S6730 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 16, 1995

spent than does the President of the

United States, the U.S. Attorney General or this Senator or this body.

Under the proposal contained in my

crime legislation, local government officials will get Federal money, and

what they do with it will be up to

them. They will be able to spend that

money based on local needs, local concerns, local priorities.

Yesterday, I discussed my proposal to

pay for extra police officers in the

highest crime areas in America. The

250 most crime-infested areas in America are eligible under my bill for police

funding. Other areas, areas that are not

included in the list of the 250 worst

crime areas, may decide, if they wish,

that they need extra police officers. If

that is the case, they may choose to

spend the dollars they get from this $7

billion local flexibility fund to pay for

the extra police officers. My bill allows

them that flexibility. They can use the

money to hire, train, and employ these

police officers, maybe put them out on

the street. They can use it to pay overtime for police officers that they already have which, frankly, may, depending on the jurisdiction and the economics involved, be the best use of

the funds. Or they can use it to buy

extra technology that is already covered in this bill. They can use it to beef

up school security, either by deploying

extra police or adding measures like

metal detectors. They can use it to establish and run crime-prevention programs like Neighborhood Watch and

citizen patrol programs and programs

to combat domestic violence and juvenile crime. They can use it to establish

early intervention and prevention programs for juveniles to reduce or eliminate crime.

There was a vigorous debate last year

about the issue of crime prevention.

One thing I have learned in my years in

local law enforcement is that even

more than most programs crime prevention programs really have to be

grown locally to be effective.

When you travel Ohio, as I have done,

or Minnesota, or Wisconsin, and you

look at crime prevention programs, I

suspect in other States you find what I

have found in Ohio, and that is the

quality of those programs depends

upon the local people. It depends on

who is running the program, the dedication of that particular individual.

This is not something that Washington

can take a cookie cutter and duplicate,

replicate across the country. They

have to be grown locally.

It is clear that we have to go after

those also who have chosen a life of

crime. We have to apprehend them. We

have to convict them. But we also have

to reach out to the young people who

are at risk in this country. We have to

reach out to them before—before—they

embark on a life of crime.

The best ideas on how to do this are

not in Washington, DC, surprisingly. It

is not with Government bureaucrats, in

Washington. It is, rather, locally. Government bureaucrats in Washington,

Mr. President, do not know the kids in

Greene County, OH. Do you know who

does? The people in Greene County—

Jerry Irwin, our county sheriff; the

county prosecuting attorney, Bill

Schenck. I could go on and on. That is

why I wish to empower people such as

County Sheriff Jerry Irwin, or County

Prosecutor Bill Schenck through this

proposal.

Mr. President, to mandate a prevention program from Washington, DC, is

absurd. Let us trust the people on the

ground, the local law enforcers who

know the young people in their communities.

In conclusion, Mr. President, let me

say there is a basic insight that the

American people imparted to all of us

last November. I hope we heard the

message. That message was fairly simple and basic, that Government is best

which is closest to the people.

I have worked to incorporate this

basic principle into the legislation that

I will be introducing tomorrow.

ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION

At this time, I yield the floor.

ASSET SALE AND TERMINATION

fACT

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.

AMENDMENT NO. 1078 WITHDRAWN

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I

withdraw my amendment No. 1078 at

this time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right and the amendment

is so withdrawn.

The amendment (No. 1078) was withdrawn.

AMENDMENT NO. 1101

(Purpose: To provide for the energy security

of the Nation through encouraging the production of domestic oil and gas resources

in deep water on the Outer Continental

Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico, and for other

purposes)

Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I

send an amendment to the desk and

ask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will report the amendment.

The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. JOHNSTON], for himself, Mr. MURKOWSKI, and Mr.

BREAUX, proposes an amendment numbered

1101.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that reading of the

amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

ABRAHAM). Without objection, it is so

ordered.

The amendment is as follows:

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert

the following as a new Title III:

‘‘TITLE III: OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF

DEEP WATER ROYALTY RELIEF

SEC. 301.—This Title may be referred to as

the ‘‘Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water

Royalty Relief Act’’.

SEC. 302. AMENDMENTS TO THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS ACT.—Section 8(a) of

the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, (43

U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)), is amended by striking

paragraph (3) in its entirety and inserting

the following:

‘‘(3)(A) The Secretary may, in order to—

‘‘(i) promote development or increased production on producing or non-producing

leases; or

‘‘(ii) encourage production of marginal resources on producing or non-producing

leases; through primary, secondary, or tertiary recovery means, reduce or eliminate

any royalty or net profit share set forth in

the lease(s). With the lessee’s consent, the

Secretary may make other modifications to

the royalty or net profit share terms of the

lease in order to achieve these purposes.

‘‘(B)(i) Notwithstanding the provisions of

this Act other than this subparagraph, with

respect to any lease or unit in existence on

the date of enactment of the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act

meeting the requirements of this subparagraph, no royalty payments shall be due on

new production, as defined in clause (iv) of

this subparagraph, from any lease or unit located in water depths of 200 meters or greater in the Western and Central Planning

Areas of the Gulf of Mexico, including that

portion of the Eastern Planning Area of the

Gulf of Mexico encompassing whole lease

blocks lying west of 87 degrees, 30 minutes

West longitude, until such volume of production as determined pursuant to clause (ii)

has been produced by the lessee.

‘‘(ii) Upon submission of a complete application by the lessee, the Secretary shall determine within 180 days of such application

whether new production from such lease or

unit would be economic in the absence of the

relief from the requirement to pay royalties

provided for by clause (i) of this subparagraph. In making such determination, the

Secretary shall consider the increased technological and financial risk of deep water development and all costs associated with exploring, developing, and producing from the

lease. The lessee shall provide information

required for a complete application to the

Secretary prior to such determination. The

Secretary shall clearly define the information required for a complete application

under this section. Such application may be

made on the basis of an individual lease or

unit. If the Secretary determines that such

new production would be economic in the absence of the relief from the requirement to

pay royalties provided for by clause (i) of

this subparagraph, the provisions of clause

(i) shall not apply to such production. If the

Secretary determines that such new production would not be economic in the absence of

the relief from the requirement to pay royalties provided for by clause (i), the Secretary

must determine the volume of production

from the lease or unit on which no royalties

would be due in order to make such new production economically viable; except that for

new production as defined in clause (iv) (aa),

in no case will that volume be less than 17.5

million barrels of oil equivalent in water

depths of 200 to 400 meters, 52.5 million barrels of oil equivalent in 400–800 meters of

water, and 87.5 million barrels of oil equivalent in water depths greater than 800 meters.

Redetermination of the applicability of

clause (i) shall be undertaken by the Secretary when requested by the lessee prior to

the commencement of the new production

and upon significant change in the factors

upon which the original determination was

made. The Secretary shall make such redetermination within 120 days of submission of

a complete application. The Secretary may

extend the time period for making any determination or redetermination under this

clause for 30 days, or longer if agreed to by

the applicant, if circumstances so warrant.
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6731

The lessee shall be notified in writing of any

determination or redetermination and the

reasons for and assumptions used for such

determination. Any determination or redetermination under this clause shall be a final

agency action. The Secretary’s determination or redetermination shall be judicially

reviewable under section 10(a) of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 702,

only for actions filed within 30 days of the

Secretary’s determination or redetermination.

‘‘(iii) In the event that the Secretary fails

to make the determination or redetermination called for in clause (ii) upon application

by the lessee within the time period, together with any extension thereof, provided

for by clause (ii), no royalty payments shall

be due on new production as follows:

‘‘(I) For new production, as defined in

clause (iv)(I) of this subparagraph, no royalty shall be due on such production according to the schedule of minimum volumes

specified in clause (ii) of this subparagraph.

‘‘(II) For new production, as defined in

clause (iv)(II) of this subparagraph, no royalty shall be due on such production for one

year following the start of such production.

‘‘(iv) For purposes of this subparagraph,

the term ‘new production’ is—

‘‘(I) any production from a lease from

which no royalties are due on production,

other than test production, prior to the date

of enactment of the Outer Continental Shelf

Deep Water Royalty Relief Act; or

‘‘(II) any production resulting from lease

development activities pursuant to a Development Operations Coordination Document,

or supplement thereto that would expand

production significantly beyond the level anticipated in the Development Operations Coordination Document, approved by the Secretary after the date of enactment of the

Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty

Relief Act.

‘‘(v) During the production of volumes determined pursuant to clauses (ii) or (iii) of

this subparagraph, in any year during which

the arithmetic average of the closing prices

on the New York Mercantile Exchange for

light sweet crude oil exceeds $28.00 per barrel, any production of oil will be subject to

royalties at the lease stipulated royalty

rate. Any production subject to this clause

shall be counted toward the production volume determined pursuant to clause (ii) or

(iii). Estimated royalty payments will be

made if such average of the closing prices for

the previous year exceeds $28.00. After the

end of the calendar year, when the new average price can be calculated, lessees will pay

any royalties due, with interest but without

penalty, or can apply for a refund, with interest, of any overpayment.

‘‘(vi) During the production of volumes determined pursuant to clause (ii) or (iii) of

this subparagraph, in any year during which

the arithmetic average of the closing prices

on the New York Mercantile Exchange for

natural gas exceeds $3.50 per million British

thermal units, any production of natural gas

will be subject to royalties at the lease stipulated royalty rate. Any production subject

to this clause shall be counted toward the

production volume determined pursuant to

clauses (ii) or (iii). Estimated royalty payments will be made if such average of the

closing prices for the previous year exceeds

$3.50. After the end of the calendar year,

when the new average price can be calculated, lessees will pay any royalties due,

with interest but without penalty, or can

apply for a refund, with interest, of any overpayment.

‘‘(vii) The prices referred to in clauses (v)

and (vi) of this subparagraph shall be

changed during any calendar year after 1994

by the percentage, if any, by which the implicit price deflator for the gross domestic

product changed during the preceding calendar year.’’

SEC. 303. NEW LEASES.—

Section 8 (a)(1) of the Outer Continental

Shelf Lands Act, as amended, (43 U.S.C.

1337(a)(1)) is amended as follows:

(1) Redesignate section 8(a)(1)(H) as section

8(a)(1)(I); and

(2) Add a new section 8(a)(1)(H) as follows:

‘‘(H) cash bonus bid with royalty at no less

than 12 and 1⁄2 per centum fixed by the Secretary in amount or value of production

saved, removed, or sold, and with suspension

of royalties for a period, volume, or value of

production determined by the Secretary.

Such suspensions may vary based on the

price of production from the lease.’’

SEC. 304. LEASE SALES.—For all tracts located in water depths of 200 meters or greater in the Western and Central Planning Area

of the Gulf of Mexico, including that portion

of the Eastern Planning Area of the Gulf of

Mexico encompassing whole lease blocks

lying west of 87 degrees, 30 minutes West longitude, any lease sale within five years of the

date of enactment of this title, shall use the

bidding system authorized in Section

8(a)(1)(H) of the Outer Continental Shelf

Lands Act, as amended by this title, except

that the suspension of royalties shall be set

at a volume of not less than the following:

(1) 17.5 million barrels of oil equivalent for

leases in water depths of 200 to 400 meters;

(2) 52.5 million barrels of oil equivalent for

leases in 400 to 800 meters of water; and

(3) 87.5 million barrels of oil equivalent for

leases in water depths greater than 800 meters.

SEC. 305. REGULATIONS.—The Secretary

shall promulgate such rules and regulations

as are necessary to implement the provisions

of this title within 180 days after the enactment of this Act.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that Senator MURKOWSKI be added as a cosponsor to this

amendment, and that David Applegate,

a fellow of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, be given privileges

of the floor during pendency of this

amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I ask unanimous

consent that Senator BREAUX be added

as a cosponsor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, gross

oil imports to the United States today

are over 50 percent, and they are scheduled to be over 60 percent by the year

2010. For this reason, in February of

this year, President Clinton announced

the President’s finding that the Nation’s growing reliance on imports of

crude oil and refined petroleum products threaten the Nation’s security because of the increased vulnerability of

U.S. oil supply disruptions.

This being the problem, how do we

solve it at a time of growing deficits,

at a time of money shortage, at a time

when we have no money to apply to

any kind of energy technology? The

way we do it, Mr. President, is by this

amendment, which provides that with

respect to existing leases in the Gulf of

Mexico in over 200 meters of water,

where the development expenses are

very, very great and where wells otherwise would not be drilled unless given

some incentive, there be a discretionary incentive given for both existing leases and new leases according to

a carefully worked out formula,

worked out with the Department of the

Interior.

Mr. President, when I say it is discretionary, it is discretionary in that the

Secretary of the Interior must analyze

all of these leases and with respect to

any lease which he determines would

otherwise be drilled, there is no incentive given, there is no royalty holiday

given. It is only with respect to those

leases that would not otherwise be

drilled, either existing or future leases,

that this amendment would provide

that incentive.

So it is for this reason this amendment has been scored as costing zero

by CBO and, as a matter of fact, it

would make money for the American

taxpayer and for the budget because,

obviously, if you have a lease that otherwise would not be drilled, which is

drilled, it has positive economic impact from the salaries paid to the

workers by the oil company to drill the

well, and if oil is found, then there is

royalty to be paid even with the royalty holiday because the royalty holiday is not complete.

This was worked out last year with

the Secretary of the Interior. It took

us a long time to work out the formulas, the amount of the incentive.

The Secretary of the Interior wanted

the amount of the incentive to be sufficient but not too much. That took a

lot of negotiating. The whole matter of

negotiation took a long period of time.

After working it out last year, we introduced the legislation this year as S.

158. The administration has testified on

this in an affirmative way. It is a piece

of legislation that is going to make

money for the Treasury and is going to

help our energy balance.

According to the Department of the

Interior, it should bring on at least two

new fields with approximately 150 million barrels of oil equivalent from existing leases and it significantly improves the economics of 10 to 12 possible and probable fields.

As we know, Mr. President, the OCS

in the Gulf of Mexico has been the

United States’ most promising region

for new discoveries. In 1993, 98 percent

of new crude oilfields and 76 percent of

new gasfields discovered in the United

States were in the Gulf of Mexico.

So, Mr. President, this is a way to

offset that $46 billion of deficits which

is attributable to net energy imports.

It is 40 percent of the total U.S. merchandise deficit of $116 billion. For this

reason, Mr. President, I think this is

an excellent amendment backed by the

administration which will help our energy balance a great deal.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Bob Armstrong,

Assistant Secretary of the Interior,

backing this amendment be printed in

the RECORD.

There being no objection, the letter

was ordered to be printed in the

RECORD, as follows:
S6732 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 16, 1995

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,

Washington, DC, May 16, 1995.

Hon. J. BENNETT JOHNSTON,

Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR JOHNSTON: I understand

that you intend to offer an amendment to S.

395 to provide Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)

deep water royalty relief to leases in the

Central and Western Gulf of Mexico.

We support this amendment and believe it

is consistent with the Administration’s objectives with respect to OCS exploration and

development in the Gulf of Mexico. The deep

water areas of the Gulf contain some of the

most promising exploration targets in the

United States, but industry confronts substantial economic and technological challenges in bringing them into production. The

responsible and orderly development of these

resources is truly in the national interest.

The Office of Management and Budget has

advised that it has no objection to the presentation of these views from the standpoint

of the Administration’s program.

Sincerely,

BOB ARMSTRONG,

Assistant Secretary.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I

suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum having been suggested, the clerk will call the roll.

Mr. GRAMS. 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. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise

today to support the measure before us

lifting the 22-year-old export restrictions on domestic crude oil produced

on Alaska’s North Slope.

I commend my distinguished colleague from Alaska, the chairman of

the Energy and Natural Resources

Committee, for bringing this legislation to the floor.

Clearly, the time has come for Congress to repeal an outdated law that no

longer serves its intended purpose.

When the export restrictions on Alaskan crude oil were originally enacted,

many people believed that the legislation would enhance our long-term energy security.

Today, however, we know that restricting the export of Alaskan crude

oil has actually weakened our Nation

by undermining our initiative to explore and develop new energy resources, and that is keeping us ever

more dependent on foreign oil imports.

Some 77 percent of this country’s energy consumption is supplied by the oil

and gas industry. Yet, the Department

of Energy projects that crude oil production will continue to decline over

the next decade.

Last year, our Nation imported over

half our domestic oil requirements. By

the year 2005, the United States will be

nearly 70 percent dependent on imported oil—not because consumption is

on the rise, but because domestic production continues to fall.

Every drop of oil that is produced by

somebody else eventually adds up to a

flood of lost U.S. jobs. Three hundred

thousand oil-related jobs have been

lost in the United States since 1985—

the steepest decline in U.S. history.

With oil production decreasing by 21⁄4

million barrels every day, more job

losses are surely ahead.

Of course, decreased production

means that revenues are down as well—

down, in fact, by more than $50 billion

in the last decade.

To add insult to injury, the U.S. petroleum industry has been forced to

look beyond American borders when it

comes to oil production. We are now

putting 65 percent of our exploration

and production dollars into projects

overseas, at a loss to the U.S. economy

of $16 billion annually.

Within the last few years, Congress

has consistently rejected regulatory

policies that foolishly try to constrain

and control the natural flow of goods

and services. But there is much more

that Congress can do to improve the

climate for domestic oil production.

To that end, S. 395 seeks to replace a

failed energy policy with a new strategy based on free-market principles.

I am not suggesting that S. 395 will

solve this Nation’s oil production woes,

but it will have a positive, lasting impact.

Nearly every region of the country

stands to benefit from lifting the export restrictions on Alaskan crude oil.

First and foremost, it would mean new

U.S. jobs.

The Department of Energy estimates

that if the export restrictions on Alaskan crude oil are lifted, as many as

16,000 new jobs would be created immediately. Up to 25,000 new jobs are likely

by the end of the decade.

Lifting the export restrictions would

increase oil production in California

and Alaska by as much as 110,000 barrels per day.

This legislation will stimulate oil exploration and development in the oilfields of Alaska and California, boosting the economy along the west coast

and enhancing our national long-term

energy strategy.

The bill also ensures that the U.S.

merchant marine will maintain its traditional role of transporting Alaskan

crude oil. This provision protects existing U.S. jobs by requiring that exported Alaskan crude oil be carried on

American-crewed, American-flag tankers.

Mr. President, history has taught us

that free markets—not protectionism—

make our Nation more secure. With

this lesson in mind, I strongly urge my

colleagues to join in the bipartisan effort to lift the ban on exports of Alaskan crude oil.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the

Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, unless there is no other Senator seeking

recognition, I ask that the amendment

pending by the Senator from Louisiana

be agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

further debate on the amendment?

If not, the question is on agreeing to

the amendment.

The amendment (No. 1101) was agreed

to.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I

move to reconsider the vote by which

the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to lay that

motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was

agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I

congratulate the chairman of the committee, the Senator from Alaska, on

his good work on the Alaska North

Slope bill, the underlying bill. It is an

excellent bill. It will give much more

efficiency to our production and sale of

crude oil, and I think that it is definitely in the interest of the United

States. Now that we have the merchant

marine problem worked out, I think it

will be in the interest of everyone and

I urge all Senators to adopt the underlying bill.

I thank the Senator for his help on

this deep water bill.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I

appreciate the comments of my good

friend from Louisiana, and he is my

friend. I have had the pleasure of working with him for some 15 years. A significant portion of that time he was

chairman of the Energy and Natural

Resources Committee. I work with him

now, and I think the amendment just

adopted is going to be a significant

stimulus to ensuring that we are less

dependent on imported oil by enhancing exploration and, hopefully, development in areas that otherwise might

prove economically prohibitive to the

industry.

With the amendment just adopted by

the Senator from Louisiana, why, we

have enhanced our industry’s ability to

be competitive in the production of oil.

I commend him for his effort and that

of his staff, and I am very pleased that

we adopted the amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, what

is the pending business?

AMENDMENT NO. 1102

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if I

may, I have an amendment which I

send 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 Alaska [Mr. MURKOWSKI]

proposes an amendment numbered 1102.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. 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:

Strike Title I and insert in lieu thereof a

new Title I.

‘‘TITLE I

‘‘SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

‘‘This title may be cited as the ‘‘Alaska

Power Administration Asset Sale and Termination Act’’.
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6733

‘‘SEC. 102. SALE OF SNETTISHAM AND EKLUTNA

HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS.

‘‘(a) The Secretary of Energy is authorized

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

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

February 10, 1989, Snettisham Purchase

Agreement, as amended, between the Alaska

Power Administration of the United States

Department of Energy and the Alaska Power

Authority and the Authority’s successors.

‘‘(b) The Secretary of Energy is authorized

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

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

Power, the Chugach Electric Association,

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

‘‘Eklutna Purchasers’’), in accordance with

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

Eklutna Purchase Agreement, as amended,

between the Alaska Power Administration of

the Unites States Department of Energy and

the Eklutna Purchasers.

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

of the Interior, shall assist the Secretary of

Energy in implementing the sales authorized

and directed by this Act.

‘‘(d) Proceeds from the sales required by

this title shall be deposited in the Treasury

of the United States to the credit of miscellaneous receipts.

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

prepare, survey, and acquire Eklutna and

Snettisham assets for sale and conveyance.

Such preparations and acquisitions shall provide sufficient title to ensure the beneficial

use, enjoyment, and occupancy by the purchaser.

‘‘SEC. 103. EXEMPTION AND OTHER PROVISIONS.

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

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

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

amended.

‘‘(2) The exemption provided by paragraph

(1) does not affect the Memorandum of

Agreement entered into among the State of

Alaska, the Eklutna Purchasers, the Alaska

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

fish and wildlife, dated August 7, 1991, which

remains in full force and effect.

‘‘(3) Nothing in this title or the Federal

Power Act preempts the State of Alaska

from carrying out the responsibilities and

authorities of the memorandum of Agreement.

‘‘(b)(1) The United States District Court

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

Memorandum of Agreement and to enforce

the provisions of the Memorandum of Agreement, including the remedy of specific performance.

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

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

Agreement or challenging actions of any of

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

shall be brought not later than ninety days

after the date on which the Program is

adopted by the Governor of Alaska, or be

barred.

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

later than ninety days after the challenged

act implementing the Program, or be barred.

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

Agreement:

‘‘(1) The Secretary of the Interior shall

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

the Eklutna Purchasers—

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

‘‘(B) to remain effective for a period equal

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

‘‘(C) sufficient for the operation of, maintenance of, repair to, and replacement of,

and access to, Eklutna facilities located on

military lands and lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, including lands

selected by the State of Alaska.

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

ownership, the Bureau of Land Management

may assess reasonable and customary fees

for continued use of the rights-of-way on

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

with existing law.

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

of the Interior determines that pending

claims to, and selections of, those lands are

invalid or relinquished.

‘‘(4) With respect to the Eklutna lands

identified in paragraph 1 of Exhibit A of the

Eklutna Purchase Agreement, the State of

Alaska may select, and the Secretary of the

Interior shall convey to the State, improved

lands under the selection entitlements in

section 6 of the Act of July 7, 1958 (commonly referred to as the Alaska Statehood

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

amended), and the North Anchorage Land

Agreement dated January 31, 1983. This conveyance shall be subject to the rights-of-way

provided to the Eklutna Purchasers under

paragraph (1).

‘‘(d) With respect to the Snettisham lands

identified in paragraph 1 of Exhibit A of the

Snettisham Purchase Agreement and Public

Land Order No. 5108, the State of Alaska may

select, and the Secretary of the Interior

shall convey to the State of Alaska, improved lands under the selection entitlements in section 6 of the Act of July 7, 1958

(commonly referred to as the Alaska Statehood Act, Public Law 85–508, 72 Stat. 339, as

amended).

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

the sales authorized in section 102 have occurred, as measured by the Transaction

Dates stipulated in the Purchase Agreements, the Secretary of Energy shall—

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

out, the Alaska Power Administration;

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

‘‘(3) return unobligated balances of funds

appropriated for the Alaska Power Administration to the Treasury of the United States.

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

repealed effective on the date, as determined

by the Secretary of Energy, that all Eklutna

assets have been conveyed to the Eklunta

Purchasers.

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

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

date, as determined by the Secretary of Energy, that all Snettisham assets have been

conveyed to the State of Alaska.

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

of the Department of Energy Organization

Act (42 U.S.C. 7152(a)) is amended—

‘‘(1) in paragraph (i)—

‘‘(A) by striking subparagraph (C); and

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

(E), and

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

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

the Alaska Power Administration’’ and by

inserting ‘‘and’’ after ‘‘Southwestern Power

Administration,’’.

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

water resources investigation in Alaska (69

Stat. 618), is repealed.

‘‘(j) The sales of Eklutna and Snettisham

under this title are not considered disposal

of Federal surplus property under the Federal Property and Administrative Services

Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 484) or the Act of October 3, 1944, popularly referred to as the ‘‘Surplus Property Act of 1944’’ (50 U.S.C. App.

1622).

‘‘(k) The sales authorized in this title shall

occur not later than 1 year after the date of

enactment of legislation defining ‘first use’

of Snettisham for purposes of section 147(d)

of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, to be

considered to occur pursuant to acquisition

of the property by or on behalf of the State

of Alaska.’’.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President,

this is an amendment with regard to

technical language associated with

title I.

AMENDMENT NO. 1103 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1102

(Purpose: To make clear that the authorization of sale of hydroelectric projects under

section 102 has no relevance to any proposal to sell any other hydroelectric

project or the power marketing administrations)

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, on

behalf of Senator DASCHLE, I send an

amendment to the desk, which is a second-degree amendment to this existing

amendment. This amendment states in

its entirety as follows:

Congress declares that—

(1) the circumstances that justify authorization by Congress of the sale of hydroelectric projects under section 102 are unique

to those projects and do not pertain to other

hydroelectric projects or to the power marketing administrations of the 48 contiguous

States; and

(2) accordingly, the enactment of section

102 should not be understood as lending any

support to any proposal to sell any other hydroelectric project or the power marketing

administrations.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will report the amendment.

The assistant legislative clerk read

as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. JOHNSTON], for Mr. DASCHLE, proposes an amendment numbered 1103 to amendment No. 1102.

Mr. JOHNSTON. 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:

At the end of the pending amendment insert the following:

SEC. . DECLARATION CONCERNING OTHER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS AND THE

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS.

Congress declares that—

(1) the circumstances that justify authorization by Congress of the sale of hydroelectric projects under section 102 are unique

to those projects and do not pertain to other

hydroelectric projects or to the power marketing administrations in the 48 contiguous

States; and

(2) accordingly, the enactment of section

102 should not be understood as lending support to any proposal to sell any other hydroelectric project or the power marketing administration.
S6734 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 16, 1995

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I offer

an amendment to S 395, the Alaska

Power Administration Sale Act, to

make explicit that this legislation does

not in any way set a precedent for the

sale of any other Federal power marketing administrations.

My colleague from Alaska makes a

strong case for the sale of the Alaska

Power Administration. As I understand

the situation, the congressional delegation and the Governor of Alaska support the sale, and the proposal enjoys

broad public support.

As we concentrate on this bill and

this sale, it is important to keep in

mind that there is a broader discussion

taking place in the Congress over the

sale of other Federal power administrations, and the case for those sales is by

no means as clear cut as that in Alaska.

While the privatization of the Alaska

PMA is supported in Alaska, there is

strong public opposition to the sale of

PMA’s located in the lower 48 States.

Moreover, the sale of the Alaska PMA

involves a relatively small sum of

money, only $83 million. This is a manageable investment for the State. It ensures that Alaskans will be able to purchase the PMA assets and that the purchase will not cause rates to rise substantially.

This is not the case with the proposed sale of PMA’s in the lower 48

States, where far greater sums of

money are at stake and where the sale

likely would lead to significant rate increases.

In South Dakota, the Western Area

Power Administration, which markets

power from the main stem dams along

the Missouri River, has ensured a consistent and affordable supply of electricity. The program is being run on a

sound financial basis, as it recovers all

expenses relating to its annual operation and the initial construction expenses, with interest. Under the current system, rates are set at the lowest

possible cost, consistent with sound

business principles, and to ensure that

these financial objectives are met.

If this power marketing administration is sold, then it is likely that rates

will increase substantially. The assets

could well be purchased by out-of-State

financial interests, who likely will set

rates to maximize profit. Electric rates

for existing Federal power customers

will rise as a result. South Dakotans

and customers from other States

served by power marketing administrations will pay higher costs for power,

and much of that money will go to the

out-of-State financial interests who

bankroll these purchases.

The Western Area Power Administration is a program that works. It provides affordable power to states like

South Dakota, and it does so without

any subsidy. The Federal Government

gets a return on its investment. In

short, it is an unquestioned success. It

is a program that we should hold up as

an example of how the Federal Government can work for the people and the

national economy.

In conclusion, Mr. President, the sale

of the Alaska Power Administration

should not be viewed as a precedent for

the sale of other power administrations. The situation in Alaska is

unique. It is very different from the

situation with the other PMA’s, such

as Western, where there is strong public opposition to the sale and where

Senators are on record opposing the

sale. I have received well over 10,000

letters in opposition to this sale and 2

in favor of it. And while sheer numbers

can never determine the merits of any

program, I am inclined to believe that

people generally know what is best for

themselves.

Given the almost certain rate increases that would accompany the sale

of the Western Area Power Administration and others in the lower 48, and the

potential for out-of-State ownership

and, thus, the export of State resources, it is not a policy that I can

support. I hope that my colleagues will

be willing to recognize that the Alaska

sale does not set any sort of precedent

for the sale of other power marketing

administrations, and support my

amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I urge adoption of

the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is on agreeing to the amendment.

The amendment (No. 1103) was agreed

to.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I

move to reconsider the vote by which

the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to lay that

motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was

agreed to.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President,

what is the pending business, if I may

inquire of the Chair?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

first-degree amendment No. 1102.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I

urge adoption of the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there

is no further debate, the question is on

agreeing to the amendment No. 1102, as

amended.

The amendment (No. 1102), as amended, was agreed to.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I

move to reconsider the vote by which

the amendment was agreed to, and I

move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was

agreed to.

AMENDMENT NO. 1104

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I

send an amendment to the desk and

ask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will report.

The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. MURKOWSKI]

proposes an amendment numbered 1104.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. 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:

Strike the text of title II and insert the

following text:

‘‘TITLE II

‘‘SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

‘‘This title may be cited as ‘Trans-Alaska

Pipeline Amendment Act of 1995’.

‘‘SEC. 202. TAPS ACT AMENDMENTS.

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

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

‘‘(f) EXPORTS OF ALASKAN NORTH SLOPE

OIL.—

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

of this subsection and notwithstanding any

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

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

unless the President finds that exportation

of this oil is not in the national interest. In

evaluating whether the proposed exportation

is in the national interest, the President—

‘‘(A) shall determine whether the proposed

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

United States; and

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

exportation, including consideration of appropriate measures to mitigate any potential

adverse effect on the environment, within

four months after the date of enactment of

this subsection.

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

after the date of enactment of this subsection or 30 days after completion of the environmental review, whichever is earlier.

The President may make his determination

subject to such terms and conditions (other

than a volume limitation) as are necessary

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

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

country pursuant to a bilateral international

oil supply agreement entered into by the

United States with the country before June

25, 1979, or to a country pursuant to the

International Emergency Oil Sharing Plan of

the International Energy Agency, any oil

transported by pipeline over right-of-way

granted pursuant to this section, shall, when

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

and owned by a citizen of the United States

(as determined in accordance with section 2

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

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

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

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

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

the oil.’’.

‘‘(4) The Secretary of Commerce shall issue

any rules necessary for implementation of

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

Commerce shall consult with the Secretary

of Energy in administering the provisions of

this subsection.

‘‘(5) If the Secretary of Commerce finds

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

oil supply shortages or sustained crude oil

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

material adverse employment effects in the
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6735

United States, the Secretary of Commerce

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

may include modification of the authorization to export crude oil.

‘‘(6) Administrative action with respect to

an authorization under this subsection is not

subject to sections 551 and 553 through 559 of

title 5, United States Code.

‘‘SEC. 203. ANNUAL REPORT.

‘‘Section 103(f) of the Energy Policy and

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

‘‘In the first quarter report for each new

calendar year, the President shall indicate

whether independent refiners in Petroleum

Administration for Defense District V have

been unable to secure adequate supplies of

crude oil as a result of exports of Alaskan

North Slope crude oil in the prior calendar

year and shall make such recommendations

to the Congress as may be appropriate.’’.

‘‘SEC. 204. GAO REPORT.

‘‘The Comptroller General of the United

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

on the West Coast. The Comptroller General

shall commence this review four years after

the date of enactment of this Act and, within

one year after commencing the review, shall

provide a report to the Committee on Energy

and Natural Resources in the Senate and the

Committee on Resources in the House of

Representatives. The report shall contain a

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

‘‘SEC. 205. EFFECTIVE DATE.

‘‘This title and the amendments made by it

shall take effect on the date of enactment.’’.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I

suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.

The bill 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.

AMENDMENT NO. 1105 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1104

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I

send an amendment to the desk and

ask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will report.

The assistant legislative clerk read

as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. MURKOWSKI], for Mr. HATFIELD, proposes an amendment numbered 1105 to amendment No. 1104.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. 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 amendment add the following new section:

SEC. 206. 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 issued on 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 issued on 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.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I

am offering this amendment on behalf

of Senator HATFIELD and respectfully

urge its adoption.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there

is no further debate, the question is on

agreeing to the amendment.

The amendment (No. 1105) was agreed

to.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion

on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was

agreed to.

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. DORGAN. Madam President, I

ask unanimous consent that the order

for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms.

SNOWE). Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I

ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 10 minutes as in

morning business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DORGAN. In the next several

THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

fdays, we will have on the floor of the

Senate a budget resolution. This has

been much discussed and anticipated

because we have had substantial debate

here in the Senate and in the House of

Representatives and in the country as

a whole about the need to deal with

this country’s fiscal policy problems.

No one, I think, will deny that our

country is off track in fiscal policy. We

spend more than we have. We routinely

charge the balance to our children and

grandchildren, and we must change priorities and fiscal policy to balance the

Federal budget.

The Federal budget that we deal with

and the budget resolution coming from

the Budget Committee is a critically

important document. A hundred years

from now, if historians then could look

back 100 years and view us, they could

evaluate our priorities by what we

spent our money on. They can look at

our Federal Government and look at a

$1.5 trillion budget and determine what

was important to us by how we spent

our money. What did we hold dear?

What did we treasure, value, and what

kind of investments did we think were

important? That is what they will be

able to tell about us. That is what is in

the budget resolution. It represents our

priorities, values, and what we think is

important for our country.

A lot of people view this as just politics, just the same old thing, Republican versus Democrat. It is not that at

all. It is much, much more important

than that. It is the establishment of a

set of principles by which we determine

how we spend the public’s money. I recall a story in the Washington Post, I

believe, once where two people were

quoted from Congress and one said—

speaking of some other dispute—‘‘This

has degenerated into an argument

about principle.’’ I thought to myself, I

hope so. That is what this is all about.

That is what the budget resolution

ought to be about.

I was at the White House this morning with a group of my colleagues

meeting with President Clinton. He

made a point about the budget resolution that I happen to agree with, which

is that his problem with the budget

resolution that is going to come to the

floor of the Senate is that the priorities in that budget resolution do not

match the needs of the country.

The budget resolution from the

House of Representatives calls for a

very large tax cut. The benefits of the

tax cut will largely go to the wealthiest in America. If you take a look at

who benefits from the tax break by the

House of Representatives, the numbers

show up like this: If you are a family

earning under $30,000 a year, you get a

tax break of $120. If you are a family

over $200,000 a year in income, you get

a tax break of around $11,000. It is pretty clear who benefits from that kind of

policy.

In order to pay for a very expensive

tax break, the bulk of which goes to

the most affluent Americans, what do

you have to cut in spending to do it?

Well, they cut Medicare. They make it

more expensive for someone to go to

college. They cut education. They

make it more difficult for the elderly

to get health care. They cut earned-income tax benefits for the working poor,

which means higher taxes for the working poor.

I happen to think those priorities do

not match what our needs are. My own

view is we ought not at this point have