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.
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6743

CIVILIAN MARKSMANSHIP PROGRAM SHOULD BE TERMINATED

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I

rise to bring to my colleague’s attention a copy of a letter I recently received from the Department of Defense

regarding the Civilian Marksmanship

Program.

The letter from Under Secretary of

the Army Joe Reeder responds to a letter I sent recently to Defense Secretary Perry about the Civilian Marksmanship Program. It confirms my

longstanding belief that the time has

come for the Congress to terminate

this program once and for all. The letter says ‘‘* * * the Army gets no direct

benefit from the program’’ and that

there is ‘‘* * * no discernible link’’ between the program and our Nation’s

military readiness. It goes on to say,

‘‘Last year and again last week, DOD

repeatedly has conveyed to Congress

that, while it will continue to administer the program as directed by Congress, it will also continue to support

legislation ending the program.’’

This letter, Mr. President, is not a

plea to the Congress to save a program

that enhances our military readiness

and national security. To the contrary.

It is an invitation to terminate the

program. I ask unanimous consent that

a copy of the letter be printed in the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD at the end of

my statement.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

(See exhibit 1)

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President,

recent press reports indicate that

members of extremist militia groups in

this country, which may pose a threat

to public safety, may be gaining access

to military bases and receiving weapons, ammunition, and training at

Army facilities under the auspices of

the Civilian Marksmanship Program.

In one article, I learned that the leader

of the Michigan-based militia group

told ABC’s ‘‘Prime Time Live’’ that he

had access to U.S. military bases in

Michigan for the purpose of training

through this program. In another article, I learned that members of the

Competitive Sportsman club were

asked to leave Camp Grayling base

when they showed up wearing Southern

Michigan Militia patches. The American people have a right to know that

their tax dollars are not being used to

train people who may pose a threat to

law abiding citizens and to peace and

order in this country. The Defense Department should either investigate

these allegations or call on another

branch of the U.S. Government to do

so.

In the meantime, Mr. President, the

Civilian Marksmanship Program

should be terminated. My colleagues

know that I have long believed the Civilian Marksmanship Program is a lowpriority program and is an egregious

example of waste in Government. The

program promotes rifle training for civilians through a system of affiliated

clubs and other organizations, and

sponsors shooting competitions. As

part of these activities, the program

donates, loans, and sells weapons, ammunition, and other shooting supplies.

The Department of Defense has provided me with a State-by-State breakdown listing of 1,146 member clubs that

participate in this program, which I

will make available to any of my colleagues who wish to read it.

The program was first established in

1903, at a time when civilian marksmanship training was believed to be

important for military preparedness.

Yet the Pentagon says it supports legislation to terminate it and that there

is ‘‘no discernible link’’ between military readiness and the Civilian Marksmanship Program. As Army officials

told the GAO, no Army requirements

exist for civilians trained in marksmanship, and no system is in place to

track program-trained personnel. In a

March 15, 1994, hearing in the Senate

Defense Appropriations Subcommittee,

Army Secretary West stated that national security objectives will be met

with or without the Civilian Marksmanship Program.

In essence, the Civilian Marksmanship Program has provided a taxpayer

subsidy for recreational shooting. In

light of the budget deficit we face and

the military needs we ought to address,

this simply is not a justifiable use of

scarce resources. After all, defense dollars are not used to subsidize other

sports. They ought not be used to subsidize a shooting program which has no

relationship to military needs and requirements.

Additionally, the program puts the

U.S. Government in the role of selling

weapons and ammunition to civilians.

There is no shortage of guns and ammunition available in this country

through the private sector. I do not believe the U.S. Government needs to be

involved in putting more guns on the

street in this country.

Mr. President, Senators FEINSTEIN,

LEVIN, SIMON, and I recently introduced a bill, S. 757, to terminate the Civilian Marksmanship Program. I urge

my colleagues to read the letter from

Under Secretary Reeder and approve

that bill without delay.

EXHIBIT 1

UNDER SECRETARY OF THE ARMY,

Washington, DC, May 11, 1995.

Hon. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR LAUTENBERG: The Secretary

of Defense, the Honorable William J. Perry,

has asked me on behalf of the Army, which

serves as the executive agent for the Civilian

Marksmanship Program (CMP), to respond

to your letter regarding your concerns about

the CMP.

The CMP was established by Congress in

1903 to develop marksmanship skills

throughout our nation from which the armed

forces could draw when needed for rapid mobilization. To this end, the CMP supported

creation of rifle clubs throughout the country. There are 1,146 member clubs (the current listing at Tab A is an update from all

previous reports on clubs).

Over time the mission of the CMP changed.

Now, the current focus of the CMP is weapons safety, familiarization and the sport of

marksmanship. The CMP is apolitical, and

provides no instruction in military skills.

In FY 1994, the CMP spent $2.483 million of

appropriated funds; $2.544 million are budgeted for FY 1995. The Army has requested no

appropriated funding for the CMP in FY 1996,

because the Army gets no direct benefit from

the program. The FY 1996/1997 Biennial Budget Estimates submitted to Congress documents the request for no funds in FY 96. Last

year and again last week, DOD repeatedly

has conveyed to Congress that, while it will

continue to administer the program as directed by Congress, it will also continue to

support legislation ending this program. I

have enclosed a copy of the recent OSD, General Counsel, response (Tab B) to The Honorable Floyd Spence, Chairman, House National Security Committee, and Ranking Minority Member Ron Dellums reiterating,

‘‘. . . no discernible link’’ between military

readiness and the CMP.

DOD shares your concern that the CMP not

inadvertently become involved with groups

or individuals who may intend to harm federal or non-federal employees. To my knowledge the CMP has never endorsed the involvement of militia groups or extremists in

any context. Before club status is granted,

three adults responsible for the formation of

the club must submit a DD Form 398–2 (Personnel Security Questionnaire) and pass a

background investigation performed by the

National Agency Check and Investigative

Center. If Congress continues to direct that

this program be implemented, we will continue to follow these procedures.

Section 4309, Title 10, United States Code,

provides that all ranges built in whole or in

part with Federal funds may be used by persons capable of bearing arms. Under this legislation, the CMP and other organizations

may request the use of military ranges and

are generally granted such use provided they

comply with range and installation rules.

They must not interfere with scheduled military training and their intended use must

not pose a safety hazard. If we have any indication of misuse, we will take appropriate

corrective action.

Thank you for your interest in this program. I hope this information addresses your

concerns.

Sincerely,

fJOE R. REEDER.

MINOR CROP PROTECTION

ASSISTANCE ACT

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today

I rise to join my colleagues as a cosponsor of the Minor Crop Protection

Assistance Act. This legislation will

provide much needed relief to the food

and horticultural industries so important to the economy of my State and

the Nation.

This purpose of this legislation is

simple: It is all about economics. This

legislation seeks to provide some relief

to producers of minor crops who face

the imminent threat of losing access to

vital, and safe crop protection tools

due to market forces. Currently, registration of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and

Rodenticide Act [FIFRA] with EPA is

an intensive process, involving as

many as 120 data requirements. Chemical manufacturers are forced to make

the decision to cancel, or not

reregister, crop protection tools for use

on minor crops because the resulting