I believe it is helpful in understanding why the citizens of Portland made this significant investment 

and why it would be highly unfair to 

abruptly change the rules at this point. 

After it became apparent that the oil 

would be used for domestic purposes 

only, proponents of constructing the 

pipeline made a very strong case for 

the benefits such a pipeline would have 

for the U.S. maritime industry, and in 

particular their expectation that the 

various components of the maritime 

industry would play a vital role in accomplishing the broad national objectives that construction of a trans-Alaska pipeline was designed to achieve. 

Commerce Secretary Maurice H. 

Stans was in the forefront of Nixon administration officials in advocating approval of the pipeline. In addressing 

the Seafarers International Union of 

North America in June 1973, Secretary 

Stans said the pipeline would help revive U.S. maritime strength. A transCanada pipeline was an option being seriously considered at that time, and 

Secretary Stans argued to the group 

that a pipeline across Canada would 

‘‘eliminate all the great maritime opportunities that the Alaska line would 

provide.’’ The Seafarers agreed and approved resolutions endorsing the transAlaska route and another resolution 

re-endorsing the Jones Act. 

Andrew Gibson, Assistant Secretary 

of Commerce for Maritime Affairs, visited Portland, OR, in May 1973, and 

made the following remarks to the Propeller Club, a group of maritime interests: 

We have estimated that with the completion of the Alaska Pipeline, a fleet of approximately 30 new U.S. tankers would be 

added to the American merchant marine to 

transport the oil from southern Alaska to 

the West Coast. The construction of these 

vessels at an estimated cost of $1 billion 

would give an added stimulus to our shipbuilding industry and would provide approximately 48,000 man-years of work in the U.S. 

shipyards and allied industries. Manning and 

maintaining these vessels would create many 

additional permanent maritime jobs, while 

the estimated annual operating and maintenance cost of $30 million would provide added 

employment in the related service industries. 

The debates in Congress added further substance to the understanding 

that the maritime industry was being 

called upon to play an important role 

in the success of the trans-Alaska pipeline. The assumption that this supply 

was for domestic use only is pervasive. 

Congressman YOUNG made the case in 

the House: 

In the maritime industry, 35 tankers will 

be employed in the fleet required for transporting the oil to the west coast ports. Twenty-seven of these ships remain to be constructed. It has been estimated by the Maritime Administration that the construction 

of these ships will create 73,500 man-years of 

labor in shipyards and supporting industries. 

Maintenance of the fleet will generate 770 

permanent jobs in the Nation’s shipyards. 

In the Senate, Senator STEVENS made 

a similar statement: 

The trans-Alaska pipeline will particularly 

aid several vital American industries which 

are currently depressed. For example, the 

American maritime and shipbuilding industry will be helped greatly. Alaskan oil must 

be carried in American-bottom ships under 

the Jones Act. At least 27 new tankers must 

be constructed; 73,480 man-years of shipyard 

employment will be created; 3,800 permanent 

jobs will be created to run and maintain this 

new, modern tanker fleet. This will result in 

more than $1.0 billion for America’s shipbuilding industry. This is an industry that 

has, for some time, been at a competitive 

disadvantage because of lower costs from 

foreign competition. 

As I read these statements, I can well 

understand why the citizens of Portland believed they were being given assurances that there would be continuity if they stepped forward to participate in this new venture of national 

importance. To now lift the export restriction and ask the taxpayers of 

Portland to take a $50 million loss on a 

shipyard that is now of questionable 

utility is imposing a great unfairness. 

This is an unfairness that I cannot 

allow. 

Mr. President, I suggest the absence 

of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I inquire of the chair and also the floor 

managers. What is the pending business of the Senate? I would like to 

make some comments on bill S. 395. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

pending question is the Murkowski 

amendment 1078 to S. 395. 

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, is it in 

order for me to engage in debate on the 

pending legislation at the present 

time? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is. 

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, with 

that understanding, I would like to 

make some comments on S. 395. 

Mr. President, I rise in support of the 

provision included in S. 395 which 

would lift the ban on the export of the 

Alaskan North Slope crude oil so long 

as such oil is carried on U.S.-flag vessels. 

This amendment would reduce our 

trade imbalance and raise $99 to $180 

million in revenues for the U.S. Treasury. It would also create an additional 

10,000 to 25,000 new jobs and would certainly spur domestic energy production. 

In 1973, Mr. President, shortly after 

the first Arab oil boycott, Congress 

adopted this ban, and since then the 

domestic and world energy markets 

have dramatically and significantly 

changed. Today, the export ban diminishes our energy security because it artificially depresses wellhead prices on 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 15, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6675 

the west coast, making it uneconomic 

for domestic oil producers to invest in 

marginal operations. 

Mr. President, a Department of Energy study confirms that lifting the 

ban on Alaskan crude oil would improve domestic energy security by encouraging domestic exploration activities. DOE estimates that domestic production will increase between 100,000 

and 110,000 barrels a day if the ban is 

lifted. 

In addition to increasing domestic 

production, this bill will also help to 

stabilize the decline in the size and vitality of the domestic merchant marine. 

By authorizing the exports of Alaskan oil on U.S.-flag vessels, we can 

help preserve a vital element of our domestic merchant marine, and we can 

do so without subsidies from the American taxpayer and without measurably 

increasing any risk to the environment. 

Mr. President, in 1990, Congress overwhelmingly supported enactment of 

the Oil Pollution Act. That legislation 

ultimately will require all oceangoing 

tankers plying our waters to be built 

or rebuilt with a double hull. It already 

ensures that American flag and foreign 

flag tankers will continue to be subject 

to the same strict safety requirements. 

And since December 28 of last year, it 

has imposed substantial financial responsibility requirements for all tankers entering U.S. waters. 

Last year, the Department of Energy 

conducted an extensive study of the 

likely effects, including likely environmental implications, of changing the 

current law. The Department, and I 

quote: 

Found no plausible evidence of any direct 

negative environmental impact from lifting 

the ANS export ban. 

By and large, Mr. President, the 

same U.S.-built, U.S.-owned, and U.S.- 

crewed vessels that carry Alaskan oil 

to market today will continue to carry 

the crude to market tomorrow with a 

change in policy. The same skilled 

merchant mariners will continue to 

man the vessels. Current Department 

of Defense and Department of Transportation projections indicate that we 

are facing a critical shortage of trained 

mariners capable of manning the ready 

reserve force. This bill will help ensure 

that we will continue to have a reservoir of capably trained mariners sufficient to man our reserve fleet in time 

of national emergency. And our Nation 

will continue to have access to a fleet 

of environmentally safe and militarily 

useful vessels that otherwise are destined to be converted into razor blades. 

By enacting this bipartisan legislation, we can help ensure the continued 

existence of the largest segment of our 

domestic merchant marine. Let us 

demonstrate again that we can work 

together to help promote our energy 

security, our national security, and at 

the same time preserve jobs. 

Mr. President and my colleagues, I 

will just add a couple of remarks and 

point out that again this ban was enacted at a time when this country literally was on its knees from the standpoint of energy requirements. The Middle Eastern oil nations had banded together to form cartels which restricted 

amounts of oil being exported to the 

United States in particular. 

We all remember the long lines that 

occurred in the 1970’s when people had 

to wait in line to buy gasoline for their 

automobiles and vehicles. Everyone in 

America wanted Congress to do something about it. One of the things that 

we did was to say, all right, we are not 

going to allow any of the Alaska North 

Slope oil exported to other countries. 

We are going to keep it right here. 

Mr. President, I think we probably 

acted with some degree of haste in taking that action and in thinking that by 

doing so we were somehow going to increase the domestic production. I think 

in reality we should all understand 

that oil is a commodity which can be 

traded all over the world; that, indeed, 

many ships that are plying the oceans 

filled with oil are sent to different 

ports in the middle of a voyage depending on the need because the price is 

better in one area or the need is greater in another area or for whatever economic determination that is made. 

So the point is that oil is traded on 

the world market according to need 

and price. If we can, indeed, take some 

of the crude oil in Alaska and sell it at 

a better price in overseas markets, we 

should be allowed to do that. The price 

return will allow greater domestic production in areas of the United States 

where that production can occur. 

I am a Senator from the State of 

Louisiana. I have nothing to do with 

oil, of course, that is produced in Alaska. But I think this is good policy for 

my State, for the State of Alaska, and 

indeed for all of the States in the 

United States. I think it will increase 

production, and it will not do damage 

to any part of our Nation. It is good 

economic energy policy for the future 

of our country. 

Mr. President and my colleagues, I 

hope we would move on this. It should 

be relatively noncontroversial. I know 

some Members have legitimate concerns, and they will be heard, but I 

think we should move forward, debate 

the issue, vote on this legislation, and 

ultimately we should adopt it as good 

energy policy. 

Having said that, Mr. President, seeing no one else seeking recognition at 

the moment, I would suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been noted. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk proceeded to call the 

roll. 

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

GRAMS). Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, I further 

ask unanimous consent to proceed as if 

in morning business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

MORE POLICE ON THE STREETS 

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, I rise 

this afternoon to continue my discussion of the crime bill that I intend to 

introduce this Wednesday. 

As I previously pointed out, there are 

really two basic questions that we need 

to address in the area of crime whenever we try to determine whether a 

crime bill is good or whether it is not 

good, whether it does the job or whether it does not do the job. 

The first question is: What is the 

proper role of the Federal Government 

in fighting crime in this country? The 

second is: What really works in law enforcement? What matters? What does 

not matter? 

Last Wednesday, I discussed these 

issues with specific reference to 

crimefighting technology. The conclusion I reached was that we have an outstanding technology base in this country that does a great deal and will continue to do a great deal to help us 

catch criminals. 

Technology, Mr. President, does in 

fact matter. But we need the Federal 

Government to be more proactive, 

more proactive in getting the States on 

line with this technology. Having a terrific national criminal record system 

or a huge DNA database or an automated fingerprint system or huge DNA 

database for convicted sex offenders in 

Washington, DC, is great; it is nice. 

But it will not do much good if the police officer in Hamilton, OH, or Middletown, OH, or Cleveland, OH, cannot tap 

into it, cannot put the information in, 

and cannot get the information back 

out. 

My legislation would bring these 

local police departments on line. It 

would help them to contribute to and 

benefit from the emerging nationwide 

crimefighting database. 

On this past Thursday, I discussed 

what we have to do to get armed career 

criminals off the streets, those who 

terrorize us, terrorize their fellow citizens with a gun. I talked about a program called Project Triggerlock that 

targeted gun criminals for Federal 

prosecution. My legislation would 

bring back Project Triggerlock and 

toughen the laws on gun crimes in 

many other significant ways. We have 

to get these armed criminals off the 

streets. 

On Friday, I talked about the long 

neglected needs of crime victims. In 

too many ways, our legal system treats 

criminals like victims and victims like 

criminals. We have to stop that. My 

legislation contains a number of provisions that would make the system 

much more receptive to the rights and 

the needs of crime victims. 

Today, I would like to turn to another item. I would like to talk about 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS