S6736 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 16, 1995

a tax cut. I would like to see everybody

pay far less taxes than they now pay.

But the first obligation, I think, for

our country, is to balance the Federal

budget.

I give credit to the budget resolution

and those who framed it because it includes some recommendations that I

support. There is a part of the budget

recommendation that comes to the

floor of the Senate that I think makes

eminent good sense, and I support it. I

say congratulations. I sent 800 billion

dollars’ worth of spending cut recommendations to the Budget Committee. I believe in this. We need to balance the Federal budget, and not with

smoke and mirrors but with real spending cuts in real ways. And, yes, also in

some areas with real revenue. But I believe in some areas you must balance

the Federal budget.

I do not believe, however, with the

kind of deficits we have, the way to

start balancing the Federal budget is

to first start talking about tax cuts. I

understand the Senate budget resolution does not specifically prescribe tax

cuts, but I also understand it specifically sets aside $170 billion to be sent

to the Finance Committee specifically

for cuts. So this budget resolution, like

the House resolution, will accomplish

the same things. It will cut taxes. And

it will pay for that tax cut by providing less for Medicare, by cutting the

earned-income tax credit and therefore

raising taxes on low-income working

families, and by slashing spending for

education, especially the education

money available to help young people

go to college.

I think those priorities are wrong.

There must be spending cuts in a whole

range of areas. Will we have to limit

the rate of growth in Medicare and

Medicaid? Yes, I believe we will, in the

context of reforming the whole health

care system in some reasonable way,

without limiting people’s choice. But

the fact is you cannot continue seeing

skyrocketing health care costs across

the country without some interruption. The Federal budget cannot stand

that, the family budget cannot stand

that, nor can a business budget stand

that. So we must respond to that problem.

But we ought not, under any condition, decide to take several hundreds of

billions of dollars out of Medicare and

Medicaid, both of them, and do that at

least in part so we can give a very big

tax cut to some of the wealthiest

Americans. That makes no sense at all.

I would say, on the issue of education, to the extent anything is important in our country, we must decide

as a country to invest so our kids can

go to school. Investing in education for

our children is an investment in this

country’s future. It yields dividends of

enormous importance to the future of

this country.

So, when we decide we are going to

make a trade here and we are going to

do classic trickle-down economics, and

that means we do not have enough

money to provide for financial help for

somebody going to college, that is a

trade that in my judgment injures our

country’s economy.

Some people say this is new, that

this is reform. This is not new. There is

nothing new about this. This is 15 years

old and it is 50 years old. It is: run an

election, win, write a contract, give tax

breaks for the rich, and have the rest

of us pay for it somehow, with less

medical care and less help for their

kids to go to school and higher taxes

for the working poor. That is not new.

That is Herbert Hoover.

We have been through this before.

Trickle-down economics—that is the

notion where you pour the money in at

the top somehow and, if you make the

top generous enough or affluent

enough, somehow it all trickles down

and rains on everybody else in America.

Another Member who served in this

body many, many years ago described

trickle-down economics. He said it is

the concept that if you feed the horse

some hay, sometime down the road the

sparrows will have something to eat—

trickle-down economics. That is not a

notion that I think makes sense for the

economy engine of this country. Our

goal is not to make the comfortable

more comfortable. It is to provide

working people in this country with

something to make a good living: jobs,

opportunities, education. That is what

drives the American economy. It is not

trickle-down economics, it is percolate-up economics.

I think what we ought to do when we

bring this budget resolution to the

floor of the Senate, I would like to see

on a bipartisan basis for all of us to do

something very serious and very quickly. I would like to see us decide immediately. The first test is to decide to

balance the budget using spending

cuts. Do that. Debate about the priorities, what are the values here, what

are the things we hold dear, what

should we invest in, what about our

children—go through that debate. Set

the tax cuts aside and say, let us not do

tax cuts. Let us just deep six all that

stuff. And then let us do honest, real

spending cuts and balance the Federal

budget.

Then, when we have done that, we

have rolled up our sleeves and done the

honest work, then we can turn to the

other issues. But I think it is wrong to

engage in a political exercise and balance the budget by beginning with a

very large tax cut for the affluent,

which means we must take more from

Medicare for the elderly, more from

programs to help those who want to go

to school, more from the working poor

by scaling back the earned-income tax

credit, and so on. That, in my judgment, is not the right way for this

country to proceed.

I noted some columnists have said

the Democrats in the Chamber do not

seem to be as ambitious in dealing with

the budget deficit as some others. I do

not think we need to take great instruction from columnists about our

interest in deficit reduction. Those of

us who, in 1993, voted on the floor of

this Senate for $500 billion of deficit reduction, some of which was very unpopular, all of which was pretty controversial—those of us who were willing to do that without any help at all,

not even one accidental vote from the

other side of the aisle, do not need lectures about deficit reduction.

I believe in deficit reduction. I am

glad I voted for it in 1993. I will vote for

much more deficit reduction offered by

either side of the aisle. If it is responsible cutting of what represents excesses in the Federal budget, count me

in and sign me up because I am willing

to do it.

Also, as I said, I sent $800 billion in

deficit reduction recommendations to

the Budget Committee, mostly spending cuts, some additional revenue increases, saying: Here is a jump start on

how we ought to do this.

Much of that is in the mark that will

come to the floor by Senator DOMENICI.

And I will support those portions of the

budget. But I do believe the broader

priorities, especially the priorities

these days in something called the

Contract With America, are priorities

that I do not share. We must, it seems

to me, understand how to provide decent health care for our elderly in this

country and we must understand and

make a commitment to provide health

care for those in America who are disadvantaged and who are poor.

That is not something we ought to

debate much about. Yes, we can debate

about how to control costs or how to

bring down the rate of increase. But we

ought not trade off the health care

needs of the elderly or the health care

needs of the American poor with tax

cuts for the most affluent Americans.

That is not a trade that makes sense

for this country.

I hope in the coming week, when we

resolve this budget issue, that we will

on a bipartisan basis decide, in a serious, sober, thoughtful, reflective way,

to honestly cut Federal spending where

we are spending too much; honestly

put this country back on track toward

a balanced budget, and do that first by

spending cuts and not talk about,

again, tax cuts for the most affluent

Americans.

Madam President, I yield the floor

and 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 (Mr.

INHOFE). Without objection, it is so orALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION

dered.

ASSET SALE AND TERMINATION

fACT

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 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.
S6738 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 16, 1995

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.
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 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 payas-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
S6740 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 16, 1995

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
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 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 energyindependent? 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 Americanflagged 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:
S6742 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 16, 1995

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 nonFederal 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.

MORNING BUSINESS

fMr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I

believe there has been a request for a

brief period of morning business. I

would so ask unanimous consent that

Senators wishing to speak in morning

business be allowed to do so.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.