```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 81 (Tuesday, May 16, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6736-S6742]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

       ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION ASSET SALE AND TERMINATION ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
        [[Page S6737]] Amendment No. 1106 to Amendment No. 1104

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Washington intend to 
amend the Murkowski amendment?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I believe it is the intention of the Senator from 
Washington to propose an amendment to the Murkowski amendment. Is that 
the intention of the Senator from Washington?
  Mrs. MURRAY. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1106 to Murkowski amendment No. 1104.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the pending amendment add the following new 
     section:
       Title VI of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-380; 
     104 Stat. 554) is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 6005. TOWING VESSEL REQUIRED.

       ``(a) In General.--In addition to the requirements for 
     response plans for vessels established in section 311(j) of 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by this 
     Act, a response plan for a vessel operating within the 
     boundaries of the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary or 
     the Strait of Juan de Fuca shall provide for a towing vessel 
     to be able to provide assistance to such vessel within six 
     hours of a request for assistance. The towing vessel shall be 
     capable of--
       ``(1) towing the vessel to which the response plan applies;
       ``(2) initial firefighting and oilspill response efforts; 
     and
       ``(3) coordinating with other vessels and responsible 
     authorities to coordinate oilspill response, firefighting, 
     and marine salvage efforts.
       ``(b) Effective Date.--The Secretary of Transportation 
     shall promulgate a final rule to implement this section by 
     September 1, 1995.''.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  We have been working this afternoon with the Senators from Alaska on 
the bill before us. One of our main concerns has been the environmental 
issues in Puget Sound in my home State of Washington.
  I appreciate all of the work that the Senator from Alaska has done in 
helping to meet one of our concerns on this bill.
  The amendment in front of us requires that a vessel be in Puget Sound 
that is paid for by the industry so we can assure that the vessels 
which come into Puget Sound are escorted through the Straits of Juan de 
Fuca.
  I thank the Senator from Alaska and his committee for all their work 
on this and urge its adoption.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. May I respond, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I appreciate the cooperative effort as evidenced by 
the Senator from Washington. It has been a pleasure working with her 
staff, and we do accept the amendment.
  I think it is a tribute to the Senator from the State of Washington 
for addressing obviously an environmental need, and I feel confident 
that her contribution by this amendment will ensure a greater degree of 
safety associated with the movement of oil from my State to her 
refinery. As a consequence, we are pleased to accept the amendment.
  Mrs. MURRAY. One of my main concerns is vessel safety. I want to make 
certain all vessels transporting oil through the strait of Juan de Fuca 
or Olympic Coast Marine Sanctuary are properly escorted.
  Under my amendment, the Oil Pollution Control Act would be modified 
to require response plans for such vessels to provide emergency 
response within at least 6 hours. This would be a vast improvement over 
the status quo.
  However, my State including the Office of Marine Safety, conservation 
groups, and the Makah Indian nation, would like to see an even shorter 
response time.
  It is my understanding that under this amendment, the State and other 
parties would have the flexibility to negotiate an arrangement that 
would ensure a response time of 4 hours or fewer. Specifically, the 
State would be able to arrange stationing an emergency response tug 
boat at Neah Bay.
  If the State, tribe, and tanker operators agree, the Coast Guard 
under my amendment, should modify the response plans accordingly.
  Does the chairman concur in this interpretation?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes, I have reviewed the language and agree.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there others who want to be heard? If not, 
the question is on agreeing to the amendment No. 1106.
  So the amendment (No. 1106) was agreed to.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                Amendment No. 1107 to Amendment No. 1104

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1107 to amendment No. 1104.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 2, of the pending amendment, insert after line 12 
     the following:
       (C) shall consider after consultation with the Attorney 
     General and Secretary of Commerce whether anticompetitive 
     activity by a person exporting crude oil under authority of 
     this subsection is likely to cause sustained material crude 
     oil supply shortages or sustained crude oil prices 
     significantly above world market levels for independent 
     refiners that would cause sustained material adverse 
     employment effects in the United States.
       On page 3, insert after line 12 after the word 
     ``implementation;'': ``including any licensing requirements 
     and conditions,''.
       On page 4, line 2, after ``President'' insert ``who may 
     take''.
       On page 4, line 3, after ``modification'' insert ``or 
     revocation''.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as you know, I have very strong 
reservations about the exports of Alaskan North Slope oil. I am 
concerned about jobs in my State, the price of oil to consumers across 
our Nation, and the environmental impact lifting this ban may produce. 
However, after a day of negotiation, I am pleased to offer several 
amendments en bloc to the bill that the chairman has agreed to. These 
en bloc amendments will ensure a full review of export impacts.
  They mandate that the President, along with the Attorney General and 
the Department of Commerce, will review environmental impacts, consumer 
price increases, and anticompetitive practices that would hurt 
independent refineries and shipyards who employ thousands in my region.
  I believe we have come far to negotiate this agreement that now 
speaks first for the people of the Pacific Northwest before the 
exporting of this oil begins.
  I thank the chairman for his work in moving toward this amendment.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my understanding we had an 
opportunity to review the amendment and, indeed, the amendment is in 
order, as suggested by the Senator from Washington. I am well aware of 
her concern for her own economic activity associated with Alaskan oil.
  We find the amendment satisfactory. I am pleased to accept it at this 
time. It does meet with satisfaction the terms and conditions which we 
agreed to mutually.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there other Senators who want to be heard 
concerning this amendment? If not, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment No. 1107 to amendment No. 1104.
  The amendment (No. 1107) was agreed to.
  [[Page S6738]] Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the 
vote by which the amendment was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and the chairman of the 
committee who has worked diligently with me this afternoon. One of my 
main concerns regarding this proposal to export ANS relates to the 
supply of Alaskan crude to the Tosco refinery at Ferndale. As I 
understand it, Tosco has 3 years and 8 months remaining on a supply 
agreement with BP. I want assurance that BP will honor the contract.
  I have asked BP to provide me with that assurance, and today I 
received a letter from the president of BP Oil Shipping Co., Steve 
Benz, promising to honor the existing contract with Tosco's refinery at 
Ferndale.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print a copy of the letter 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                             BP America, Inc.,

                                                     May 16, 1995.
     Hon. Patty Murray,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Murray: I am sensitive to your concerns 
     regarding the supply agreement for Alaska North Slope crude 
     oil that BP has with the TOSCO refinery at Ferndale, 
     Washington. While we are under a strict confidentiality 
     agreement with respect to the details of that arrangement, I 
     want to give you my assurance that BP will fully honor the 
     terms and conditions of our current supply agreement with 
     TOSCO for the Ferndale, Washington refinery. This guarantees 
     that BP will be a supplier of Alaska North Slope crude oil to 
     the TOSCO Ferndale refinery through 1998.
       I hope that this letter satisfies any remaining concerns 
     you may have regarding security of supply to TOSCO.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Steve Benz,
                                       President, BP Oil Shipping.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I also ask the distinguished chairman of 
the Energy Committee if he can also assure me that he will do 
everything in his power to assure that adequate supplies of Alaskan 
North Slope crude continue to be made available to the Tosco refinery.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I fully understand and appreciate the 
concern of the Senator from Washington in this area. I can assure you, 
based on information that I have from British Petroleum and others, a 
security of supply to the Northwest independent refiners will not be a 
problem.
  I can assure the Senator, if there are supply disruptions, I will 
personally work with her and other Members of the Washington delegation 
to address that problem to the very best of my ability.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska and would 
just like to notify him that I am working on one more statement for the 
Record, a few more words to say, and I appreciate all of the work and 
help he has been in working toward this agreement.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I withhold that request.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I just would like to express my 
gratitude to the chairman of the committee, the Senator from Alaska 
[Mr. Murkowski]. I suppose Mr. Murkowski's diligence and perseverance 
again proves the old adage that, if you stick with a problem or an 
issue, you get it resolved with patience and forbearance. Certainly, 
the Senator has demonstrated both those qualities.
  I also want to express my appreciation for the staff. I do not know 
an issue I have dealt with for a period of time that has not 
incorporated more staff than this one, and they have all been most 
cooperative. Staff of committee, personal office staff people, staff of 
my colleagues, like the Senator from Washington State--all of the 
staff--really, again, demonstrated the superiority of our professional 
staff people, both in the offices and on the committees as well.
  So I would like to thank the Senator for his cooperation in resolving 
one of my problems.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I can respond to my friend from Oregon, his 
particular reference to patience is one that I have had an opportunity 
to observe, as the Senator from Oregon has displayed this as chairman 
of the Appropriations Committee, both as ranking member and as 
chairman, for as long as I have been in this body, some 15 years.
 And he has accumulated an extraordinary ability in negotiation, using 
both his historical interest of this body as well as a history of many 
of our Presidents and his patience and oftentimes humor in moving along 
problems and has led me to view him with admiration and respect. I am 
particularly appreciative of his comments today.

  Mr. President, I am not sure. If I may make an inquiry of the Senator 
from Washington, is it her intention to make another statement, or are 
we perhaps waiting? I did not hear the last reference.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I am waiting to clear a colloquy with the Senator's 
staff which should be done very shortly.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wonder whether I might ask my 
colleague from Alaska a question. I am assuming that my colleague 
intends to go to a vote very soon, is that correct?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Minnesota is correct. I anticipate 
that we are within 3 or 4 minutes of calling for third reading and a 
recorded vote.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I wonder whether I could simply take a minute to speak 
before the final vote. My colleague has the floor, so I will wait until 
he is done.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am sure it will be more than a minute or a couple of 
minutes, but I will yield for that purpose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I just had a chance to come to the 
floor now, and I had anticipated that this debate could go on through 
tomorrow. I understand that, for a variety of different reasons, we are 
going to go to final vote. I want to go on record--and I will have a 
more complete statement--I believe that this piece of legislation is 
misguided. I am in profound disagreement with it. The particular 
problem I have is that now when we open up the exporting of the oil, I 
think we get back to all of the ways in which we as a nation still are 
so dependent upon the imports.
  I worry about this being essentially the first step toward opening up 
oil drilling at Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I want to simply say 
that I think, for some very basic important environmental reasons, this 
piece of legislation is mistaken. I also have some concerns about the 
basic environmental safety reasons that have to do with the shipping of 
this oil across the sea. I do not know exactly what protection has been 
built in. All in all, I think it is a mistake. I have to say to you, 
Mr. President, that my only regret is that I was at another meeting 
dealing with a piece of legislation that I have been working on for a 
couple of years.
  So I was not able to be here during some of the debate and now do not 
really have time to lay out on the floor a full statement or be 
involved in a full debate.
  I hope colleagues will vote against this. I hope colleagues will vote 
against this, I think, on very solid environmental grounds. I hope 
colleagues will vote against this understanding that I think this is 
the first step toward opening up ANWR. We went through this last 
Congress. It was very contentious. Maybe it was the Congress before, 
when I first came to the Senate. We actually had a filibuster against 
oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I think that is 
where we are heading with this legislation. I think it is part of the 
effort to get there.
  I have appreciation for my colleague from Alaska on a personal level. 
I know him to be incredibly hard working, and he cares fiercely about 
his State. I am in profound disagreement with this. I hope we will have 
some strong ``no'' votes.
  [[Page S6739]] I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. 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.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. 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. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my intent to advise Senators that 
we will be calling for a rollcall vote and I will be calling for third 
reading.
  I do want to thank my friend from the State of Washington, Senator 
Murray, for her concern over the aspects affecting her State with 
regard to the oil that comes down from my State of Alaska.
  I also want to thank Senator Boxer for her questions and concerns 
reflected in colloquy.
  I want to thank Senator Johnston for his contribution and concern, 
and particularly with reference to the inclusion of deep water royalty, 
which is part of this legislation which I think will benefit--certainly 
lessening our dependence on imported oil and, as a consequence, relieve 
substantially our balance of payments by developing our own domestic 
supply which is so well supported in the Gulf of Mexico and the State 
of Louisiana and others.
  I want to thank my senior colleague, Senator Stevens. Certainly 
Senator Hatfield has been most cooperative. I am also very sensitive to 
his concern regarding his shipyard, as well as concern for the 
shipyards in California. Senator Feinstein has also been very 
cooperative.
  I want to recognize the staff of Senator Johnston, our own staff, 
Gregg Renkes, Andrew Lundquist, Gary Ellsworth, Jim Beirne, Howard 
Useem, Mike Poling, and others.
  If I may just for a moment reflect on a little bit of how I look at 
this legislation as an Alaskan and how my constituents view it. I think 
it marks another advance in the policies made by the Federal Government 
to Alaska when we accepted the statehood compact back in 1959. Thirty-
six years is a long time to wait for the action that is about to be 
taken today. I think it is certainly historically significant for 
Alaska, if this legislation carries.
  We have done some significant things. We have authorized the sale of 
the Alaska Power Administration, the Eklutna hydro project, to the 
municipality of Anchorage. That has been 40 years in the making. It was 
first proposed back in 1955. It has been 7 years under the stewardship 
of Senator Stevens and myself.
  The sale of the Snettisham hydro project to the State of Alaska, and 
the Alaska Power Administration, of course, is also authorized. That 
has been pending for over 10 years.
  It is my hope, Mr. President, that my colleagues will join me in 
acting favorably on this bill. This action by the Senate, if it is 
passed, will ultimately--assuming that it receives the support of the 
House of Representatives--allow the export of Alaskan oil.
  That is the oil that is excess currently on the west coast, oil that 
used to go through the Panama Canal. This action, I might add, is 
supported by the administration and the President and with the 
concurrence of this body and, hopefully, the House of Representatives.
  Now for the very first time Alaskan oil can look forward to a truly 
free market. While perhaps we Alaskans are still not free from the 
Federal yoke, some of the load has been lifted from the shoulders of 
Alaska, if this passes today. And perhaps this marks a favorable sign 
for the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1104) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Senate is now considering an 
amendment to provide for payment of a certain sum generated by this 
legislation to retire the debt incurred by citizens of the city of 
Portland, OR, to construct the largest floating drydock on the west 
coast. On June 1, 1977, Portland taxpayers financed this investment 
based in large part on the commitment made to keep this Alaska North 
Slope oil supply for domestic production oil only.
  Alaska oil exploration and the congressional commitment to the 
prohibition on the export of Alaska North Slope crude oil were crucial 
factors in Portland's decision to expand its publicly owned maritime 
repair facility. No drydocks on the west coast were large enough to 
handle the new Alaskan oil ships either in operation or under 
construction. Unless this infrastructure deficiency was remedied, these 
vessels would have had to be repaired in foreign shipyards and U.S. 
jobs would be lost.
  Based on the Federal assurances that this oil was for domestic use 
only and the encouragement by Federal officials for Portland to step 
forward to be part of the infrastructure team required to move this oil 
from the end of the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline to the lower 48 States, 
local voters in Portland strongly supported the expansion of the 
Portland Ship Repair Yard to accommodate these very large oil carrying 
vessels and approved an $84 million bond measure. My amendment is 
intended to cover the remaining debt on these bonds dated June 1, 1977. 
After that significant investment, drydock 4 came on line, adding a 
vital component to the stated Federal plan for transporting Alaskan oil 
to domestic markets. Maintaining a ban on the export of this production 
was an integral part of the agreement to allow construction of the 
Trans-Alaska Pipeline, and the citizens of Portland reasonably relied 
upon this agreement.
  The bill before us today would reverse this 22-year-old commitment, 
to the great detriment of the substantial investments made by the 
citizens of Portland, OR. If the damaging impact on the Portland Ship 
Repair Yard of exporting Trans-Alaska Pipeline crude oil has not been 
made perfectly clear prior to this date, I would like to share with my 
colleagues an article that appeared in the Portland Oregonian today. 
The article reports that Todd Pacific Shipyards Corp. has withdrawn its 
application to become the sole contractor at the Portland Ship Repair 
Yard. One of the primary concerns noted by Todd in announcing its 
withdrawal was congressional action to lift the Alaska oil export ban.
  My amendment seeks to address the unfairness lifting the ban would 
impose on the taxpayers of Portland. The amendment would require 
payments from the naval petroleum reserve, a primary beneficiary of the 
increased revenues that the Congressional Budget Office has judged will 
result from this legislation. These payments would go toward retirement 
of the $50 million in outstanding bonded debt incurred by the taxpayers 
of Portland to acquire Drydock No. 4. An additional $10 million would 
be made available to improve the shipyard to meet the new market 
conditions in the maritime industry that will result from the repeal of 
this longstanding export ban. This amendment is consistent with the 
pay-as-you-go budget rules currently in force.
  This amendment will keep faith with the citizens of Portland in the 
face of this dramatic change in Federal policy to allow Alaskan oil 
exports. I thank the Senator from Alaska and others for working with me 
to achieve this important provision to ensure the taxpayers of Portland 
are treated fairly.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, section 202 of the substitute amendment to 
S. 395 requires that the administration complete an appropriate 
environmental review. Does this mean that National Environmental Policy 
Act applies to this bill.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes, the Senator is correct, the National 
Environmental Policy Act applies to this bill.
  Section 202 specifically provides that the President ``shall conduct 
and complete an appropriate environmental review'' of a proposed 
exportation.
  In addition he must consider appropriate measures to mitigate any 
potential adverse effect on the environment.
  There is no waiver, repeal, or change to any Federal, State, or local 
environmental law, rule or regulation, including the National 
Environmental Policy Act.
  There will be full compliance with all applicable environmental 
provisions.
  Mrs. BOXER. Another matter that concerns me is the recent audit that 
was performed on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline by BLM that raised several 
concerns about maintenance and management of the pipeline. Is the 
Bureau 
[[Page S6740]] of Land Management in fact following through with the 
oversight of the repairs and maintenance of TAPS, and as the chairman 
of the Energy Committee, how are you going to ensure that in fact the 
concerns raised by the audit in fact will be addressed.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. In testimony before the House Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations, on November 10, 1993, the chief 
executives representing the three major owners of the Trans-Alaska 
Pipeline System [TAPS] made specific commitments to correct the 
problems identified by the various audits of TAPS. Richard Olver of BP 
stated, ``. . . I commit to you today to provide the necessary human 
resources that are required to put this plan into place and to back 
that up about [sic] all the necessary and appropriate financial 
resources.''
  The owners have reaffirmed this commitment on several occasions as 
demonstrated by the number of human and financial resources they have 
provided Alyeska since those hearings. This commitment was reaffirmed 
again in meetings that Alyeska and the TAPS owners had just last week 
with various Congressmen, Senators, and staff in Washington, DC.
  The most apparent example of the owners commitment is the $220 
million spent to address audit findings in 1994 with an additional $80 
million being spent on findings this year. By the end of 1995, 85 to 90 
percent of the audit findings will have been addressed. By December 
1996 all but a handful of the audit items will have been resolved. 
Plans are in hand to address outstanding long lead issues, that is, 
control systems.
  Furthermore BLM has continual and direct oversight of TAPS as a 
condition of the right-of-way. BLM can in fact shut down the pipeline 
if the oil producers violate the right-of-way agreement and the 
violations lead to an imminent threat to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline.
  When these repairs required by the audit are completed at the end of 
1996, as the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources, I will 
request the BLM to report to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee on whether the concerns raised by the audit have been 
adequately addressed.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I would like to commend the Senators from 
Alaska, Senator Murkowski and Senator Stevens for their work on the 
bill before us today. This bill accomplishes many good things for the 
State of Alaska and is the culmination of years of work by both these 
Senators on behalf of their State.
  I am pleased, after many years of effort, that the restrictions on 
the export of Alaskan oil will be lifted. This legislation represents 
an effort to provide for new economic opportunities for the people of 
Alaska. New job opportunities will be created which will strengthen 
industries directly and indirectly related to this effort. The bill 
also provides for a review of the effects of the export sales on 
consumers, shippers, and other domestic oil producers. We need to 
continue to look for ways to assist domestic oil production and ensure 
that our efforts for production only work to benefit consumers and our 
domestic industry. This legislation shows what can be accomplished when 
individuals share common goals for a strong economy.
  In addition, authorization for the sale of the Alaskan Power 
Administration is a positive step forward for the State of Alaska. I 
believe there is a need to continue to look at opportunities such as 
this, where Federal Government activities can be better accomplished on 
the State, local, or private level.
  I am pleased to join with my colleagues in support of this 
legislation.
Keeping the alaskan north slope oil ban--U.S. dependence on foreign oil

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for the 
Senator from Alaska and I honor his diligent effort to do what is in 
the best interests of his great State. I must however oppose this 
legislation for the reason that I strongly believe it would be damaging 
to U.S. jobs and national security.
  Mr. President, 22 years ago, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization 
Act of 1973 permitted the building of a pipeline from the North Slope 
producing fields to Valdez. Through an amendment to section 28 of the 
Mineral Leasing Act, Congress placed strict prohibitions on exporting 
Alaskan oil due to the energy crisis.
  Mr. President, in 1992, this Senate addressed the Nation's 
overreliance on foreign oil and voted 94 to 4 to reduce the Nation's 
dependence on imported oil in order to provide for the energy security 
of the Nation. I have always opposed lifting the Alaskan North Slope 
[ANS] oil export ban for two reasons: national energy security and the 
protection of U.S. jobs.
  Mr. President, since 1973 when the ban was enacted, things have 
dramatically changed--for the worse in terms of our energy dependence. 
The situation is not improving. During the early 1970's, the United 
States imported roughly 22 percent of our total oil consumption; in 
1990, imported oil accounted for 39 percent of our oil consumption. The 
Energy Information Administration recently forecasted that our 
dependence on foreign oil will exceed 60 percent by the year 2010. 
Considering the current situation in the Middle East, specifically with 
regard to Iran, our Nation's continued reliance on foreign oil 
constitutes a serious threat to our national security as well as to our 
economy.
  Mr. President, Iran is a terrorist regime intent on aggression in the 
gulf. In the past few weeks reports have surfaced suggesting that the 
regime is stationing more troops, Hawk missiles, and chemical weapons 
in the Straits of Hormuz. Mr. President, this represents a major threat 
to the flow of oil to the West. It is clear to all, that the disruption 
of the flow of oil could be devastating.
  It is because of the nature of the Iranian threat that I introduced 
two pieces of legislation, S. 277 and S. 630, which effectively place a 
total United States trade embargo on Iran, in the case of the first 
bill, and a global embargo in the second bill. The President's recent 
Executive order effectively implements my first bill and is a positive 
step toward cutting off Iran, but we have more to do.
  When we conduct business with Iran, we are subsidizing Iran's 
terrorist activities with hard currency. Because of this, we have to 
cut off our purchases of Iranian crude. Because of the nature of the 
Iranian, Iraqi, and Libyan regimes, we are currently closed out of 10 
percent of the world's oil production by Iran, Iraq, and Libya. Iran's 
actions in the Middle East may result in a further reduction in our 
access to oil from this region. The volatile Middle East situation only 
makes our country's supply of domestically produced oil more essential.
  Mr. President, not only is our heavy dependence on foreign oil 
dangerous but it also damages our economy. Boone Pickens, president of 
Mesa, Inc., of Dallas, TX, testified before the Committee on Foreign 
Relations, on March 27, 1995, that,

       The two oil shocks of the 1970's reduced U.S. gross 
     national product by 3.5 percent, increased unemployment by 2 
     percent, increased interest rates by 2-3 percent, and added 3 
     percent to the general rate of inflation.

  He added that,

       Taken together, the combined impact of these effects on the 
     U.S. economy in the decade following the 1973 Arab oil 
     boycott totaled $1.5 trillion!

  Mr. President, lifting the ANS oil export ban would not only export 
oil, it would also export U.S. jobs. Current statutory restrictions on 
oil exports result in the employment of U.S.-built, U.S.-manned 
vessels--that is Jones Act tankers--to
 transport most ANS crude. Under U.S. law, Jones Act tankers must be 
built in the United States and manned with American crews. However, if 
ANS exports were allowed, the oil would probably be transported to the 
Far East on U.S.-flag, non-Jones Act ships. U.S.-flag vessels can be 
foreign-built and transferred to U.S. registry. Foreign subsidies make 
it cheaper to build ships abroad than in U.S. yards with American 
workers.

  The consequences of Alaska oil exports to the Jones Act tanker fleet 
would be devastating. ANS exports would result in approximately 20 
Jones Act tankers being scrapped and roughly 651 seagoing jobs lost. 
Against this structural collapse, there would be a modest offset of 
about 225 new American seagoing jobs on six foreign-built very large 
crude carriers operating under the U.S. flag from Alaska to Japan in 
export service.
  The most significant development in the likely ANS export proposal 
would 
[[Page S6741]] be the ability to transport Alaska oil on foreign built 
tankers. This change would accomplish a longstanding objective of North 
Slope producers who want to avoid replacing their Jones Act fleets in 
the United States due to the higher costs of domestic construction. If 
such export authority were granted, ever-increasing volumes of Alaska 
oil would be carried to the Far East on foreign built bottoms, thereby 
eliminating the need to construct replacement tonnage in U.S. yards. 
Prospective employment losses resulting from ANS exports are estimated 
to be 7,500 U.S. shipbuilding and allied industry jobs.
  Mr. President, exporting ANS crude oil would also be catastrophic to 
the west coast ship repair business. Negative consequences are certain 
to result because foreign sales of Alaska oil will: First, reduce the 
overall size of the ANS fleet as well as the number of vessels that 
must be repaired; and second, make it economically attractive for all 
U.S. tankships employed in Alaska oil service to have repairs done in 
less expensive yards located in the Far East.
  A study concluded that removing the statutory restrictions on the 
export of Alaska North Slope crude oil will cause the loss of 10,000 
U.S. jobs in the maritime shipyard sector alone. Thus, exporting ANS 
crude will result in measurable harm to this important sector at the 
very time domestic shipyards are attempting to make the difficult 
transit from Navy to commercial construction.
  The U.S. ban on ANS oil exports was done to ease the country's 
dependence on foreign oil. Today, however, the United States is more 
dependent on foreign oil than in 1973. Lifting this ban would only 
serve to increase our vulnerability to blackmail by Iran, who could use 
oil to hold the United States and the world hostage. Moreover, the 
United States can ill-afford to ship United States produced oil 
elsewhere when we are trying to compensate for the loss of Iranian, 
Iraqi, and Libyan oil. Lifting the ban would export thousands of jobs 
to foreign countries. It is imperative that we keep the ban on ANS oil 
exports for the sake of U.S. jobs and our national security.
  For these reasons, I must respectfully disagree with the honorable 
Senator from Alaska and oppose his legislation, S. 395.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern--my 
profound concern and disquiet--about what appears to be a campaign to 
rush a bill through the Senate, and by so doing deprive this body--and 
the American people--of a full and sober accounting of what this bill 
would do.
  Of course, I am referring to Senate bill 395, the Alaska Power 
Administration Asset Sale and Termination Act. And right there in the 
title--``Asset Sale''--we have what this bill is all about. Let me be 
blunt; this bill is about one thing: Selling off as much of America's 
strategic natural resources as fast as we can in the interest of 
chasing a quick buck.
  I understand there are important issues in this bill that deserve 
discussion--and I have been prepared to have that discussion here on 
the Senate floor. It should be a complete and thorough discussion and 
clearly we are not in a position to do that now.
  Mr. President, the Senate is about to begin work on one of the most 
critically important tasks that it has--that is the debate over the 
budget. The Sunday talk shows and newspaper opinion columns recently 
have been filled with news about the budget--the programs that may get 
cut, the poor and underserved who will suffer under those cuts, how 
much the rich would get even richer under certain tax-cut proposals. I 
am reasonably sure that all my colleagues, like myself, are spending 
most of their time these days in preparation for the budget debate--and 
well they should.
  That is precisely why, Mr. President, I am puzzled--and troubled--
that the majority leader should at this particular moment have brought 
Senate bill 395 up for consideration. It is not like the Senate has not 
been working steadily--for example, as soon as we finished up what was 
a rigorous debate on product liability reform, we turned to the 
important matter of interstate waste disposal which we have just 
reached agreement on. And its not as if this bill were one that could 
be easily or quickly disposed of--for it should not.
  Mr. President, I may wonder out loud about the timing of bringing 
this bill up at this time. With the media and most Member's attention 
focused on more important matters--the Nation's budget--is now the time 
to move on a bill that will send American oil overseas? Because that is 
exactly what this bill will do--by lifting the long held ban on 
exporting Alaskan oil, it will allow the oil companies to take American 
oil and sell it to the highest bidder overseas.
  Is now the time to move on a bill that will increase pressure to open 
up one of the only remaining pristine wilderness areas in the United 
States--the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--to big oil and gas 
drilling? Because that is exactly what this bill will do--it will 
deplete our national oil reserves by sending American oil to other 
countries, and increase the pressure to open up the ANWR. The 
distinguished Senator from Alaska and bill author Senator Murkowski 
admitted as much when he told the Anchorage Daily News on February 20 
of this year that if we do not open up the ANWR, ``the oil on the West 
Coast is going to come from Colombia and it is going to come in on 
foreign vessels.'' And even yesterday on the floor, my distinguished 
colleague again said that lifting the export ban will increase pressure 
to open up new potential fields for drilling.
  Mr. President, is now the time to move on a bill that could make the 
United States even more dependent on foreign oil? At time when this 
country is importing record amounts of oil, is now the time to move on 
a bill that would likely increase our oil imports? Does that sound like 
a long-term strategy to make the United States more secure, more 
prepared, more energy-independent? I do not think so.
  Mr. President, what is being asked for here is a special exemption 
just for the state of Alaska. By law, no State--let me repeat, no 
State--may export oil unless it is found to be in the national interest 
to do so. Is exporting Alaskan oil in the Nation's best interest? On 
this matter I prefer to recall the words of my distinguished colleague, 
the senior Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens]. In response to a 
question, Senator Stevens on the floor of this body on July 12, 1973, 
said: ``I will assure the Senator from New Hampshire that so long as I 
am in the Senate, I will oppose the sale of Alaska's oil to Japan.'' 
The position of the distinguished Senator from Alaska was correct then, 
and it is correct now.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of S. 395, 
title II, which would allow for the first time the export of Alaska 
North Slope crude oil to foreign markets.
  Mr. President, I have struggled long and hard over this bill. 
Constituents from my State have mixed views on the benefits of 
exporting ANS crude oil abroad.
  After discussing this bill with all affected parties and weighing the 
pros and cons, I am convinced that this legislation, as now drafted, 
satisfies the problems that have been identified and, on balance, 
presents a win-win solution.
  Let me briefly go over the concerns I have had, including the 
possible impacts on jobs, on crude oil supplies for the west coast, and 
on the environment.

                                  jobs

  First, for this legislation to be a success, it must not eliminate 
jobs in one place while adding them somewhere else. That is why I 
support its requirement that any ANS crude exported abroad must be 
carried in American-flagged and American-crewed ships. Otherwise, crude 
oil that now comes to American refineries in American ships would 
instead be going to overseas refineries in foreign ships.
  But I am also concerned that the ships carrying this crude be built 
in American yards. While I understand why such a requirement cannot be 
included in this bill, I have received assurances from BP America, the 
company that is most likely to be exporting the crude overseas, that it 
is committed to building any new ships needed for this trade in 
American yards. I received the following letter from BP America on this 
issue:

                                [[Page S6742]] 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.-flagged, 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 Company, USA.

                              oil supplies
  Second, the loss of ANS crude oil supplies from the west coast of the 
United States must not create a situation where gasoline prices at the 
pump go up in our western States, or where our western refineries that 
now depend on this crude oil supply must close their doors because they 
are unable to replace it at a reasonable cost.
  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. If not, he is to make 
recommendations to Congress. Further, the bill requires that the GAO 
conduct a broader assessment of the impacts of the export of ANS crude 
after 5 years, including gasoline prices at the pump, and make any 
recommendations necessary.

                          ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

  Third, I have been concerned that passage of this legislation could 
increase pressure for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
and off the west coast of the United States. The administration has 
assured me that it will oppose such drilling, and that this is an issue 
that is totally separate from whether or not ANS crude should be 
exported.

                                BENEFITS

  Now, Mr. President, let me turn to the dramatic benefits the export 
of ANS crude offers. The current law provides that all ANS crude be 
shipped to American refineries. This creates an artificial surplus in 
crude oil supplies on the west coast, which depresses the price that 
refineries are willing to pay for alternative sources of supply, such 
as the heavy crude oil pumped in Kern County, CA.
  Independent oil producers in Kern County have laid off thousands of 
workers over the past decade, and shut down many wells. Eliminating the 
federally mandated oil glut on the west coast will raise the price paid 
for Kern County crude and make its production viable once again. The 
Department of Energy estimates that this will generate from 5,000 to 
15,000 new jobs very quickly, with as many as 10,000 to 25,000 by 
decade end, most of which will be in Kern County.
  As you know, Mr. President, California still has not joined the rest 
of the United States in a full recovery from the recession of 1990. 
Unemployment has remained particularly high in California's Central 
Valley, caused in part by dramatic fluctuations in annual rainfall, but 
also by the steady decline in employment and production in the Kern 
County fields.
  So, in conclusion, Mr. President, I am pleased to state my support 
for this legislation, which will provide net positive benefits to our 
merchant marine, our independent oil producers, and the companies 
pumping ANS crude, while providing protection through periodic 
evaluation of its impacts for our shipyards and our independent 
refiners.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask that the bill be read for the 
third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there are no further amendments to be 
proposed, the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the 
bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third time and was read 
the third time.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I 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 bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall it pass?
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 74, nays 25, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 170 Leg.]

                                YEAS--74

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--25

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     D'Amato
     Dodd
     Exon
     Feingold
     Gorton
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Biden
       
  So the bill (S. 395), as amended, was passed, as follows:
  (The text of the bill will be printed in a future edition of the 
Record.)
  The title was amended so as to read:

       To authorize and direct the Secretary of Energy to sell the 
     Alaska Power Administration, and to authorize the export of 
     Alaska North Slope crude oil, and for other purposes.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                   Modification of Amendment No. 1105

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that 
amendment 1105 previously adopted by the Senate be modified to conform 
to the language which I now send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The modification is as follows:

       At the end of amendment No. 1104, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC.   . RETIREMENT OF CERTAIN COSTS INCURRED FOR THE 
                   CONSTRUCTION OF NON-FEDERAL PUBLICLY OWNED 
                   SHIPYARDS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Energy shall--
       (1) deposit proceeds of sales out of the Naval Petroleum 
     Reserve in a special account in amounts sufficient to make 
     payments under subsections (b) and (c); and
       (2) out of the account described in paragraph (1), provide, 
     in accordance with subsections (b) and (c), financial 
     assistance to a port authority that--
       (A) manages a non-Federal publicly owned shipyard on the 
     United States west coast that is capable of handling very 
     large crude carrier tankers; and
       (B) has obligations outstanding as of May 15, 1995, that 
     were dated as of June 1, 1977, and are related to the 
     acquisition of non-Federal publicly owned dry docks that were 
     originally financed through public bonds.
       (b) Acquisition and Refurbishment of Infrastructure.--The 
     Secretary shall provide, for acquisition of infrastructure 
     and refurbishment of existing infrastructure, $10,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 1996.
       (c) Retirement of Obligations.--The Secretary shall 
     provide, for retirement of obligations outstanding as of May 
     15, 1995, that were dated as of June 1, 1977, and are related 
     to the acquisition of non-Federal publicly owned dry docks 
     that were originally financed through public bonds--
       (1) $6,000,000 in fiscal year 1996;
       (2) $13,000,000 in fiscal year 1997;
       (3) $10,000,000 in fiscal year 1998;
       (4) $8,000,000 in fiscal year 1999;
       (5) $6,000,000 in fiscal year 2000;
       (6) $3,500,000 in fiscal year 2001; and
       (7) $3,500,000 in fiscal year 2002.
       

                          ____________________
```