[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 120 (Monday, July 24, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7481-H7504]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   EXPORTS OF ALASKAN NORTH SLOPE OIL

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 197 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
                              H. Res. 197

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 70) to permit exports of certain domestically 
     produced crude oil, and for other purposes. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Resources. After general debate 
     the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
     minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original 
     bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule 
     the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on Resources now printed in the bill. Each 
     section of the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. During consideration 
     of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of 
     the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
     whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be 
     printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated 
     for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so 
     printed shall be considered as read. The chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time during 
     further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
     for a recorded vote on any amendment. The chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less than five 
     minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any 
     postponed question that immediately follows another vote by 
     electronic device without intervening business, provided that 
     the time for voting by electronic device on the first in any 
     series of questions shall be not less than fifteen minutes. 
     At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment 
     the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House 
     with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2. (a) After passage of H.R. 70, it shall be in order 
     to take from the Speaker's table the bill S. 395 and to 
     consider the Senate bill in the House. All points of order 
     against the Senate bill and against its consideration are 
     waived. It shall be in order to consider in the House, any 
     rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, the motion 
     to amend described in subsection (b). The motion to amend 
     shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the motion to amend and on the Senate bill without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit the bill 
     with or without instructions. If the motion to amend is 
     adopted and the Senate bill, as amended, is passed, then it 
     shall be in order to move that the House insist on its 
     amendments to S. 395 and request a conference with the Senate 
     thereon.
       (b) The motion to amend the Senate bill made in order by 
     subsection (a) is as follows:
       ``(1) Strike title I.
       ``(2) Strike sections 201 through 204 and insert the text 
     of H.R. 70, as passed by the House.
       ``(3) Strike section 205.
       ``(4) Strike section 206.
       ``(5) Strike title III.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  During consideration of this resolution, all the time yielded is for 
the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 197 is an open rule providing for 1 
hour of general debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Resources. After general debate, 
the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule. It 
shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment under the 5-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute recommended by the Committee on Resources now printed in the 
bill. Each section of the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be considered as read.
  House Resolution 197 authorizes the Chair to accord priority 
recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the 
Congresional Record. The rule does not require preprinting, but simply 
encourages Members to take advantage of the option in order to 
facilitate
 consideration of amendments on the floor of the House.

  This rule allows the chair to postpone votes in the Committee of the 
Whole and reduce votes to 5 minutes, if those votes follow a 15-minute 
vote. Finally, this resolution provides one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  Section 2 of House Resolution 197 provides for the consideration of 
S. 395 in the House. All points of order against the Senate bill and 
its consideration are waived and it shall be in order to consider the 
motion to amend S. 395 as described in the rule. Additionally, this 
section provides for one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions. If the motion to amend is adopted and the Senate bill, as 
amended, is passed, then it shall be in order to move that the House 
insist on its amendments to S. 395 and request a conference with the 
Senate.
  The purpose of the underlying legislation, H.R. 70, is to lift the 
ban on the export of crude oil produced on Alaska's North Slope. This 
legislation was reported out of the Committee on Resources by voice 
vote and it has broad bipartisan support. This bill is clearly in the 
national interests, and by lifting the ban on exports, we can create 
tens of thousands of new jobs, drive domestic energy production, raise 
revenues, and reduce our dependence on imports. It is important to note 
that according to the Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 70 will reduce 
Federal outlays by about $50 million over the next 5 years.
  This open rule was reported out of the Rules Committee by voice vote. 
I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may proceed with 
consideration of the merits of the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following information:


[[Page H7482]]
  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                              [As of July 21, 1995]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open\2\...............                 46                 44                 38                 73
Modified Closed\3\..................                 49                 47                 12                 23
Closed\4\...........................                  9                  9                  2                  4
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals:.......................                104                100                 52                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or 
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A       
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only 
  to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which    
  preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
  to amendment.                                                                                                 
\4\A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the      
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             



                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                              [As of July 21, 1995]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  H. Res. No. (Date                                                                                             
       rept.)               Rule type             Bill No.                 Subject           Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)  O...................  H.R. 5..............  Unfunded Mandate Reform..  A: 350-71 (1/19/   
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)  MC..................  H. Con. Res. 17.....  Social Security..........  A: 255-172 (1/25/  
                                            H.J. Res. 1.........  Balanced Budget Amdt.....   95).              
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 101............  Land Transfer, Taos        A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Pueblo Indians.            95).              
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 400............  Land Exchange, Arctic      A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Nat'l. Park and Preserve.  95).              
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 440............  Land Conveyance, Butte     A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   County, Calif.             95).              
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95).  O...................  H.R. 2..............  Line Item Veto...........  A: voice vote (2/2/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 665............  Victim Restitution.......  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 666............  Exclusionary Rule Reform.  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95).  MO..................  H.R. 667............  Violent Criminal           A: voice vote (2/9/
                                                                   Incarceration.             95).              
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95).  O...................  H.R. 668............  Criminal Alien             A: voice vote (2/10/
                                                                   Deportation.               95).              
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)  MO..................  H.R. 728............  Law Enforcement Block      A: voice vote (2/13/
                                                                   Grants.                    95).              
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)  MO..................  H.R. 7..............  National Security          PQ: 229-100; A: 227-
                                                                   Revitalization.            127 (2/15/95).    
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)  MC..................  H.R. 831............  Health Insurance           PQ: 230-191; A: 229-
                                                                   Deductibility.             188 (2/21/95).    
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)  O...................  H.R. 830............  Paperwork Reduction Act..  A: voice vote (2/22/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)  MC..................  H.R. 889............  Defense Supplemental.....  A: 282-144 (2/22/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)  MO..................  H.R. 450............  Regulatory Transition Act  A: 252-175 (2/23/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1022...........  Risk Assessment..........  A: 253-165 (2/27/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 100 (2/27/    O...................  H.R. 926............  Regulatory Reform and      A: voice vote (2/28/
 95).                                                              Relief Act.                95).              
H. Res. 101 (2/28/    MO..................  H.R. 925............  Private Property           A: 271-151 (3/2/95)
 95).                                                              Protection Act.                              
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1058...........  Securities Litigation      ...................
                                                                   Reform.                                      
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 988............  Attorney Accountability    A: voice vote (3/6/
                                                                   Act.                       95)               
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)  MO..................  ....................  .........................  A: 257-155 (3/7/95)
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)  Debate..............  H.R. 956............  Product Liability Reform.  A: voice vote (3/8/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)  MC..................  ....................  .........................  PQ: 234-191 A: 247-
                                                                                              181 (3/9/95)      
H. Res. 115 (3/14/    MO..................  H.R. 1159...........  Making Emergency Supp.     A: 242-190 (3/15/  
 95).                                                              Approps..                  95)               
H. Res. 116 (3/15/    MC..................  H.J. Res. 73........  Term Limits Const. Amdt..  A: voice vote (3/28/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 117 (3/16/    Debate..............  H.R. 4..............  Personal Responsibility    A: voice vote (3/21/
 95).                                                              Act of 1995.               95)               
H. Res. 119 (3/21/    MC..................  ....................  .........................  A: 217-211 (3/22/  
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1271...........  Family Privacy Protection  A: 423-1 (4/4/95)  
                                                                   Act.                                         
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 660............  Older Persons Housing Act  A: voice vote (4/6/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1215...........  Contract With America Tax  A: 228-204 (4/5/95)
                                                                   Relief Act of 1995.                          
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)  MC..................  H.R. 483............  Medicare Select Expansion   A: 253-172 (4/6/  
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)  O...................  H.R. 655............  Hydrogen Future Act of     A: voice vote (5/2/
                                                                   1995.                      95)               
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1361...........  Coast Guard Auth. FY 1996  A: voice vote (5/9/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)  O...................  H.R. 961............  Clean Water Amendments...  A: 414-4 (5/10/95) 
H. Res. 144 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 535............  Fish Hatchery--Arkansas..  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 145 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 584............  Fish Hatchery--Iowa......  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 146 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 614............  Fish Hatchery--Minnesota.  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 149 (5/16/    MC..................  H. Con. Res. 67.....  Budget Resolution FY 1996  PQ: 252-170 A: 255-
 95).                                                                                         168 (5/17/95)     
H. Res. 155 (5/22/    MO..................  H.R. 1561...........  American Overseas          A: 233-176 (5/23/  
 95).                                                              Interests Act.             95)               
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1530...........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY      PQ: 225-191 A: 233-
                                                                   1996.                      183 (6/13/95)     
H. Res. 167 (6/15/    O...................  H.R. 1817...........  MilCon Appropriations FY   PQ: 223-180 A: 245-
 95).                                                              1996.                      155 (6/16/95)     
H. Res. 169 (6/19/    MC..................  H.R. 1854...........  Leg. Branch Approps. FY    PQ: 232-196 A: 236-
 95).                                                              1996.                      191 (6/20/95)     
H. Res. 170 (6/20/    O...................  H.R. 1868...........  For. Ops. Approps. FY      PQ: 221-178 A: 217-
 95).                                                              1996.                      175 (6/22/95)     
H. Res. 171 (6/22/    O...................  H.R. 1905...........  Energy & Water Approps.    A: voice vote (7/12/
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   95)               
H. Res. 173 (6/27/    C...................  H.J. Res. 79........  Flag Constitutional        PQ: 258-170 A: 271-
 95).                                                              Amendment.                 152 (6/28/95)     
H. Res. 176 (6/28/    MC..................  H.R. 1944...........  Emer. Supp. Approps......  PQ: 236-194 A: 234-
 95).                                                                                         192 (6/29/95)     
H. Res. 185 (7/11/    O...................  H.R. 1977...........  Interior Approps. FY 1996  PQ: 235-193 D: 192-
 95).                                                                                         238 (7/12/95)     
H. Res. 187 (7/12/    O...................  H.R. 1977...........  Interior Approps. FY 1996  PQ: 230-194 A: 229-
 95).                                                              #2.                        195 (7/13/95)     
H. Res. 188 (7/12/    O...................  H.R. 1976...........  Agriculture Approps. FY    PQ: 242-185 A:     
 95).                                                              1996.                      voice vote (7/18/ 
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 190 (7/17/    O...................  H.R. 2020...........  Treasury/Postal Approps.   PQ: 232-192 A:     
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   voice vote (7/18/ 
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 193 (7/19/    C...................  H.J. Res. 96........  Disapproval of MFN to      A: voice vote (7/20/
 95).                                                              China.                     95)               
H. Res. 194 (7/19/    O...................  H.R. 2002...........  Transportation Approps.    PQ: 217-202 (7/21/ 
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   95)               
H. Res. 197 (7/21/    O...................  H.R. 70.............  Exports of Alaskan Crude   ...................
 95).                                                              Oil.                                         
H. Res. 198 (7/21/    O...................  H.R. 2076...........  Commerce, State Approps.   ...................
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated; 
  PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.               

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority of the Committee on Rules has 
recommended an open rule on H.R. 70, and the committee's Democrats 
fully support this rule. In addition, I support this bill.
  H.R. 70 will lift the ban on exports of Alaskan North Slope oil which 
was imposed in 1973 as a compromise to allow the construction of the 
trans-Alaska pipeline in an era when the United States was subjected to 
embargos imposed by the oil-producing states of the Middle East. Mr. 
Speaker, the time is long past when this ban serves any useful 
strategic purpose and, in fact, this ban may have actually contributed 
to reduced domestic production. By freeing North Slope oil from this 
export ban, we will encourage further domestic production--both in 
Alaska and in the lower 48.
  Mr. Speaker, the committee is also to be commended for including a 
provision in the rule which will expedite a conference on this 
legislation, and I urge support for the rule and the bill.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Studds].
  (Mr. STUDDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
   Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important initiative to 
authorize exports of Alaskan oil because it is vital to preserving the 
independent tanker fleet and the cadre of skilled men and women who 
proudly sail today under the American flag. There can be little doubt 
that our Government has a compelling interest in preserving a fleet 
essential to national security, especially one transporting an 
important natural resource.

[[Page H7483]]

  Specifically, section 1 of the bill requires that, other than in 
specified exceptional circumstances, Alaskan crude exports must be 
transported by a vessel documented under the laws of the United States 
and owned by a U.S. citizen.
   Mr. Speaker, I am aware that some have raised trade-related 
questions about this provision, but these issues have already been 
addressed by the trade experts in the administration, who have 
concluded that the bill is consistent with our international 
obligations. In his March 9, 1995, letter, a copy of which is attached 
to my statement, for example, U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor 
stated that the bill does not violate our international obligations 
under WTO/GATT, the relevant OECD Code, or the GATS Ministerial 
Maritime Decision. In fact, he pointed out that ``the U.S. flag 
preference provisions * * * actually present opportunities for foreign 
flag vessels to carry more oil to the United States, in light of the 
potential new market opportunities resulting from enactment.''
  As my colleagues know, current law already requires Alaskan oil to 
move to the lower 48, Hawaii, and Canada on so-called Jones Act 
vessels. When Congress authorized construction of the trans-Alaska 
pipeline system, it established export restrictions that had the effect 
of ensuring that North Slope crude would move to the lower 48 and 
Hawaii on U.S.-built, U.S.-owned, and U.S.-crewed vessels. Although the 
export restrictions have changed over time, there has been no change 
with respect to the requirement to use Jones Act vessels.
  In 1988, when Congress passed legislation to implement the U.S.-
Canada Free-Trade Agreement, it agreed to allow up to 50,000 barrels 
per day of ANS crude to be exported for consumption in Canada, subject 
to the explicit requirement that ``any ocean transportation of such oil 
shall be by vessels documented under [46 U.S.C.] section 12106.'' By 
insisting that exports to Canada move on Jones Act tankers, even though 
not required by the specific terms of the Agreement, Congress 
established the principle that exports must move on U.S.-flag vessels.
  Consider also that in negotiating the North American Free-Trade 
Agreement, the Mexican Government reserved to itself the 
``transportation * * * [of] crude oil.'' The U.S. Government 
specifically agreed to this reservation in adopting article 602(3) of 
NAFTA. Additionally, in two major areas of commercial movements in 
foreign trade, the U.S. Government has long enforced preference for 
American vessels. Since 1934, the U.S. Export-Import Bank has reserved 
for American carriers 100 percent of all cargo the export of which it 
finances under various programs. The Cargo Preference Act of 1954 also 
reserves certain Government-financed cargo to ``privately owned United 
States-flag commercial vessels, to the extent such vessels are 
available at fair and reasonable rates.''
  There are plenty of other examples of cargo reservation world wide. 
Our Government has entered into bilateral treaties with Latin American 
countries that preserve government controlled cargoes for national 
lines. These intergovernmental agreements are supported by pooling 
agreements among the lines that effectively divide all cargo, not 
merely controlled cargo, on the UNCTAD 40-40-20 basis, with the 20 
percent being accorded to such third-flag lines as are admitted to the 
pools. Similarly, the French Government reserves for French-flag 
vessels substantial cargoes. The Act of 30 March 1928, for example, 
requires that, unless waived, two-thirds of France's crude oil needs be 
carried on French-flag vessels.
   Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that long-standing precedent supports 
the U.S.-flag requirement in this bill.
  Now let me address specific U.S. international obligations and 
explain why the legislation does not violate the GATS Standstill 
Agreement, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or other of our 
international obligations.
  GATS Standstill Agreement. At the conclusion of the Uruguay round of 
multilateral trade negotiations, the United States and other countries 
for the first time agreed to cover services, as embodied in the General 
Agreement on Trade in Services [GATS]. Maritime services were 
effectively excluded, however, because no commitments of any kind were 
made by the United States. Although a U.S. offer had been briefly 
tabled, it was withdrawn. Thus, the U.S. Government did not in any way 
restrain or limit its authority to maintain or promote an American-flag 
fleet.
  The only commitment made by the U.S. Government was to continue 
negotiations until June 1996, with a view to determining whether to 
make any binding commitments at that time. The Ministerial Decision on 
Negotiations on Maritime Transport Services imposed this standstill 
commitment or peace clause for the period during which the negotiations 
would occur: ``[I]t is understood that participants shall not apply any 
measure affecting trade in maritime transport services except in 
response to measures applied by other countries and with a view to 
maintaining freedom of provisions of maritime transport services, nor 
in such a manner as would improve their negotiating position and 
leverage.'' Some foreign governments are now arguing that the enactment 
of the proposed legislation would violate this commitment. They are 
incorrect.
  In a letter to me at the time, the U.S. Trade Representative stated 
that the peace clause is

       Strictly a political commitment by the Parties to the 
     negotiations not to take measures to ``improve their 
     negotiation position or leverage.'' In a worst case scenario, 
     if one of the Parties to this negotiation were to conclude 
     that the United States had taken a measure that contravenes 
     the peace clause, their only remedy would be to leave the 
     negotiating table.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Let me assure you that there is nothing in the negotiations 
     that would interfere with maritime reform
      legislation . . . . Discussion of promotional programs, 
     including government subsidies, would, by no stretch of 
     the imagination, be viewed as undermining these 
     negotiations.

  This understanding was confirmed by the Presidential Advisory 
Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiations. In filing its report at the 
conclusion of the Uruguay Round negotiations, the Committee said: 
``[A]ll existing maritime promotional and support laws, programs and 
policies continue in full force and effect. The United States also may 
enact or adopt such new measures as it wishes including pending 
legislation to revitalize the maritime industry.''


                                  gatt

  The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade covers goods, not 
services. Under long-standing precendent, vessels in international 
commerce are not themselves products or goods subject to GATT. For 
purposes of GATT, the relevant product is ANS crude, which would be 
transported on American-flag vessels. Requiring that this product be 
carried on these vessels, as currently required under the implementing 
legislation for the United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement, does not 
conflict with GATT.
  Article XI of GATT proscribes ``prohibitions or restrictions other 
than duties, taxes or other charges whether made effective through 
quotas, import or export licenses or other measures'' by a contracting 
party ``on the importation of any product'' or ``on the exportation * * 
* of any product.'' These requirements apply to products, which do not 
include vessels in transit between nations. Moreover, these 
requirements are limited to products and not to their transportation. 
This is made clear by the exceptions listed in para.2, such as (a) 
measures to prevent or relieve ``critical shortages of food stuffs or 
other [essential] products'' and (b) restrictions to facilitate 
``classification, grading or marketing of commodities.'' Such 
exceptional restrictions are to be accompanied by public notice ``of 
the total quantity or value of the product permitted to be imported.'' 
Thus, the transportation requirements of the committee print are not 
``prohibitions or restrictions other than duties'' on goods proscribed 
under article XI.
  Article III, the national treatment article, forbids internal taxes 
or other charges or regulations, affecting, inter alia, the 
transportation of goods, that discriminate in favor of domestic 
production. Requiring U.S.-flag vessels for the carriage of certain 
cargoes in international trade is not an internal regulation of 
transportation that discriminates against foreign goods. As I said 
earlier, vessels are not considered goods. Moreover, by operation of 
the Jones Act, foreign-flag vessels may not today carry ANS crude oil 
to the lower 48 or Hawaii. Having no claim under article III that they 
somehow will be denied opportunities tomorrow as a result of a change 
in current law.
  Article V, the freedom of transit article, requires that member 
nations permit goods, and also vessels, of other member nations 
``freedom of transit through the territory of each contracting party'' 
of traffic in transit between third countries. The proposed bill, 
however, is not an inhibition of such movement of foreign goods or 
vessels within the United States. Article V thus does not apply.


                        gatt grandfather clause

  GATT 1994 contains an explicit exemption for the Jones Act. Annex 1A 
to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization contains an 
exception relating specifically to national flag preferences for 
shipping ``between points in national waters'' enacted before a member 
became a contracting party to GATT 1947. The exception becomes 
inoperative if ``such legislation is subsequently modified to decrease 
its conformity with Part II of the GATT 1994.''
  On its face, however, the proposed bill would not operate in 
commercial applications ``between points in national waters,'' since 
it 
 
[[Page H7484]]

concerns the foreign trade. The proposed legislation would not amend 
the Jones Act and this does not jeopardize the grandfathering of the 
Jones Act by Annex 1A. The conformity of the bill with international 
obligations of the United States does not depend on this exception, but 
on the terms of those obligations themselves. As I indicated earlier, 
the proposed bill does not conflict with Articles III, V or XI of GATT.


                               oecd code

  The OECD's Code of Liberalisation of Current Invisible Operations 
generally requires OECD member countries to liberalize trade in 
services, with certain specified exceptions. Not 1 to annex A, in 
defining invisible operations in the maritime sector, states in its 
first sentence that the purpose of the provision is ``to give residents 
of one Member State the unrestricted opportunity to avail themselves 
of, and pay for, all services in connection with international maritime 
transport which are offered by residents of any other Member States.'' 
The second sentence of the Note lists ``legislative provisions in 
favour of the national flag * * *'' as among measures that might hamper 
the enjoyment of those rights. The Note concludes, however, 
unambiguously: ``The second sentence of this Note does not apply to the 
United States.'' Whatever its applicability to the law of other 
nations, it would not apply with respect to the proposed legislation, 
which cannot therefore be contrary to it.
  Thus, while some OECD Members have subscribed to equating national 
flag requirements with disapproved invisible operations, it is clear 
that the United States has not.


                              fcn treaties

  Some foreign governments have raised questions about the propriety of 
flag reservation in light of various treaties of friendship, commerce, 
and navigation. The treaty clause invoked is this: ``Vessels of either 
party shall be accorded national treatment and most-favored-nation 
treatment by the other party with respect to the right to carry all 
products that may be carried by vessel to or from the territories of 
such other party. * * *'' Whatever this clause may appear to convey 
literally, its application in practice has allowed numerous national 
flag preferences identical with or otherwise indistinguishable in 
principle from the proposed measure.
  As I indicated earlier, the most prominent instance is embodied in 
the United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement. But there are many other 
examples. In the 1960's and 1970's, for example, the United States 
concluded with the former Soviet Union agreements for the sale of grain 
that, initially, reserved all carriage to American ships so far as 
available, and later not less than 30 percent. Against protests filed 
by a number of maritime powers having either national-treatment or 
most-favored-nation treaties, the United States responded in 
congressional testimony that, although the fact that the Soviet Union 
as a government was the purchaser did not alter the character of the 
transaction as purely commercial, ``[t]he shipping arrangement worked 
out for the Russian wheat sale is a form of cargo preference involving 
a unique bilateral agreement between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. establishing 
a new trade where none existed before.'' This is the same reason the 
Department of State has advanced in defending preferences for 
government-financed cargo. So far as this may be considered a 
controlling factor, it is certainly applicable here,
 because the bill is clearly ``establishing a new trade where none 
existed before.''

  In 1973, the President, by proclamation, instituted a system of 
licensing fees on imports of oil excess to prescribed quotas. 
Subsequently, however, the President in effect exempted products 
refined in American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands or a foreign trade 
zone, if transported to the mainland on American-flag vessels. Like the 
present bill, the fee waiver was said not to reflect ``a general 
administration position on reducing licensing fees when U.S.-flag ships 
are used.'' Although the stated purpose was to equalize refinery costs 
as between territories not subject to the Jones Act and the mainland, 
the administration suggested in congressional testimony that ``a 
positive incentive has been provided by the administration for the 
construction and use of additional U.S.-flag tankers.'' In recent 
testimony before the Resources Committee on which I sit, the Deputy 
Secretary of Energy similarly emphasized the importance of the U.S.-
flag requirement of the pending legislation in preserving U.S.-flag 
tankers and the skilled mariners who operate them.
  In summary, Mr. Speaker, the U.S.-flag requirement of this bill is 
supported by amply domestic and foreign precedent, does not represent 
an extension of cargo preference into a new area, and does not violate 
our international obligations. There is no reasonable basis for a 
challenge to the legislation before the World Trade Organization or in 
other international forums.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, which 
is so vital to preserving a fleet essential to national defense.
  I include for the Record a letter from Michael Kantor, the U.S. Trade 
Representative, as follows:

         The United States Trade Representative, Executive Office 
           of the President,
                                    Washington, DC, March 9, 1995.
     Hon. J. Bennett Johnston,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Johnston: This replies to your letter of March 
     2, 1995, requesting information on the implications of the 
     cargo preference provisions of S. 395 on our obligations 
     under the World Trade Organization and the Organization of 
     Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Specifically, 
     you ask if the legislation violates any trade agreements, the 
     potential legal and practical effects of a challenge, as well 
     as its effect on the ongoing negotiations on maritime in 
     Geneva.
       As to WTO violations, I can state categorically that S. 
     395, as currently drafted, does not present a legal problem. 
     Further, we do not believe that the legislation will violate 
     our obligations under the OECD's Code of Liberalization of 
     Current Invisible Operations or its companion Common 
     Principles of Shipping Policy. However, the OECD does not 
     have a mechanism for the settlement of disputes and its 
     associated right of retaliation. While Parties to the OECD 
     are obligated to defend practices that are not consistent 
     with the Codes, the OECD process does not contain a dispute 
     mechanism with possible retaliation rights. (The OECD 
     Shipbuilding Agreement, by contrast, does contain specific 
     dispute settlement mechanisms, although the Agreement does 
     not address flag or crew issues.)
       Your letter requests guidance on the implications of S. 395 
     on the GATS Ministerial Decision of Negotiations on Maritime 
     Transport Services (Maritime Decision) which is the document 
     that guides the current negotiations on maritime in the WTO. 
     The Maritime Decision contains a political commitment by each 
     participant not to adopt restrictive measures that would 
     ``improve its negotiating position'' during the negotiations 
     (which expire in 1996). This political commitment is 
     generally referred to as a ``peace clause.'' Actions 
     inconsistent with the peace clause, or any other aspect of 
     the Maritime Decision, cannot give rise to a dispute under 
     the WTO, since such decisions are not legally binding 
     obligations.
       There are, of course, potential implications for violating 
     the peace clause by adopting new restrictive measures during 
     the course of the negotiations. These implications could 
     include changes in the willingness of other parties to 
     negotiate seriously to remove maritime restrictions and might 
     lead to certain parties simply abandoning the negotiating 
     table. But the Maritime Decision does not provide the 
     opportunity for retaliation.
       Our view is that the U.S. flag preference provisions of S. 
     395 do not measurably increase the level of preference for 
     U.S. flag carriers and actually present opportunities for 
     foreign flag vessels to carry more oil to the United States, 
     in light of the potentially new market opportunities 
     resulting from enactment of S. 395. Thus, it would be very 
     difficult for foreign parties to make a credible case that 
     the U.S. has ``improved its negotiating position'' as the 
     result of S. 395.
       For reasons I have explained, we are certain that the U.S. 
     flag preference does not present legal problems for us under 
     the WTO. However, in the event any U.S. measure is found to 
     violate our obligations, the WTO does not have authority to 
     require alterations to affected statutes. That remains the 
     sovereign decision of the country affected by an adverse 
     panel ruling. A losing party in such a dispute may alter its 
     law to conform to its WTO obligations, pay compensation, or 
     accept retaliation by the prevailing party.
       Finally, we agree with you that it would not be appropriate 
     to include a requirement that ANS oil be exported on U.S.-
     built vessels.
       I trust this information is of assistance to you. Please do 
     not hesitate to contact me or my staff should you need more 
     information.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Michael Kantor.

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I will not be offering my amendment that 
requires that these vessels be built in the United States, after 
further discussion with the chairman, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. 
Young], the ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. 
But I will be offering a very simple amendment, one that I think is 
important, to the substitute offered by Chairman Young. I believe that 
it is necessary if we are to ensure that this legislation does not 
cause the loss of American jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, in the bill it says, section 1, clause V, if the 
Secretary of Commerce finds that anticompetitive activity by a person 
exporting crude oil under the authority of this subsection has caused 
sustained, material crude 

[[Page H7485]]
oil supply shortages or sustained crude oil prices significantly above 
world market levels, and further finds that these supply shortages or 
price increases have in fact caused sustained material adverse 
employment effects in the United States, the Secretary of Commerce, in 
consultation with the Secretary of Energy, may--may recommend to the 
President appropriate action against such person, which may include 
modification of the authorization to export crude oil.
  My amendment is very simple. It would delete the word ``may,'' and 
insert the word ``shall.'' This amendment would then require the 
Secretary of Commerce to take action if there is an energy crisis or if 
American jobs are being lost as a result of this legislation.
  I do not think that we should leave to the discretion of some 
bureaucrat whether or not these adverse effects on employment and these 
other issues would require some action. The amendment would compel and 
require the Secretary to in fact make notice to the President of such 
actions.
  I believe that this amendment has been agreed upon, and it is not a 
problem at this particular point. But I would just like to say this in 
closing with my remarks. I think we leave too much discretionary 
activities to bureaucrats who many times, and this is not painting any 
of these bureaucrats with a broad brush, but they may not necessarily 
have as much zeal with some of the connections that they may have in 
taking some of this action. So in essence, it would change the 
discretionary may in the bill for such recommendations to shall, and 
the Secretary would be compelled then to give that information 
immediately to the President, where such action could be taken in 
accordance with other actions and activity listed under this bill.
  I think it is a commonsense amendment. I support it. I would like to 
say this. I support the bill. I believe it is good for American jobs, 
that it in fact maintains certain employment activities we have in the 
petroleum field right now and creates some new jobs.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller].
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. I am pleased to see that 
the committee has granted Chairman Young's request for an open rule 
which protects the rights of all Members to offer amendments. I applaud 
Chairman Young for continuing the tradition of our committee by seeking 
open rules.
  We do not agree, however, on the merits of this legislation. During 
the consideration of H.R. 70, I will be offering an amendment to 
restrict exports of Alaska oil to the amounts which are in excess of 
current consumption on the west coast. The bill as reported by the 
resources committee restricts the President's authority to protect U.S. 
interests by forcing him to choose between exporting 100 percent of the 
Alaska oil or no oil at all. The bill specifically precludes the 
President from finding that it is in the national interest to establish 
any volume limitations.
  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, I would note that, upon passage of H.R. 
70, the rule provides for a motion to bring up the Senate-passed bill, 
strike the text and insert the House language. While I have no 
objection to this procedure, I would caution my colleagues that they 
are buying into much more than they expect in this legislation at a 
substantial cost to the taxpayers.
  The other body has included several matters which will come up in 
conference which would not be germane under House rules to the subject 
Alaska oil exports. I am particularly concerned about title 3 of the 
Senate bill which requires the Secretary of the Interior to grant a 
holiday on collecting royalties from oil companies which operate in the 
Gulf of Mexico. This relief is granted whether or not it is needed.
 For drilling in waters deeper than 800 meters, for example, title 3 
would require no less than 82.5 million barrels of royalty-free oil for 
each lease.

  The stated purpose of title 3 is to encourage oil development in deep 
waters of the gulf. Yet the oil companies are already encouraged 
without any help from the Government. The last two gulf lease sales 
have brought in record bonus bids. The gulf is now one of the hottest 
areas in the world for new exploration.
  In my view, mandatory royalty relief would be nothing other than a 
taxpayer-subsidized holiday windfall for the oil operators in the gulf. 
This is new corporate welfare at its worst. If title 3 had been in 
effect just 3 months ago, the royalty holiday would have cost the 
Treasury at least $2.3 billion from the last lease sale alone.
  So, Mr. Speaker, there is much more to H.R. 70 that will be 
considered in conference than just Alaska oil exports--and there are 
good reasons that House Members are unaware of the deep water royalty 
relief issue because:
  There is no bill requiring a deep water royalty holiday in the House.
  There have been no hearings on this subject in the Resources 
Committee.
  But when we go to conference on H.R. 70, you can rest assured that 
the other body will insist that we include the royalty holiday in the 
conference report.
  Without amendments to protect U.S. jobs and consumers, H.R. 70 is 
flawed and should be rejected. But even if we disagree on whether 
exports of Alaskan oil are in the national interest, I urge my 
colleagues to look ahead down the road because there is a big taxpayer 
ripoff headed our way from the conference.
                              {time}  1415

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield 
back the balance of my time, and move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 197 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 70.

                              {time}  1418


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
70), to permit exports of certain domestically produced crude oil, and 
for other purposes, with Mr. Bonilla in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] will each be recognized for 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, on the first day of the session, I 
joined with the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] and a bipartisan 
group of Members in introducing H.R. 70.
  Mr. Chairman, on May 9, the committee heard testimony from the 
administration, the State of Alaska, California independent oil 
producers, maritime labor, and other proponents of our proposed 
legislation. The administration testified in favor of the bill, but 
indicated that the bill should be amended, first, to provide for an 
appropriate environmental review, second, to allow the Secretary of 
Commerce to sanction anticompetitive behavior by exporters, and, third, 
to establish a licensing system. On May 17, the committee adopted a 
substitute amendment supported by the administration.
  I am pleased to offer today a committee print that has the support of 
the administration.
  The committee print would bring the bill in substantive conformity 
with title II of S. 395 and includes provisions requested by the 
administration. In a nutshell, the committee print provides for the 
following:
  ANS oil exports--carried in U.S.-flag vessels--would be authorized, 
unless the President determined they were not in the national interest.

[[Page H7486]]

  Before making his national interest determination, the President must 
consider an appropriate environmental review, as well as the effect of 
exports on jobs and consumers.
  In making his national interest determination (within 5 months of 
enactment), the President could impose terms and conditions other than 
a volume limitation on exports.
  The Secretary of Commerce then would be required to issue any rules 
necessary to implement the President's affirmative national interest 
determination within 30 days.
  If the Secretary later found that sustained material oil shortages or 
sustained prices significantly above the world level had caused 
sustained material job losses, he could recommend appropriate action by 
the President against an exporter, including modification or revocation 
of the authority to export.
  Administrative action under the bill would not be subject to 
traditional notice and comment rulemaking requirements.
  As under S. 395, the President would retain his authority to later 
block exports in an emergency. In addition, Israel and other countries 
pursuant to the International Emergency Oil Sharing Plan would be 
exempted from the U.S.-flag requirement.
  Finally, the committee print also would require the General 
Accounting Office to prepare a report assessing the impact of ANS 
exports on consumers, independent refiners, shipbuilders, and ship 
repair yards.
  Enactment of this legislation would at long last allow exports of our 
State's North Slope crude oil when carried on U.S.-flag vessels. When 
enacted, this legislation will allow the State's most important and 
vital industry to finally sell its products in the global marketplace.
  To put the proposed legislation in perspective, I think it would be 
helpful to explain the origins of current law. The export restrictions 
were first enacted shortly after the commencement of the 1973 Arab-
Israeli War and the first Arab oil boycott. At that time, many people 
believed that enactment of the export restrictions would enhance our 
Nation's energy security. Indeed, following the second major oil shock 
in 1979, Congress effectively imposed a ban on exports. Much has 
changed since then.
  In part due to significant conservation efforts and shifts to other 
fuel sources, total U.S. petroleum demand in 1993 actually was lower 
than in 1978. Net imports also were lower. Last year, for the first 
time, imports met more than half of our domestic demand--not because 
consumption has risen, but rather because domestic production has 
declined so enormously.
  Even though imports are up, they come today from far more secure 
sources than in the 1970's, when energy security was of such a 
paramount concern. Today, over half of our imports come from the 
Western Hemisphere and Europe. Mexico and Canada are among our largest 
suppliers. We not only are less dependent on the Middle East and 
Africa, but we have stopped buying crude from Iran, Iraq, and Libya. In 
addition, international sharing agreements are in place and the United 
States has filled a Strategic Petroleum Reserve with 600 million 
barrels of crude oil. In short, our Nation is no longer vulnerable to 
the supply threats that motivated Congress to act in the 1970's.
  While we have taken the steps necessary to reduce our vulnerability 
to others, we have not done enough to encourage domestic energy 
production. In fact, production on the North Slope has now entered a 
period of sustained decline.
  If I may just digress from my written statement, Mr. Chairman, last 
month the highest part of our trade deficit, which was the highest we 
have had in 7 years, was the importation of fossil fuels. In fact, the 
production on the North Slope has now entered a period of sustained 
decline. In California, small independent producers have been forced to 
abandon wells and defer further investments. By precluding the market 
from operating normally, the export ban has discouraged production in 
the United States. This bill is intended to change that situation. H.R. 
70 would require the use of U.S.-flagged--U.S. crewed vessels, not U.S. 
built.
  May I compliment my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Traficant], for not offering that, because, very frankly, it would have 
caused us great concern within the shipbuilding industry and within the 
unions themselves.
  Small independent producers have been forced to abandon wells or 
defer further investments. Faced with glut-induced prices for their own 
crude, these small businesses have laid off workers, further 
exacerbating market conditions caused by the long recession in 
California. By precluding the market from operating normally, the 
export ban has had the unintended effect of discouraging further energy 
production. We want to change that situation.
  In an effort to quantify the likely production response and to 
evaluate benefits and costs of Alaskan oil exports, the Department of 
Energy conducted a comprehensive study last year. In its June 1994 
report, the Department concluded Alaskan oil exports would boost 
production in Alaska and California by 100,000-110,000 barrels per day 
by the end of the century. The study also concluded that ANS exports 
could create up to 25,000 jobs as well. The sooner we change current 
law, the sooner we can spur additional energy production and create 
jobs in Alaska and in California.
  As many Members of this body know, there has long been concern in the 
domestic maritime community that lifting the ban would force the 
scrapping of the independent tanker fleet and would destroy employment 
opportunities for merchant mariners who remain vital to our national 
security. In recognition of this concern, our proposed legislation 
would require the use of U.S.-flag vessels to carry exports. The U.S. 
Trade Representative has assured Congress that this provision does not 
violate our GATT obligations. Based on the testimony presented to the 
committee and our own assessment of the issue, we concur with the 
administration's view that this provision is fully consistent with all 
of our international obligations.
  Our proposed legislation also ensures that an appropriate 
environmental review will be completed before the President makes his 
national interest determination. I think it is important to emphasize 
that in order to be in compliance with the National Environmental 
Policy Act, the environmental review required under the bill need not 
include a full-blown environmental impact statement, even if the review 
determines that some adverse environmental impacts may arise from 
exporting of ANS oil. As long as those impacts can be mitigated by 
conditions on exports included in the President's national interest 
determination, NEPA is satisfied.
  We have given the President discretion to have the relevant agencies 
conduct the type of environmental review considered appropriate under 
the circumstances. In fact, the procedure set forth in the committee 
print for making the appropriate environmental review tracks the well-
recognized procedure whereby an agency may forego a full environmental 
impact statement by taking appropriate steps to correct any problems 
found during an environmental assessment. If the EA does reveal some 
environmental effects, an agency may take mitigating measures that 
lessen or eliminate the environmental impact and, thereupon, make a 
finding of no significant impact and decline to prepare a formal EIS.
  In its June 1994 Study, ``Exporting Alaskan North Slope Crude Oil,'' 
the Department of Energy ``found no plausible evidence of any direct 
negative environmental impacts from lifting the ANS export ban.'' Under 
the circumstances, we believe the review procedure established in the 
committee print--a 4-month study containing appropriate mitigating 
measures--properly balances the facts known to Congress and our policy 
objectives. Moreover, it fully complies with NEPA.
  In closing, let me emphasize that this ban no longer makes economic 
sense. For too long, it has hurt the citizens of Alaska, it has 
severely damaged the California oil and gas industry, and it has 
precluded the market from functioning normally. If left in place any 
longer, it will further discourage energy production, it will destroy 
jobs in Alaska and California, and it will ultimately hurt our 
seafaring mariners, the independent tanker fleet, and the 

[[Page H7487]]
shipbuilding sector of our Nation. To reduce our net dependence on 
imports, we can take an important first step by enacting this proposed 
legislation.
  The maritime industry and the oil industry have shown they can work 
together to promote the common good. We hope we can soon show that the 
administration and Congress can work together as well to promote our 
national security, spur energy production, reduce our net dependence on 
imports, and create jobs.
  May I say in closing, Mr. Chairman, this is H.R. 70. They can insert 
everything after the enacting clause of the Senate bill as it passes 
the Senate. We will be discussing those things that will be argued 
today on the floor with the Senate in conference. Keep in mind we are 
working on a House bill that passed out of our committee pretty nearly 
unanimously by voice vote, and had strong bipartisan support.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the passage of this legislation and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I hope that our colleagues 
are aware of the historic importance of this legislation. This bill 
signals the collapse of the oil industries' argument that producing oil 
in this country is vital to our energy security.
  If we can afford to export Alaskan oil to Japan, Taiwan, South Korea 
and other countries when we are currently refining and consuming the 
vast majority of that oil on the west coast, then the arguments that we 
should develop our coastal waters or our wilderness areas ring hollow. 
When we can afford to export 25 percent of our production at the same 
time the Nation is importing over 50 percent of our consumption, the 
notion that imported oil is a threat to our economic security is hard 
to swallow.
  For over two decades, Congress has dedicated Alaskan oil to meet our 
domestic energy needs--a crucial part of the compromise that allowed 
expedited construction of the trans-Alaskan pipeline. Since 1977, 
Alaska oil has provided the majority of oil for refineries in 
Washington, California, and Hawaii and most of the oil consumed by 
residents of those States as well as Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona. Tens 
of thousands of jobs in refining, shipbuilding, transportation, and 
other businesses are dependent upon the Alaska oil trade.
  The only sure winners in allowing exports are one multi-national oil 
company--British Petroleum--and one State--Alaska. British Petroleum 
produces about one-half of the North Slope Oil and, if exports are 
allowed, can substantially manipulate the market prices for independent 
refineries on the west coast. The State of Alaska will see its revenues 
increase too, allowing it to continue its role as the State with the 
lowest personal tax burden and highest per capita spending in the 
Nation.
  The losers in this endeavor are consumers, especially on the west 
coast, who are likely to pay more for their gasoline in the future. The 
losers are also the workers in refineries and the transportation sector 
who will see their jobs sacrificed and exported along with the oil.
  I find it ironic that the proponents of exports rely so heavily on 
the Department of Energy's 1994 study promoting exports. The majority 
of the House voted to abolish DOE and the Republican majority 
consistently rejects the conclusions of the Clinton administration on 
other matters. But more importantly, DOE's study is flawed and based on 
outdated data.
  DOE's projections of all benefits and no downsides from exports are 
based on its assumption that both a historic glut of supply on the west 
coast and depressed prices will continue.
  But the DOE's assumptions do not reflect current reality. As the 
State of Alaska's Department of Revenue recently observed, Alaska North 
Slope oil ``prices at parity can be expected to occur more often in the 
future as ANS production declines and the most expensive transportation 
route to the gulf coast via Panama loses tanker traffic.''
  In other words, if prices are at or near parity with world market 
prices and the supply glut on the west coast is diminishing, price 
increases will be not be absorbed by refiners--as DOE predicts--but 
will be passed along to consumers and businesses. Since California 
heavy oil is not an adequate substitute for light Alaska oil, refiners 
will be forced to look to more expensive, less reliable imported oil as 
a substitute. These price increases may have negative ripple effects 
throughout the entire economy.
  Let me give you a real life example of why the DOE report is 
unreliable. DOE projects that up to 25,000 oil producing jobs will be 
created in Alaska and California by exports. This is remarkable 
considering there are only 34,000 of these jobs today. This is a 
questionable conclusion considering DOE assumes that British Petroleum 
will reinvest 100 percent of its profits from exports in Alaska. BP 
will give no such assurance, and it is even more dubious when job 
losses due to exports are disregarded.
  Just last month, Pacific Refining Co. in Hercules, CA--which is in my 
district--announced that Alaska Oil exports are a factor in shutting 
down and eliminating over 200 jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation purports to take potential job losses 
and price impacts on consumers into account during a Presidential 
Review of whether oil exports are in the national interest. However, 
the President is prevented by the bill from finding that a volume limit 
on exporting Alaska oil is in the national interest. So the President 
must chose between all or nothing. Given DOE's fanatical promotion or 
exports we know already what that decision will be.
  I will be offering an amendment to delete the bill's restraint on the 
President's authority to set export volume limits and to require that 
the amounts currently refined and consumed in the west coast States are 
provided first priority with the excess eligible for export. This is an 
amendment that presents a reasonable compromise and puts the interests 
of us consumers and workers first.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and vote no on final 
passage of the bill if it fails.
                              {time}  1430

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Washington [Mr. Metcalf].
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the esteemed chairman of 
the Resources Committee in a colloquy.
  As the chairman knows, many people are extremely concerned about the 
environmental and economic impact of this bill. I share many of their 
concerns, and believe that we must ensure that the public has an 
adequate opportunity to participate in and be heard on this issue.
  As you know, I had intended to offer an amendment that would have 
required a public comment period, unless the administration gave me a 
firm commitment to hold a public comment period or hearing before the 
oil is exported. It is my understanding that, with the chairman's 
assistance, the administration has now committed to hold at least one 
hearing before the President makes his national interest determination. 
Am I correct?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield. The 
gentleman is correct, and I would like to thank my colleague for his 
efforts in this regard. The administration has agreed to hold one or 
more hearings before the President makes his national interest 
determination. The bill requires the administration to conduct an 
appropriate environmental review within 4 months, and the hearings will 
take place within this process. The public will have a formal means of 
making its views known directly to the administration.
  Mr. METCALF. I thank the chairman for his reassurance.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], a sponsor of the 
bill, a great leader who introduced this bill 10 years ago and has 
worked so diligently and hard. The gentleman deserves recognition for 
his effort in this great piece of legislation today. 

[[Page H7488]]

  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, this is a kind of an exciting day for me. 
It is my own personal corrections calendar, if you will.
  The gentleman from California made a number of assertions. Frankly, 
for 10 years we have been trying to get people to focus on whether or 
not we should require all of the oil production in Alaska by Government 
edict to come to the lower 48 States.
  Because of geography, the lower 48 States basically are three: 
Washington, Oregon and California. When you take a look at the 
population factors on the west coast, overwhelmingly more than 800,000 
barrels of oil a day come to California.
  I represent the 21st District in California. It is in central 
California. Contained in that district, ever since I came to Congress 
in 1978, are 4 of the 10 largest oil fields in the United States, among 
the top 20 oil producing areas of the world.
  The primary holding in this area is a Government holding. It is 
called the Naval Petroleum Reserve and it is an area that was called 
Elk Hills.
  Let me take you back to the early 1970's and the mid 1970's when we 
had the scare of the Middle East being able to choke this country by 
cutting off oil supplies. Unfortunately and regrettably, the Congress, 
controlled by the then majority party, said that the condition for 
building a pipeline in Alaska was that all of that oil had to come to 
the United States.
  When they took the Naval Petroleum Reserve and opened it up, it was 
to be held as a reserve. Well, as you know, when you produce oil, it is 
not a well with a straw in it. When you open it up, it begins to flow. 
The Congress also decided to store oil in salt domes, and the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve was developed in Texas to be able to get oil in that 
manner.
  The Elk Hills fields are naturally occurring fields. Much of the oil 
there is heavy oil and it requires heating or a tertiary process, as we 
talk about it, to bring the oil to the surface. Billions and billions 
of barrels of oil are involved.
  During the Middle East oil crisis, President Ford opened up Elk Hills 
under the requirement of maximum efficient production, defined as most 
you could get out of the field. Then along the same time, something 
called the windfall profits tax was slapped in place.
  Let me tell you what happens when Government gets into the economics 
of oil and the way the Government did in the 1970's.
  Government told Elk Hills, produce at your maximum efficient rate, so 
Elk Hills began pumping oil out, primarily for California consumption 
because there is no reasonable way to move that oil out of California 
to the Midwest or the East. But at the same time the Government had 
said all of the Alaskan oil production had to come to the lower 48, 
which is basically California.
  So here by Government edict you have maximum production of one of the 
largest oil fields in the world, in California, and by Government edict 
all the oil produced by one of the largest oil fields in the world in 
Alaska coming to California.
  Obviously you had a depression of the price of oil, so that the 
production that would have occurred in California because of the 
increased price for oil did not occur. The continued expansion of 
Alaska production toward the maximum production of oil there, because 
of the depressed prices, did not occur.
  So I have for the last 10 years been trying to reconcile this ill-
conceived Government policy. Who in the world would want to maintain 
this kind of a ridiculous Government production by edict, which 
depressed the ability to respond to the energy crisis with domestically 
produced oil which would have made us more energy sufficient? Who would 
have said these tankers have to come up and down the west coast of 
Alaska, Canada, and the United States by Government edict, to threaten 
our very sensitive environment along the coast? Who in the world would 
try to maintain this policy? Who is benefiting by this policy?
  Guess who benefits? People in California who get a guaranteed, fixed 
price, depressed, crude product to run through their refineries. And 
guess where the biggest refineries are? They are in the bay area.
  These people are fighting to maintain this hypocritical policy so 
that they can continue to maintain the record profits because of the 
margin between what they pay for oil and what they can sell the refined 
product for. It is just ironic that people stand up in the name of the 
energy conservation, of national security, of the environment, to try 
to maintain record profit margins for these corporations.
  We are pleased that the Department of Energy, the Department of 
Transportation, and the Department of
 Defense came together to do a study.

  What they discovered is what we knew for a long time: that in fact 
this policy does not promote energy security, it puts us at greater 
risk; that in fact it depresses the ability to produce oil here in the 
United States, and in Alaska, and it does cost us jobs; and that it is 
more threatening to the environment to keep this policy in place than 
to remove it.
  We believe that not because a Government study said that, because for 
10 years we have known it. I am pleased to say today in the well of the 
House that I have a statement from the administration that at long last 
recognizes the simple economics of allowing the marketplace to 
determine the amount of oil produced and recognizes that there is no 
question that forcing tankers to ply the Pacific waters is indeed a 
greater environmental risk than to have some of it find its economic 
home somewhere other than the lower 48.
  I am also pleased to have a letter from the maritime unions. AFL-CIO 
is in support of this legislation. More than 75 of my colleagues, both 
Democrat and Republican, have joined us as well.
  This bill is long overdue. It is the proper thing to do, because H.R. 
1530, the Defense Authorization Act, provides for the privatization of 
Elk Hills as well. If we are going to produce oil out of a Government 
reserve at its maximum efficient rate, you should not let Government 
try to be in the oil business of production and selling.
  What we should do is privatize Elk Hills. Along with allowing the 
Alaskan North Slope oil in H.R. 70 to find its economic home, and 
privatizing Elk Hills in H.R. 1530, we go a long way toward correcting 
the crazy economics of oil policy that has been in place for almost 20 
years. It is indeed an exciting moment.
  I want to thank very much the chairman of the Committee on Resources 
who, although he comes from Alaska, I know because of his understanding 
of the way things work would have been supportive of this bill, 
notwithstanding the fact that he represents the State. It is just a 
pleasure to work with him to correct a policy that did not augur well 
for the citizens and the economy of Alaska. It has not augured well for 
the citizens and the economy of California. Indeed, it has been a 
tragic mistake for all Americans over the last 20 years. It is a 
pleasure to support H.R. 70 and correct this problem.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, this legislation should be retitled. It 
should be retitled ``Let's Not Learn From History,'' because what we 
are doing here, is we are setting ourselves up again. We are setting 
ourselves up to rapidly exploit the reserves that exist in Alaska, put 
pressure on ANWR and other sensitive environmental areas.
  I know some people believe in that. They ought to stand up and say 
that is what they want to do. But worst of all, at a time when we are 
more vulnerable than ever to Mideast oil and to the blackmail of a 
Mideast oil embargo, we are about to contract American oil off 
someplace else.
  The House rules prohibit me from mentioning the names of the junior 
Senator in the other body, from referencing any Member of the other 
body, so I cannot do that. But let me tell you that people in both 
bodies in the Congress, which I can reference, have made statements 
about where we are oil-wise.
  This is not a liberal Democrat or somebody that wants to break this 
historic decision that we have had to protect the resources in Alaska 
and thereby prevent the pressure for immediate 
 
[[Page H7489]]

exploitation of all our reserves. This gentleman says,

       Mr. President, there is no question that each day our 
     energy situation is increasingly in peril. In 1973, the year 
     of the Arab oil embargo, we imported 6.3 million barrels per 
     day of crude oil and refined petroleum products. We were 36 
     percent dependent on foreign oil. Today we are 50 percent 
     dependent on foreign oil.

  So where are we? At a time when we are more dependent than ever on 
the importation of oil from a part of the world that is still 
politically unstable, we are going to take our oil and we are going to 
contract it to the Japanese.
  What is that going to do? First of all, if there is a crisis, we are 
going to have to go back and say to the Japanese, ``Gee, we need this 
oil back,'' which is going to create other problems and complications 
for the Government. But it will do several things.
  It will accelerate the exploitation of Alaskan oil. What does that 
do? Well, that means the day when America is bankrupt oil-wise is 
closer. At a time when we ought to be making long-term planning for the 
proper utilization of our natural resources, we are going to create a 
fire sale. Let's sell this product off, let's get it out there, let's 
get rid of it and then we'll be completely dependent on the Middle East 
or some other part of the world.
  There are other places, by the way, where there is oil. There is 
Kazakhstan that is finding all these great reserves. That is so good an 
area to operate in, even the oil companies that have found oil cannot 
get it out of there because of the political situation.
  Here we are, not that long after the 1973 oil embargo, and what are 
we trying to do? We are trying to make the United States more dependent 
on oil from regions of the world that are politically unstable.
  Yes, I think we ought to amend the title of the bill. It ought to be 
the ``Let's Not Learn From History Act,'' because that is what we are 
doing here. We are wasting our future, we are endangering our children 
with this piece of legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
  H.R. 70 is a sellout of America.
  This bill purports to allow the sale of Alaska oil, and it does.
  But what the proponents of this bill do not say is that this bill is 
really selling out the interests of American workers, American 
consumers, American national security, and the American environment.
  And this sellout of America is to benefit British Petroleum and the 
State of Alaska.
  This bill will sellout American consumers, American workers, our 
environment, and our national security just to allow this huge British 
company to sell Alaskan oil to the Japanese.
  So, the British and the Japanese will win and the Americans will 
lose.
  States that depend on Alaska oil will lose.
  States with industries involved with the shipment of Alaska oil will 
lose.
  States with industries involved with the construction and repair of 
Alaska oil tankers will lose.
  It is only the State of Alaska, the British and the Japanese who win.
  American consumers will lose out because the export of Alaska oil 
will increase the cost of oil here at home.
  This should not come as a surprise--it is the law of supply and 
demand.
  The less oil we have here at home, the higher the cost to the 
consumer.
  It will not only hurt the consumer at the pump--it will also increase 
the crude oil acquisition costs of independent refiners.
  American workers will lose out because under this bill, the ships 
that carry Alaska oil do not have to be built in the United States.
  Thousands of jobs for American shipworkers will be eliminated.
  So, not only will the United States be shipping oil to Japan, we will 
also be shipping jobs abroad.
  Today, ships carrying Alaska oil to the west coast must be built in 
the United States.
  Under this bill, ships carrying Alaska oil to Japan will not have to 
be built in the United States.
  Not only will thousands of shipbuilding jobs be lost.
  Hundreds of seagoing jobs aboard tankers carrying Alaska oil to the 
lower 48 States be lost.
  Thousands of ship repair jobs will be lost to subsidized Asian 
shipyards.
  The American environment will lose out in several respects:
  First, the export of Alaska oil will increase the demand for domestic 
oil--and therefore lead to drilling on the California coast and in the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  Second, since the United States will have to import more oil from the 
Middle East, the risks of oil spills on the west coast will increase: 
bigger tankers will be used, increasing the risk of a spill; with the 
use of bigger tankers, there will have to be more transfers of the oil 
at the port, thereby increasing the risk of spills.
  Finally, the sale of Alaska oil abroad will also sell out our 
national security.
  Now is not the time to make the United States more dependent on the 
supply of oil from the Middle East.
  Why in the world are we allowing the export of domestic oil when the 
natural consequence of that is to increase our need to import oil from 
the countries in the Middle East, including Iran?
  Why are we allowing ourselves to become dependent on countries like 
Iran?
  There have been times in the past when the lack of domestic oil 
forced us to depend on oil from the Middle East.
  This amendment will voluntarily make the United States dependent on 
Middle East oil. That makes no sense.
  So, we are sacrificing American consumers, American workers, our 
environment, and our national security--all for the benefit of British 
Petroleum and the State of Alaska.
  A vote for this bill is a vote for British Petroleum and the State of 
Alaska--and no one else.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to compliment the gentleman from 
Connecticut for a great political speech. It had very little meat in 
it. A lot of, very frankly, assumptions were not true. We know what has 
happened to the world market of oil. We know the supply and demand. We 
know there is a glut on the west coast. We know that some people had a 
sweetheart deal. Very frankly, there are other areas that produce oil.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Will the gentleman tell me what part was not true?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I will not yield. I did not 
mention the gentleman's name. I did not mention the gentleman's name. I 
am just going to suggest respectfully, we could drill off the coast of 
California.
                              {time}  1445

  We could drill off the coast of Florida, Massachusetts, North 
Carolina. We could do those things. But we have to understand the 
marketing principle of oil. What has happened here, the only State in 
the Union which required in 1973, the only State that owns its own oil, 
was required to transport it to, by law of this Congress, really one 
market. And as the gentleman from California mentioned, we also 
required the full maximum production of oil out of Elk Hills. It was a 
classic example of Government interference in the marketing capability 
of a resource. And it has been a disaster that has decreased production 
of our domestic oil producers and made us more dependent.
  Let us keep in mind also that there will be, in fact, a different 
type oil in many cases that will be shipped to the Asian market that 
has no place in the United States, that is high in sulfur, and is what 
we call coal oil. There is a market in the Asian countries that do want 
this oil. It will not be just Prudhoe Bay oil; it will be an Alaskan 
oil.
  Mr. Chairman, we have also heard the statement we are going to 
exploit. If anything, we have not, very frankly, explored enough, 
because as I mentioned in my opening statement, the highest trade 
deficit mark, highest in 7 years, is the importation of fossil fuels 
that do not come necessarily from the Far East, but other countries, 
because we killed our domestic production.
  This is an attempt to make the marketplace work; an attempt to open 
other fields and to get some of our independent oil producers back into 
the field.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I suggest respectfully, I know rhetoric is very 
popular on this floor, that we look at the facts, the people that 
support it, including this administration. Those that are directly 
affected support it and it was wrong to begin with and it is time that 
we lift that ban.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Burr].
  (Mr. BURR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 70 which lifts the 
ban on exporting Alaskan crude.
  The current ban on exporting Alaskan crude contained in the Energy 
Policy and Conservation Act, the Export 

[[Page H7490]]
Administration Act, and the Mineral Leasing Act has several negative 
impacts. Among other things, it has lead to artificially low prices for 
heavy crude on the west coast, thereby discouraging some otherwise 
profitable oil production in California. I believe this bill will lead 
to increased domestic oil production, increased oil industry related 
jobs and preserve existing maritime jobs.
  The Commerce Committee supports the amendments made by this act to 
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act and the other relevant statutes, 
so that Alaskan crude can be exported to the Pacific rim and elsewhere. 
It is important to note that EPCA is amended only with respect to 
export of the crude specified in the statute. No other modifications 
are made. Significantly, the United States obligations under the 
International Energy Agreement are unaffected by this provision. 
Finally, because of the legislation's impact on EPCA, I and other 
members of the Commerce Committee will continue to follow this bill 
through the legislative process and excessive oversight over its 
implementation.
  I support H.R. 70 and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley].
  Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I commend and thank the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas] for all the good work the gentleman has done 
over the years in advancing legislation and I commend the gentleman 
from Alaska [Mr. Young] for his efforts too.
  As an original cosponsor of H.R. 70, I rise in strong support of the 
committee's proposed bill. Although current law may have made a great 
deal of sense in 1973, like many other laws, it is now having the 
unintended consequences of reduced domestic oil production resulting in 
job losses in many parts of the country.
  We, therefore, should support this legislation and repeal the ban and 
authorize exports of Alaskan North Slope oil. As reported by the 
Committee on Resources, H.R. 70 has been endorsed by the Clinton 
administration. The bill is also supported by small and independent oil 
producers, including the California Independent Petroleum Association 
and, in addition, because the bill would require exports to be carried 
on U.S.-flag vessels, it also has the strong support of maritime labor. 
The legislation is particularly important to the independent producers 
who make up a vital element of the industry.
  The independent producers testified before the Committee on Resources 
that current law forces oil from the No. 1 producing State, Alaska, 
into the number three producing State in the country, California.
  By creating this artificial glut, the law continues to depress 
California heavy crude production. Though no one in 1973 would have 
predicted that the original export restrictions would force job losses 
throughout my State, today independent producers are forced to bear the 
unintended consequences of that action.
  The Department of Energy did do a study that many of us support, and 
a study where some of the conclusions, I think, may be a very 
compelling argument for this legislation: That oil production, because 
of the passage of this legislation, will increase by 100,000 barrels 
per day; that we will see up to 25,000 jobs being created by a result 
of increase in investment; we will see State and Federal revenues that 
will increase by hundreds of millions of dollars well into the future.
  These benefits can be achieved with little if any impact on consumer 
prices. When Congress enacted the
 Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System in 1973, it did not ban exports. Rather, 
it recognized that exports might some day be in the national interest 
and as the Department of Energy studies demonstrate, that day has 
arrived.

   Mr. Chairman, we now have an opportunity to spur additional energy 
production and create jobs. With imports now meeting over 50 percent of 
our domestic consumption because of falling production, we must do 
something quickly to increase energy production in this country.
  Some of my colleagues have argued that this is not a good policy to 
allow for the export of Alaskan oil. But the bottom line is, this 
policy, if it is enacted, will increase the profitability, it will 
increase the financial viability of independent oil production, which 
will increase the productive capacity of oil production in this United 
States. That clearly contributes to increased energy independence and 
clearly is good policy.
  H.R. 70 will enhance our national energy security, it will create 
jobs, and it is good policy. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the 
pending legislation and against any weakening amendments.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, the principal inherent in the laws that passed in the 
early 1970s was a keen awareness of the need for American energy 
independence, or at least a greater degree of it than existed at that 
time.
  Events that have occurred since then really increased the 
vulnerability and the concerns that were stated in the early 1970s. It 
is true that there have not been as severe embargoes as occurred in the 
early 1970s, but the fact is that today we are importing nearly 50 
percent of our crude oil.
  Those that argue in favor of lifting this ban somehow come to the 
logic that if somehow we export oil from the United States, in this 
case, of course, from the Prudhoe Bay area and from other areas on the 
North Slope, that that is going to help us build independence. They 
argue that, in fact, the fact that we restrict the marketplace for this 
oil only to the United States results in lower prices in terms of 
Alaskan oil.
  Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleagues, and those that are 
interested in this topic, that, in fact, all of this oil comes 
principally off public lands. There may be some private lands; some 
State and some Native American lands.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Prudhoe Bay is all State lands.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I would argue anyway that it is a public 
resource area and is something that should ensure to the benefit of our 
independence with regards to oil and to the leases that are present in 
this area.
  So, the idea that their is some continuity or some connection between 
the lands that were in this case originally Federal lands, national 
lands, and that we were looking for a benefit, in fact, some greater 
degree of independence, and I might say, it has not come at great 
sacrifice, I do not think, to Native Alaskans or Alaskan citizens or 
those of the United States, because there are revenues and royalties 
that have flowed to them that the production in this area, has been, I 
think according to expectations, it has been good and there has been 
substantial benefit that has flowed to Alaskans and to others from 
this.
  Mr. Chairman, all we are asking is that the greater degree of 
benefits be permitted to flow and continue to be available as a 
backstop of independence to the American people.
  I do not think the sponsors of this necessarily have answered that 
particular question with regards to an increased amount of dependency 
on imported oil.
  Furthermore, of course, at the same time we are arguing that we are 
arguing for greater and greater areas to be opened up, it seems to me 
that certainly this change in policy will add additional pressure to 
Federal public lands in Alaska.
  I do not think that the public asks too much in terms of having the 
use of these Federal resources, when and if they are used, and State 
resources, indirectly Federal resources, when and if they are used, 
that there is benefit that flows to the people broadly across the 
country in terms of energy independence.
  Mr. Chairman, we are certainly, I think, in a more vulnerable 
position today than we were in the 1970s. Hopefully with the conclusion 
of the Cold War and other activities, we would have greater 
independence, but I fear that we do not. In fact, many of these areas, 
some would argue, are even more vulnerable than they were before.
  Mr. Chairman, the argument to export this oil and then at the same 
time to scream that there is a shortage with regards to Alaska, when 90 
percent of the coast of Alaska is available for oil, 

[[Page H7491]]
obviously will tend to put more pressure on the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge and we know the qualities and importance of that area, 
even though there is only a 1 in 5 chance of finding oil there, there 
will be greater hue and cry to put pressure on there.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that those who are hurt here are the consumers. 
What is hurt is the environment and what is hurt in national security. 
The gains in terms of production for those that want the symmetry of 
some sort of free market in a world where there is not a free market, 
certainly in oil, is an illusion more than a reality. This is short-
term gratification in terms of getting a few more dollars in the hands 
of those that sell the oil today, but long-term problems.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think that we need a policy that suggests we 
need to drain and develop all of our oil and resources out of this 
country first and export it to the Pacific rim. I think there are 
greater benefits that can be achieved in terms of conservation and 
other activities that have been spurred, rather
 than building up and exporting what are essentially U.S. resources and 
U.S. security.

  Mr. Chairman, I speak in opposition to the bill.
  As the sponsor of the bill to protect the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge as wilderness, I see today's effort to change the law regarding 
the export of Alaskan oil to the Far East as yet another way to promote 
the oil and gas development of the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge. 
Ending the oil export ban would no doubt increase development pressure 
for sensitive areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As long 
as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is not permanently protected as 
wilderness, lifting the ban on the export of Alaskan oil is a presents 
risk for those of us committed to the long-term protection of this 
special area.
  The policy inherent in this measure is short term gratification 
revenue today but long term problems tomorrow. There are those who see 
no connection and argue the relationship between lifting the export ban 
on Alaskan oil and the desire to open the Arctic Refuge to oil 
development. Perhaps pointing out the publicity in the rationale behind 
these two proposals will help shed light on my concerns.
  The rationale for lifting the export ban on Alaskan oil is that there 
is so much North Slope production that it can't be absorbed on the west 
coast. By allowing the export of the so called surplus, Alaska and the 
oil producers will profit by not having to expend resources and funds 
to ship American oil to the gulf coast. This means Prudhoe Bay oil will 
be exported.
  The rationale for opening ANWR on the other hand is that the United 
States is facing a national security risk from oil imports, which now 
exceed 50
 percent of consumption. The thinking is that the country must have 
Arctic Refuge oil if it's going to protect itself from exploitation. 
But meanwhile Prudhoe Bay oil is about to be exported.

  How is it OK to export oil because there's too much being produced 
but there's a national imperative to drill for more because the Nation 
isn't producing enough? In most circles, that's talking out of both 
sides of your mouth. The debate of these two issues is losing something 
in translation: common sense. What is really going on is that the 
consumer, national security, and environmental concerns are receiving 
short shrift, while the special oil interest get what they want: profit 
and public resources.
  The sacrifice of Alaska's environment in the Arctic and Prince 
William Sound was not authorized by Congress just to make money for the 
State of Alaska or British Petroleum, but importantly for the national 
security and energy independence of the people of the United States. 
Today, we can look back at the true cost and impact. What works and 
what doesn't.
  One of the most important compromises in securing congressional 
authorization for the construction of the Alaska pipeline in 1973 was 
the promise that Alaskan oil would be used only in the United States 
and never exported. The basis for the promise was that if we are going 
to sacrifice the Alaskan environment for oil production, all of the oil 
ought to be used for U.S. domestic consumption.
  That was the view then, and it should be borne in mind today. The 
Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge belongs to each of 
us as citizens of the United States. There will never be
 another place like the Arctic Refuge in our national lands. 
Incidentally its of interest that vast stretches of Alaska's coastal 
waters--an estimated 90 percent--are now available for development, but 
those who hold the leases often delay and speculate playing the market 
for better prices or deals to increase their profit too often at public 
expense. There are many other environmental reasons to keep the ban in 
place that stand on their own concerning the export of Alaskan U.S. 
domestic crude oil:

  The risk of oilspills would increase dramatically. Ships would be 
traveling in waters that are usually relatively free of tanker traffic 
but experience some of the worst weather conditions in the North 
Pacific. In addition, in the wake of the Exxon Valdez spill, Congress 
passed legislation requiring double-hulled tankers to reduce the risks 
to the sensitive coast of Prince William Sound. If the tankers for 
Asian trade turn out to be ``U.S. flagged''--U.S. crews--but not ``U.S. 
built''--Jones Act--then British Petroleum can avoid the requirement 
that new tankers be double hulled. This will save millions for BP, but 
increase the risk of massive oilspills like the Exxon Valdez.
  In addition, environmental and safety problems plaguing the trans-
Alaska pipeline are legion. More than 10,000 safety and electrical 
violations on the Alaska pipeline have been identified, many of them 
serious. The ballast treatment facility at Valdez is currently 
inadequate to handle the tankers that call on it now, and larger 
tankers for foreign trade would be likely if the ban is lifted.
  The oil industry should not be rewarded with higher profits from 
shipping North Slope oil at the same time it is requesting exemptions 
from environmental laws. Alyeska, the corporate entity, which runs the 
pipeline for British Petroleum and the other oil company owners, has 
for years avoided proper controls and limits on air pollution caused by 
fumes that are released during tanker loading and recently requested a 
12-year delay in meeting air pollution standards for the Nation's 
largest tanker terminal at Valdez. Lifting the ban would open the door 
to tankers twice as large. Once we start down this path if appears that 
the special interests don't quit until they have circumvented most 
environmental laws and regulations. Lifting the ban on North Slope oil 
exports would increase sales and enhance revenue for many Alaskans. 
However, that additional income for a few of our citizens must be 
weighed against the concerns of the rest of the Nation. Many speculate 
a few more dollars if the oil is exported, but what of the 1970 
promises, and who will answer when a new energy crisis arises and our 
domestic energy security is pledged abroad? Will we then come stumbling 
over one another to give short shrift to the sanctity of trade 
contracts in the face and name of crisis?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute just 
to correct the statement by the gentleman from California who said 
accurately that most of the major refineries are located in the San 
Francisco Bay area. That is correct and they are also located in my 
district.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman that most of the major 
refineries are noncommittal on this legislation. I do have two 
refineries in my district that are opposed to this legislation; one 
which unfortunately is going to be closed by the time it passes, and 
the other which is concerned about its supply.
  But I want to let the Record stand corrected with respect to the 
large refiners in the bay area. Most of them have been nonfactors in 
this.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Traficant].
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill. Somewhere 
between the analysis of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] and 
the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Thomas] rests the reality of this particular bill. But all of us 
have a dog in this fight; not just California and Alaska.
                              {time}  1500

  And there are a couple of points that I would like to point out. 
Current policy, by all indications, from all analysis, depresses 
domestic production. Lifting the ban would increase domestic production 
by 110,000 barrels of oil per day.
  All analysis shows this policy, current policy, stifles jobs. Lifting 
the ban would create as many as 25,000 jobs by the year 2000.
  Current policy threatens maritime jobs and functions. Lifting the ban 
would preserve as many as 3,300 jobs.
  Current policy keeps our oil tankers on a target for a scrap heap. 
Lifting the ban puts those tankers back into service, U.S.-owned 
vessels, I might add, with U.S. crews.
  Current policy limits growth. Lifting the ban would stimulate 
commerce and growth.
  Current policy suppresses revenue and loses money in our country. 
Lifting the ban would raise revenue by as much as $2 billion for State 
and Federal governments.

[[Page H7492]]

  Now, I am not against Alaska doing well, and I would like to see 
California do well, and as the respective States in our Union do well, 
the Nation does well. Our policy has been flawed. Current policy is not 
acceptable, and this is a reasonable attempt to, in fact, increase 
commerce and create jobs.
  With that, I will support this initiative, and as with all other 
initiatives be taken, as far as amendments, seriously, and my 
amendment, which would compel the Secretary of Commerce when confronted 
with problems within the industry, that it would not be discretionary, 
that the Secretary of Commerce would have to refer immediately to the 
President those issues for action.
  I think the bill provides for an opportunity that those problems be 
addressed. So, with that, I will support the bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I rise in support of House 
bill 70. It is rare that I get a chance to speak in favor of a Clinton 
administration policy initiative, and I do not want to miss that chance 
today.
  I want also to associate my comments with the gentleman from Ohio, 
who did an excellent job of pointing out what is wrong with current 
policy. The reason current policy discourages jobs, discourages 
domestic production, discourages the use of American bottoms and 
tankers and discourages the maritime jobs that, in fact, this bill will 
help promote itself because current law is based upon the policy of 
artificial restraints in the marketplace.
  There is a reason why we lost almost 200,000 jobs in Louisiana. There 
is a reason why the oil and gas industry in America lost nearly 400,000 
workers. There is a reason why so many oil and gas jobs have left this 
country. So many companies are, in fact, investing everywhere else in 
the world in oil and gas exploration and development and sales.
  The reason has been artificial restraints on the marketplace imposed 
upon the industry by this body and by regulatory bodies here in 
Washington, DC.
  Now, Congress has come to understand that. That is why over the last 
decade we have begun the process of repealing most of those artificial 
restraints. It was artificial price supports in the marketplace that 
led to the gas shortages in this country in the last several decades. 
It was artificial price penalties in the form of windfall profit taxes, 
about 90-percent windfall profit taxes, that drove so many companies 
outside of the arena of American production. it is still artificial 
restraints upon production led by environmentalists who put limits on 
offshore development, who will not let us develop the Arctic reserves 
in the Arctic wildlife national reserve. It is still those artificial 
restraints which caused so many companies to look elsewhere around the 
world for opportunities to produce energy, and it is those artificial 
restraints which have put us in a position today where we are more 
dependent upon foreign sources of energy than ever in our Nation's 
history.
  The White House has caught on. The administration has figured it out. 
The gentleman from Ohio gave you the numbers.
  Removing this one little artificial restraint will do a lot of good 
for Alaska production, will do a lot of good for California production, 
will add one modicum of support for domestic production again here in 
this country.
  There are other artificial restraints we ought to look at. We ought 
to look at the artificial restraints which make it almost impossible to 
develop many offshore areas in America, that put off limits large areas 
rich in hydrocarbon resources in Alaska and other areas of this 
country.
  When we had the 5-year leasing plan before our Committee on Merchant 
Marine and Fisheries, when we still had a committee, the gentleman 
representing the administration years ago came forward to tell us there 
was still going to be maintained in the law moratoriums in drilling 
offshore. We said ``Why?'' He said, ``Well, we are trying to identify 
the highly environmentally sensitive areas and the low hydrocarbon 
areas.'' We asked him, ``Well, if you find an area high in hydrocarbon, 
low in environmental concerns, will you allow those to be drilled?'' He 
said, ``Well, not quite. We have got some of those off limits, too.'' 
He could not explain it except in politics terms.
  The bottom line is politics, Federal regulations, artificial 
restraints have put this country in a vulnerable position today, and 
today we have an opportunity to at least remove one of those artificial 
restraints, and removing this one artificial restraint will help to 
some degree, will help Alaska, will help California, and in the large 
measure, as my friend from Ohio has pointed out, help us all in jobs 
again, helps us all in restoring some semblance of domestic incentive 
to produce again for this Nation.
  This is a good bill. I commend it to you. I am proud to cosponsor it. 
We need to pass it and get it into conference committee. Yes, my friend 
from California, I hope in conference committee we begin to debate an 
incentive policy for deep offshore drilling.
  If this country ever needs something, it is to turn around the 
disincentives we have had for decades and create some incentives again 
to produce for America. We ought to debate that in conference.
  Tomorrow I will be filing a bill comparable to Senator Bennett 
Johnston's bill on the Senate side to do just that. It is time for us 
to recognize that America cannot remain dependent upon foreign sources, 
that incentivizing the industry here at home makes sense, and removing 
artificial barriers to production, exploration, development, and 
refining in this country make good sense for this country, too.
  I hope never again to have to vote to send young Louisiana boys and 
girls to war in the Persian Gulf because they could not get a job in 
America producing energy for this country. It is time we start turning 
that around.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas].
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I do want to underscore the fact this 
legislation will produce revenue to the United States, increase oil 
production and, in fact, produce additional jobs.
  The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office, provides figures which support all of those allegations.
  Let me just for a minute or two talk about the economics of oil. I 
know the gentleman from Minnesota and others are absolutely 
flabbergasted with the logic that if you allow North Slope oil to find 
its economic home, that policy would, in fact, increase production in 
both Alaska and California and enhance national security.
  To support the comment of the gentleman from Louisiana about 
Government getting itself involved in areas where it should not involve 
itself, I want to mention that just a few years ago, Congress in its 
wisdom passed a so-called windfall profits tax. That did not produce 
one penny of windfall profits in my area. What it did do was destroy a 
portion of the oil production in my area.
  For example, I talked about heavy oil being produced in our area. You 
have to heat boilers to drive steam into the ground to allow this heavy 
oil to come to the surface. There were a number of small refineries 
that would take the crude oil across the street, down the road from 
where it was produced. They would refine it only lightly, pull the 
lights off the top, sell kerosene and other lights at a profit, send 
the fuel oil or bunker oil back to the boilers to be burned. That was a 
really nice working arrangement that gave people some jobs and enhanced 
the oil's value.
  When the windfall profits tax was passed, since you were charged a 
tax if that crude oil left your property, what happened was the 
producers burned crude oil in their boilers. We did not get the small 
refineries pulling the lights off. They went out of business. We, in 
fact, produced fewer Btu's with the dirtier residue because Government 
told them that was the way they were supposed to conduct their 
business. It did not tell them directly to do that, but the economics 
of the situation dictated it.
  I would tell the gentleman from Minnesota it is not logic, it is 
economics 

[[Page H7493]]
that we are dealing with here. When you tell people in Alaska they can 
only sell their oil to the lower 48, it means Washington, Oregon, or 
California. You cannot sell it to the East Coast, because that oil 
would have to pass through the Panama Canal and go by the second 
largest producing State in the Union, Texas, and the fourth largest 
oil-producing State in the United States, Louisiana, before it got to 
the East Coast.
  Oil is a fungible commodity around the world. Contrary to what the 
gentleman from Connecticut said, we are not saying this oil has to be 
sold to anybody. That is the old policy. The new policy in H.R. 70 is 
it will find its economic home. If Californians or Washingtonians bid 
more than anybody else, it will come to the lower 48. If Japan bids 
more, it goes to Japan. Japan needs the oil. They would have paid 
sufficient price to get it.
  Where were they getting oil before that? Probably from the Middle 
East. The oil going from the Middle East to Japan now does not go to 
Japan. The Middle East folks are looking for a home for their oil. They 
will turn toward Europe. The oil going to Europe, you see, from the 
Middle East now puts a pressure on the European oil in the North Sea. 
That North Sea oil needs to find a home. Guess what, it can go right 
across the Atlantic to the East Coast. You can wind up getting more oil 
at a cheaper price on the East Coast if you open up the whole question 
of where oil goes.
  Do not send it where the Government wants it to go. Send it where 
economics should have it go. You will produce more oil in California, 
you will produce more oil in Alaska, and we will be more energy self-
sufficient.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I praise my colleague from California, Mr. 
Miller, who has been a long player in this issue of the protecting of 
the environment on the California coast.
  But I rise in support of this bill. Although some environmentalists 
oppose ending the ban, the Department of Energy study shows that, 
indeed, if you lift this ban, it will have an environmental benefit for 
the State of California. The only ban on exportation of oil in the 
United States drilled anywhere where there is oil is on Alaska, and 
because of that ban to foreign countries, it must come to California. 
It comes in supertankers down the west coast, and when the Alaskan oil 
spill occurred, we took a look in the State of California about what 
would it mean if we had a spill like that magnitude on the coast. The 
area most vulnerable to a spill is the district I represent, along Big 
Sur and the Santa Cruz-Monterey Bay coastline. The resources along that 
coastline are so valuable you could not put a price tag on them.
  It became of interest to a lot of people to say, ``Look, how can we 
mitigate any issue relating to oil tanker traffic in creation of the 
National Marine Sanctuary?'' They have asked the tanker carriers to go 
out to 60 miles. One of the carriers, ARCO does that on a regular basis 
because a 60-mile buffer on the coast gives them at least some buffer 
zone if any accident should occur.
  So, by lifting this ban it essentially says that oil can be exported 
where there is a market, where the refineries are.
  Japan is the logical buyer of that oil and the processor of that oil.
  So I rise in support of this issue. From an environmental standpoint, 
I think it is going to be a better management of the delicate resources 
along the coast, and there is a secondary benefit, and that is that 
California is a large oil-producing State. Monterey County is a very 
environmentally sensitive county. It has the fifth largest oil-
producing field in the State of California.
  So if we increase the oil production onshore, which the environmental 
community has already indicated we ought to go onshore before offshore, 
and I have led successful battles to prevent offshore oil drilling, we 
will, indeed, allow more onshore production, which will increase the 
local revenues and be a benefit to the local counties.
  This is a win-win for jobs for California, revenues for the counties, 
for the environment. I support this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, ending the export ban for Alaskan oil is clearly a 
critical issue for the State of California. Hundreds of thousands of 
barrels per day of Alaskan crude come to California, with profound 
effects on California's oil market. I support this committee's efforts 
to examine in greater detail the effect of this current practice, and 
the possible ramifications of ending the ban on Alaskan oil exports.
  Many have discussed ending the ban in terms of its economic effects. 
This is clearly an important factor: California is the third largest 
producer of crude in the United States, and any change of policy which 
benefits California oil producers will have a profound effect on 
California's economy, job creation in the region, and tax revenues at 
both the State and Federal level.
  In addition to economic effects, however, we must also examine how 
ending the oil export ban would affect both the natural environment and 
U.S. workers. Ending the ban may be beneficial for both the environment 
and employment if it means less oil tanker traffic along the California 
coastline, less pressure to develop in the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge, and secure shipping jobs and increased employment in 
California.
  In reviewing H.R. 70, we should take into consideration the testimony 
not only of those who are experts in the field, but those who would be 
most affected by removing the ban. I appreciate the testimony of those 
who have come before the committee today, including Deputy Secretary 
William White from the Department of Energy, representatives from labor 
organizations, and members of the California oil industry. I look 
forward to further debate in the committee on this important 
legislation.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. In responding to my friend from California, who said this 
is not logic, it is economics, I would probably just say I could rest 
my case at that particular basis.
  But the fact is I understand that the oil is restricted to the 
continental United States, that the price of the oil is impacted, but I 
think that is a trade-off in terms of the issue of energy security.
  We have gone through quite a bit of expense, whether it is Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve and other efforts.
  I can hardly wait for the next time that we have a crisis and we will 
be tripping over one another here to deal with the so-called sanctity 
of contracts in terms of free markets. There is not a free market in 
oil.

                              {time}  1515

  It is greatly impacted by a variety of different nations that have, 
in fact, conspired on a regular basis to try to limit and to raise the 
price. I know that it is very important to some in the Chamber here to 
raise the price of oil. They see it as a benefit in terms of 
exploration and development, to put it kindly. There are others that 
might see it as some more money in their pocket, to put it not so 
kindly.
  So I would just suggest this policy is actually working. I appreciate 
the fact that oil tankers might spill oil if they are carrying it close 
to coast, and better to develop it on coast. We are really running that 
risk, and we face that all the time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on H.R. 70, a 
bill that amends the Mineral Leasing Act to permit exports of Alaska 
North Slope oil. Since 1973 when Congress enacted the Trans-Alaska 
Pipeline Authorization Act in wake of the Arab-Israeli war and the 
first oil embargo, ANS oil has been dedicated solely for domestic uses, 
as has been pointed out.
  Over 20 percent of the oil produced in the United States, which 
currently amounts to about 1.6 million barrels a day, comes from the 
Alaska North Slope. The oil is transported by tankers, as has been 
indicated, to refineries on the West Coast, Hawaii, and other domestic 
destinations. The tankers that ship ANS oil are required under the 
Merchant Marine Act of 1920--Jones Act--to be U.S. built, flagged and 
crewed, which I strongly support.
  Mr. Chairman, my primary concern with exporting ANS centers on its 
effects in Hawaii, as my colleagues can well imagine. Hawaii was an 
energy market that is uniquely different from all the other States in 
the Union. The State of Hawaii depends on imported oil for over 92 
percent of its energy supply, a large share of which comes from 

[[Page H7494]]
Alaska. Currently, Hawaii leads the Nation in energy costs. A recent 
survey found that the average price for a gallon of gasoline in Hawaii 
was $1.76. The nationwide average was $1.33.
  In June 1994, the U.S. Department of Energy released a study which 
has been mentioned as well. It is my understanding that the study 
concludes that permitting exports would benefit the U.S. economy which 
I do not propose to debate, yet Hawaii was not even mentioned in the 
report. Thus, any attempt to make assumptions on Hawaii's consumers and 
economy based on the DOE study would be inaccurate and perhaps 
misleading. I was pleased to note during
 the committee process the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], the 
chairman of the Committee on Resources, has been very willing to 
accommodate the concerns raised by myself on behalf of Hawaii 
consumers. At this point, I would like to enter into a colloquy with 
the gentleman from Alaska regarding an amendment I offered in the 
committee.

  As the chairman will recall, during markup, the Committee on 
Resources adopted by voice vote an amendment very important to the 
citizens of Hawaii. As further modified and improved under the 
committee print, the amendment would ensure that, before making the 
required national interest determination, the President would 
specifically consider the likely impact of Alaskan oil exports on 
consumers, especially in Hawaii and Pacific territories. Because Hawaii 
has an energy market that is unique and depends on imports for over 92 
percent of its energy supply, a large share of which comes from the 
Alaska North Slope, it is essential that the President satisfy himself 
that exports will not harm consumers. I understand the chairman shares 
my concerns and would be willing to work with us in the future should 
any unanticipated problems develop
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman 
on his hard work brining this to my attention. The gentleman is 
absolutely correct. The committee has been very sensitive to the 
concerns of the consumers of Hawaii as a result of the actions from the 
gentleman. Knowing of these concerns, I supported his amendment in 
committee and further revived the text of the committee print to insure 
that the President will consider the impact of proposed exports on 
consumers in noncontiguous States before making his national-interest 
determination. As the gentleman will recall, the committee print also 
established a mechanism for the President to monitor supply and price 
developments. The committee print provides the President with the power 
to modify or revoke the authority to export in appropriate 
circumstances.
  Again let me assure the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] that 
it is in the intent of this legislation to cause no harm to consumers 
in Hawaii. I will be glad to work with him in the future to address any 
problems that arise but otherwise cannot be adequately addressed in the 
procedures included in our legislation.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, may I say in conclusion to the 
gentleman from Alaska that Hawaii and Alaska share unique difficulties 
and opportunities, and I am very pleased to be working with him.
  The correspondence between myself and the Department of Energy 
regarding Hawaii's energy situation, clarifying the intent of the 
amendment, and the understanding that the Department of Commerce 
monitoring responsibilities required in H.R. 70 evaluate consumer 
impacts will be included in the Record:
                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, June 6, 1995.
     Hon. Hazel R. O'Leary,
     Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Secretary O'Leary: On May 17, the House Committee on 
     Resources reported H.R. 70, a bill that amends the Mineral 
     Leasing Act to permit exports of Alaska North Slope oil. The 
     committee reported substitute contains an amendment which I 
     offered that was adopted by voice vote. The purpose of the 
     Abercrombie amendment is to require the President to make a 
     determination prior to the exporting of crude oil from the 
     Alaska North Slope that the activity will not have an effect 
     which is likely to harm consumers in noncontiguous states.
       Hawaii has an energy market that is uniquely different from 
     the other states in the Union. The State of Hawaii depends on 
     imported oil for over 92 percent of its energy supply, a 
     large share of which comes from Alaska. Currently, Hawaii 
     leads the nation in energy costs. A recent survey found that 
     the average price for a gallon of gasoline in Hawaii was 
     $1.76. The nationwide average was $1.33. In addition, the 
     neighbor islands already have some of the highest costs in 
     terms of electricity production. In particular, Maui and the 
     island of Hawaii rely heavily on fuel oil processed from the 
     Alaska North Slope.
       In June 1994, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) released 
     a study on ``Exporting Alaskan North Slope Crude Oil: 
     Benefits and Costs.'' It is my understanding that the study 
     concludes that permitting exports would benefit the U.S. 
     economy. Yet, Hawaii was not even mentioned in the report. 
     Thus any attempt to make assumptions about Hawaii's consumers 
     and economy based on the DOE study would be inaccurate and 
     misleading.
       Senator Murray offered an amendment that contained language 
     similar to the Abercrombie amendment. The Murray amendment 
     requires the President in consultation with the Attorney 
     General and the Secretary of Commerce to examine the effects 
     of exporting crude oil on independent refiners and adverse 
     employment consequences in the United States. The Murray 
     amendment was
      adopted in the Senate. However, there was not sufficient 
     time to review the Senate language prior to the mark-up of 
     H.R. 70 in the House Committee on Resources. In addition, 
     the Murray amendment did not address harm to consumers.
       As you may know, the Dooley/Tauzin substitute to H.R. 70 
     was not available until the day before the full Committee 
     mark-up preventing any consensus on final language of the 
     Abercrombie amendment. The Abercrombie amendment is a work in 
     progress that was written to protect consumers in 
     noncontiguous states. The language contained in the 
     Abercrombie amendment was adapted from the testimony of 
     William H. White, Deputy Secretary of Energy, presented to 
     the Committee on May 9. As a result, I would greatly 
     appreciate the Department of Energy's interpretation and 
     analysis of the Abercrombie amendment prior to the 
     consideration of H.R. 70 by the House of Representatives. A 
     copy of the amendment is enclosed for your review.
       Also, it is my understanding that the Secretary of 
     Commerce, under the authority of the Export Administration 
     Act, will administer the export license of Alaska North Slope 
     crude oil. It is vital that one of the conditions attached to 
     the export of crude oil at the front end include a proviso 
     that the activity will not have an effect which is likely to 
     harm consumers in noncontiguous states. As currently 
     contained in H.R. 70, I would like a written explanation of 
     the mechanisms and criteria to be utilized by the Department 
     of Commerce in the continual monitoring process regarding the 
     export of Alaska North Slope oil as it relates to consumers, 
     particularly as it pertains to consumers in noncontiguous 
     states.
       Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. I look 
     forward to your response.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Neil Abercrombie,
                                               Member of Congress.
       Enclosure.

       On page 2, insert after line 6 the following:
       (C) shall consider 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 that would cause sustained material 
     adverse employment effects in the United States or that would 
     cause substantial harm to consumers in noncontiguous states.
                                                                    ____

                                              The Deputy Secretary


                                                    of Energy,

                                    Washington, DC, June 30, 1995.
     Hon. Neil Abercrombie,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Abercrombie: Thank you for your letter of 
     June 8, 1995, to Secretary O'Leary on the subject of Alaska 
     North Slope (ANS) crude oil export legislation now under 
     consideration in the House.
       The Department of Energy certainly is aware of Hawaii's 
     dependence on petroleum for nearly all of its energy needs. 
     Although we did not consider the impacts specific to Hawaii 
     of permitting ANS exports in our 1994 report, we have 
     followed and will continue to follow Hawaii's energy 
     situation, including consumer prices for petroleum products, 
     with data collected and published by DOE's Energy Information 
     Administration (EIA) and with other privately collected 
     statistics. Our recent review of Hawaii's energy situation 
     shows the magnitude of the State's heavy reliance on oil, and 
     some of the possible implications of exporting ANS crude oil:
       Petroleum products refined at the State's two refineries 
     provide about 98 percent of Hawaii's energy needs. Alaskan 
     North Slope crude oil provides 45 percent of the crude oil 
     supply to these two refineries.
       Hawaii consumes about 125,000 barrels per day of petroleum 
     products distributed among 

[[Page H7495]]
     residual fuel oil (38%), jet fuel (22%), gasoline (20%), No. 2 fuel oil 
     (12%), and other products (8%) (See Figure 1). Residual fuel 
     is the largest petroleum product because most of Hawaii's 
     electricity is generated using this product.
       Gasoline consumption in the State is about 25,000 barrels 
     per day. Gasoline prices in Hawaii are substantially higher 
     than California and the national average, while the prices of 
     other petroleum products are only slightly higher (See Figure 
     2). The differences in prices appear to represent competitive 
     conditions in Hawaii: private citizens depend on gasoline 
     that is supplied by only two refiners while commercial and 
     industrial consumers can obtain other products from multiple 
     sources.
       The impact on Hawaii's consumers from a change in the ANS 
     export situation should be modest. If West Coast ANS oil 
     prices rise by $1.20 to $1.60 per barrel (3 to 4 cents per
      gallon) as estimated by the DOE in its June 1994 export 
     study, and ANS crude oil remains 45 percent of Hawaiian 
     refinery supply, the additional production cost amounts to 
     about 1.3 to 1.7 cents per gallon of product.
       If past performance is any guide, this additional cost to 
     the Hawaiian economy will have negligible impact. Figure 3 
     indicates that Hawaii's economic growth has been relatively 
     insensitive to crude oil prices. Between 1977 and 1981, oil 
     prices more than doubled, yet Hawaii's gross state product 
     growth substantially exceeded the national average. Even 
     during the latter part of the 1980s through 1992, when crude 
     oil prices were again volatile, Hawaii's economy grew faster 
     than the U.S. as a whole.
       Your amendment to H.R. 70 would add a third factor that the 
     President must consider in determining whether permitting 
     exportation of ANS crude oil is contrary to the national 
     interest. Specifically, the amendment would require 
     consideration of whether those persons exporting ANS oil 
     would be likely to engage in anticompetitive activity that 
     would cause significant adverse employment effects in the 
     U.S., or substantial harm to consumers in Hawaii. Full 
     consideration of these important issues is consistent with a 
     determination concerning our national interests in permitting 
     ANS exports.
       It is our understanding that the Department of Commerce, in 
     carrying out its monitoring responsibilities under H.R. 70, 
     will coordinate closely with DOE. In particular, the agencies 
     would monitor readily available petroleum market data for 
     possible oil supply shortages or sustained above-market oil 
     prices, and evaluate the consequential consumer impacts, in 
     Hawaii and elsewhere in the U.S. It is our expectation that 
     the two agencies will rely on data collected by EIA, the 
     Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Bureau of Census, and 
     private organizations.
       We look forward to working with you and your staff further 
     on this important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Bill White.

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
foolish attempt to sell out America's resources and put our marine 
life, our fisheries, and our air at serious risk.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent 140 miles of Marin and Sonoma County 
coastline in California--beautiful coastline with valuable marine 
resources, which would be permanently destroyed, if those who want to 
sell out our Nation's natural resources to the special interest have 
their way.
  Lifting the ban on Alaskan oil exports poses significant 
environmental risks without offering any benefits. Not only would this 
bill put pristine Alaskan wilderness and valuable fisheries at risk, it 
would also increase the risk of devastating oil spills off the 
California coastline.
  Mr. Chairman, this is simply not tolerable.
  The people of my district will not stand for such short-sighted and 
dangerous policy as proposed by this bill. We cannot permit our coastal 
waters to be fouled by the damaging effects of oil drilling and 
transportation. We cannot put our marine life, our fisheries, and our 
air at serious risk.
  I urge my colleagues to join in the effort to stop the sell out of 
our precious resources--our livelihood and our environment--by voting 
against this bill.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests 
for time and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds before I 
yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  I am amazed that the previous speaker would talk about the 
environment when in reality she has the tankers going right by her 
front door--of Alaskan crude oil that can possibly spill--and that is 
what this report says, so I cannot quite figure out the analogies of 
why are supposed to be environmentally safe to paint those big ships by 
their front door and yet say they are going to protect their coast. I 
just cannot figure that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, when I first came to the Congress, I had to 
explain time and time again to different entities in our constituency 
why we are 50 percent, back then, dependent on foreign oil for our 
standard of living here in this country. So I started the litany of 
explanations. We used to have oil depletion allowance, I said. Now that 
has been wiped off the books. That gives a disincentive for people, our 
fellow Americans, for drilling for oil in our own soil. I said on top 
of that that we have a ban on Alaskan exports and a ban on fullest 
development of Alaskan oil resources, and I went on to say, and then 
there is a ban on offshore drilling.
  Now my colleagues can understand why I said back then why we are 50-
percent dependent on foreign oil.
  Now what have we done since then?
  We have come to a point where we are 52-percent dependent on foreign 
oil. So the only question that should be raised and asked by Members of 
Congress as they approach the vote on this piece of legislation is 
this: Will our dependence on foreign oil increase or decrease as a 
result of this legislation?
  Vote ``yes'' on the bill offered by the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 70 
to lift the ban on Alaskan oil exports. This legislation will encourage 
oil production in my home State and in Alaska in a reasonable fashion. 
To promote jobs and energy security, I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
  Congress was appropriately concerned in 1973 about ensuring that 
Alaskan oil be available for domestic consumption. Given the 
fundamental changes that have occurred in the world market, however, 
the time has come to evaluate this policy in a new light.
  Among the changes in the world oil market is the diminishment of OPEC 
and its power over the price of oil. This has helped to diversify our 
supplies from other countries such as Mexico and Canada. We also have 
taken the precaution of building up the strategic petroleum reserve to 
protect us against the monopolistic threats of the 1970's.
  Now is the time to be concerned about our domestic energy production 
and ensuring that small independent producers remain viable. In order 
to ensure that these small producers, particularly those in California, 
maintain production and create jobs that need a better economic return 
on their investment.
  I urge my colleagues to support this measure which is a step toward 
improved national security and sustainable domestic production.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation and salute the authors for their hard work in bringing it 
to the floor for a vote today.
  I am a cosponsor of the bill, and, in my capacity as cochair of the 
congressional oil and gas forum, have supported lifting the ban on 
Alaskan North Slope oil. I also thank the administration for its 
support of the legislation.
  Our domestic oil and gas industry is working hard to survive in a 
highly competitive marketplace. In the 19th Congressional District of 
Illinois, which I am privileged to represent, we have independent 
operators who are struggling mightily to run their businesses in a 
profitable manner. The difficulties encountered by this industry have 
impacted on the small towns and villages in our area which are very 
dependent on the oil industry for jobs and economic activity.
  Lifting the ban on ANS oil will help create new jobs and will also 
bring revenue into the Federal treasury. That is a combination which is 
worthy of support and I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote in 
favor of lifting the ban.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join my colleagues in support of 
H.R. 70.
  Whether or not the ban on Alaskan oil exports made sense in 1973, it 
is having harmful and unintended consequences today. This ban has 
effectively forced Alaska to sell the bulk of its production in my home 
State of California and has severely damaged our oil and gas industry.
  Left in place, the ban will ensure a further decline in the 
production of crude oil in Alaska and California, resulting in 
thousands of lost jobs.
  For the small businesses that make up the bulk of the oil and gas 
industry in California, this legislation is vital to their future. If 
they can sell heavy crude oil into a market that no longer is distorted 
by artificial restraints, they will have a future producing oil.
  In recent weeks, prices have been edging down. Today, Kern County 
heavy crude was posted at $13.75 a barrel.

[[Page H7496]]

  We need to do something to help get them back to the levels at which 
significant investments will be made.
  Many of the independent oil producers have told me they will begin 
hiring the minute this bill is enacted. So the potential for job gains 
is quite real.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 70 and provide the oil 
and gas industry of my State with relief.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 70, to lift the 
current ban on Alaskan oil exports.
  During the late 1970's, worldwide concern over crude oil shortages 
prompted our Government to change its policies regarding the domestic 
production of oil. World oil markets have changed dramatically since 
then.
  Although the perception persists that we are dependent on oil from 
Iran, Iraq, Libya, and other hostile countries, Canada and Mexico, our 
reliable neighbors to the north and south, are among our largest 
suppliers of imported oil today. In addition, to avert the unlikely 
event of a future oil crisis, we have placed nearly 600 million barrels 
of oil in our strategic petroleum reserve.
  While we have done much to prevent an oil import crisis, little has 
been done to encourage domestic oil production and sales abroad. By 
lifting this ban, we would allow the market to determine the price and 
buyer for surplus crude oil. We would also promote increased 
international trade during a time when our trade deficit continues to 
widen--a deficit partly based on our massive importation of fossil 
fuels.
  According to a study completed by the Energy Department, lifting the 
export ban would increase our production of crude oil by as much as 
110,000 barrels per day. This increase would also result in increased 
revenue, as much as $2 billion, for Federal and State governments. 
According to the Department, 25,000 jobs in the oil industry would be 
created and over 3,000 jobs in the maritime industry would saved. 
Ultimately, the lifting of the ban will lead to sustained economic 
growth for the State of Alaska and the Nation.
  It is time for the Federal Government to take action to increase our 
opportunities abroad and to increase investment at home. This 
legislation achieves these goals. I urge my colleagues to support and 
end to the ban on Alaskan oil exports.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill.
  Does anyone really believe that exporting oil from the United States 
will decrease our dependence on foreign oil? It will increase our 
dependence.
  It was argued that current law has produced a glut of gasoline on the 
west coast. We haven't noticed. I simply do not believe that my 
constituents are paying too little for gasoline. I paid $1.42 a gallon 
for unleaded gas last Saturday in Everett. We have endured a gasoline 
price increase of more than 20 cents in the past several months.
  The United States is clearly dependent on imported oil. But if we 
don't have enough oil here, why are we selling oil to nations in Asia? 
Who do you think is going to profit from these exports? A foreign 
corporation, British Petroleum, will profit handsomely--as will Alaska.
  While the benefits or exporting this oil are being debated in 
corporate boardrooms, I fear my constituents may have to pay even 
higher prices at the pump.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill just does not make good sense in Washington 
State. Further, because of possible price increases, it does not make 
sense anywhere on the Pacific Coast. I predict that we will not have 
adequate supplies of oil for west coast refineries, at prices we'll be 
comfortable with. I intend to vote ``no'' and urge my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
H.R. 70. Lifting the ban on Alaskan North Slope [ANS] crude oil will 
heavily burden the State of Hawaii by augmenting U.S. dependence on 
foreign oil and dramatically increasing consumer prices. Because Hawaii 
consumers already pay the highest gasoline prices in the Nation, to 
allow gasoline prices to increase further would be disastrous for 
Hawaii's economy.
  Industry experts say that lifting the ban could increase wellhead 
prices for ANA by more than $2 per barrel, depending on the amount 
exported. Oil refineries in my State are designed to run on 60-percent 
crude oil. More than half of the crude oil processed in Hawaii's 
largest refinery run by BHP Petroleum Americas [BHP] is ANS crude, with 
the remaining coming from Pacific Basin countries. BHP states in a 
letter to me that should Hawaii's refineries be charged increased costs 
for ANS, ``Refiners will be forced to pass along that increased cost to 
consumers.'' The letter further states, ``In addition to paying 
increased prices, the supply of ANS crude oil to Hawaii and the U.S. 
Territories would be reduced.'' The removal of the ANS export ban would 
be expected to increase the supply of ANS crude to Pacific rim 
countries--oil that would otherwise come to Hawaii. It is highly 
irresponsible, in a time when the United States is importing nearly 
half of its petroleum, that American export policy would be changed to 
allow increased exportation of domestic crude oil.
  Similarly, this legislation would burden west coast States by 
increasing consumer prices for those States and abandoning these States 
in their need for domestic oil. According to BHP, ``If the ban were 
lifted, we believe we would see no increase in U.S. oil production but 
we would see an increased U.S. dependence on Persian Gulf oil.'' 
Because foreign-owned British Petroleum [BP] holds the monopoly on the 
sale of ANS crude oil to the west coast, and these States have no 
substitute supplier, BP would have the ability to squeeze availability 
of ANS to these States and charge higher prices to refiners. West coast 
refineries, like Hawaii refineries, do not have the capacity to simply 
absorb these increased costs and will be forced to raise their prices.
  Last, lifting the ANS export ban poses serious environmental concerns 
for the Pacific Basin. New export routes from Alaska to Japan would 
jeopardize the safety of Pacific fisheries and conservation areas that 
could be subject to Exxon Valdez. Growing demand for ANS crude oil 
would also increase harmful drilling, especially within the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge. In 1973, when Congress voted to allow ANS oil 
production, I voted for this export ban that ensured that such oil 
exploration and development would be for domestic purposes only. An 
overturn of the ban is an outright abrogation of Congress' original 
intent regarding the ANS oil supply.
  I urge my colleagues to cast their votes in opposition to this 
harmful, shortsighted legislation which would have tragic effects for 
the Nation as a whole, and especially for the State of Hawaii.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired. The committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill shall be 
considered by sections as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment, and pursuant to the rule each section is considered read.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to a Member 
offering an amendment that has been printed in the designated place in 
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time 
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
for a recorded vote on any amendment made in order by the resolution.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less 
than 5 minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any 
postponed question that immediately follows another vote by electronic 
device without intervening business, provided that the time for voting 
by electronic device on the first in any series of question shall not 
be less than 15 minutes.
  The clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:
                                H.R. 70

     SECTION 1. EXPORTS OF ALASKAN NORTH SLOPE OIL.

       Section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 185) is 
     amended--
       (1) by amending subsection (s) to read as follows:


                  ``exports of alaskan north slope oil

       ``(s)(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 section 203 of the 
     Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act (43 U.S.C. 1652) may 
     be exported 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;
       ``(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 the enactment of this subsection; 
     and
       ``(C) shall consider 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 that would cause sustained material 
     adverse employment effects in the United States or that would 
     cause substantial harm to consumers in noncontiguous States.

     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 

[[Page H7497]]
     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 with 
     which the United States entered into a bilateral 
     international oil supply agreement before November 26, 1979, 
     or to a country pursuant to the International Emergency Oil 
     Sharing Plan of the International Energy Agency, any oil 
     transported by pipeline over a right-of-way granted pursuant 
     to section 203 of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act 
     (43 U.S.C. 1652) shall, when exported, be transported by a 
     vessel documented under the laws of the United States and 
     owned by a citizen of the United States (as determined in 
     accordance with section 2 of the Shipping Act, 1916 (46 
     U.S.C. App. 802)).
       ``(3) Nothing in this subsection shall restrict the 
     authority of the President under the Constitution, the 
     International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 
     et seq.), or the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et 
     seq.) to prohibit exportation of the oil.
       ``(4) The Secretary of Commerce shall issue any rules 
     necessary for implementation of the President's national 
     interest determination within 30 days of the date of such 
     determination by the President. The Secretary of Commerce 
     shall consult with the Secretary of Energy in administering 
     the provisions of this subsection.
       ``(5) If the Secretary of Commerce finds that 
     anticompetitive activity by a person exporting crude oil 
     under authority of this subsection has caused sustained 
     material crude oil supply shortages or sustained crude oil 
     prices significantly above world market levels and further 
     finds that these supply shortages or price increases have 
     caused sustained material adverse employment effects in the 
     United States, the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Energy, may recommend to the President 
     appropriate action against such person, which may include 
     modification of the authorization to export crude oil.
       ``(6) Administrative action under this subsection is not 
     subject to sections 551 and 553 through 559 of title 5, 
     United States Code.''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (u).

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?


 amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Young of alaska

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. 
     Young of Alaska: Strike all after the enacting clause and 
     insert the following:

     SECTION 1. EXPORTS OF ALASKAN NORTH SLOPE OIL.

       Section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 185) is 
     amended by amending subsection (s) to read as follows:


                  ``exports of alaskan north slope oil

       ``(s)(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) through (6) of this 
     subsection and notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act or any other provision of law (including any regulation) 
     applicable to the export of oil transported by pipeline over 
     right-of-way granted pursuant to section 203 of the Trans-
     Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act (43 U.S.C. 1652), such oil 
     may be exported unless the President finds that exportation 
     of this oil is not in the national interest. The President 
     shall make his national interest determination within five 
     months of the date of enactment of this subsection. In 
     evaluating whether exports of this oil are in the national 
     interest, the President shall at a minimum consider--
       ``(A) whether exports of this oil would diminish the total 
     quantity or quality of petroleum available to the United 
     States;
       ``(B) the results of an appropriate environmental review, 
     including consideration of appropriate measures to mitigate 
     any potential adverse effects of exports of this oil on the 
     environment, which shall be completed within four months of 
     the date of the enactment of this subsection; and
       ``(C) whether exports of this oil are likely to cause 
     sustained material oil supply shortages or sustained oil 
     prices significantly above world market levels that would 
     cause sustained material adverse employment effects in the 
     United States or that would cause substantial harm to 
     consumers, including noncontiguous States and Pacific 
     territories.

     If the President determines that exports of this oil are in 
     the national interest, he may impose such terms and 
     conditions (other than a volume limitation) as are necessary 
     or appropriate to ensure that such exports are consistent 
     with the national interest.
       ``(2) Except in the case of oil exported to a country with 
     which the United States entered into a bilateral 
     international oil supply agreement before November 26, 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 
     section 203 of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act 
     (43 U.S.C. 1652) 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 exports of this oil or under Part B of 
     title II of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 
     6271-76).
       ``(4) The Secretary of Commerce shall issue any rules 
     necessary for implementation of the President's national 
     interest determination, including any licensing requirements 
     and conditions, 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 exporting oil 
     under authority of this subsection has caused sustained 
     material oil supply shortages or sustained oil prices 
     significantly above world market levels and further finds 
     that these supply shortages or price increases have caused or 
     are likely to cause sustained material adverse employment 
     effects in the United States, the Secretary of Commerce, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Energy, may recommend, and 
     the President may take, appropriate action concerning exports 
     of this oil, which may include modifying or revoking 
     authority to export such oil.
       ``(6) Administrative action under this subsection is not 
     subject to sections 551 and 553 through 559 of this title 5, 
     United States Code.''.

     SEC. 2. GAO REPORT.

       (a) Review.--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 oil exports, if 
     any, on consumers, independent refiners, and shipbuilding and 
     ship repair yards on the West Coast and in Hawaii. The 
     Comptroller General shall commence this review two years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act and, within six 
     months after commencing the review, shall provide a report to 
     the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate 
     and the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Commerce 
     of the House of Representatives.
       (b) Contents of Report.--The report shall contain a 
     statement of the principal findings of the review and 
     recommendations for Congress and the President to address job 
     loss in the shipbuilding and ship repair industry on the West 
     Coast, as well as adverse impacts on consumers and refiners 
     on the West Coast and in Hawaii, that the Comptroller General 
     attributes to Alaska North Slope oil exports.

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment in the nature of a substitute be 
considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alaska?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute. The substitute has the support of the 
administration and many other interest groups.
  The amendment brings the bill in conformity with title 2 of S. 395. 
In a nutshell, it would, among other things:
  Allow exports to be carried in U.S.-flag, U.S.-crewed vessels.
  Require the President to make a national interest determination.
  Require the President to conduct an environmental review, as well 
examining the effect of exports on jobs, consumers and supplies of oil.
  The President could impose terms and conditions other than a volume 
limitation.
  The Secretary of Commerce would be required to issue any rules 
necessary to implement the President's finding within 30 days.
  If the Secretary found drastic oil shortages or price increases, he 
could recommend actions, including modification and removal of the 
authority to export.
  Actions under this bill would not be subject to traditional 
burdensome notice and comment rulemaking requirements.
  The President would retain his authority to block exports in times of 
emergency.
  Finally, the substitute would also require the GAO to prepare a 
report assessing the impact of ANS exports on consumers, independent 
refiners, shipbuilders and repair yards.
  I urge support for the amendment in the nature of a substitute.


amendment offered by mr. traficant to the amendment in the nature of a 
               substitute offered by mr. young of alaska

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.

[[Page H7498]]

  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant to the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Young of Alaska: On 
     page 4, line 5, strike ``may'' and insert ``shall''.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, the language in the bill gives the 
Secretary of Commerce the discretion when the Secretary, for example, 
would define under section 1, clause 5, if the Secretary would find 
that an anticompetitive activity by a person exporting crude oil under 
the authority of this subsection has caused crude oil supply shortages 
or sustained crude oil price significantly above world market levels 
and would further find that these supply shortages or increases of 
prices have caused adverse employment effects in the United States, 
that the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of 
Energy, may, may recommend to the President appropriate action against 
such person, et cetera. The Traficant amendment says that this should 
not be a discretionary process, and when the Secretary uncovers and 
discovers this type of an adversary impact from this legislation, that 
the Secretary shall, in fact, recommend to the President, not may in 
fact recommend.
  I do not want the decision of whether or not to take action to be 
left to the discretion of some bureaucrats in the Commerce Department. 
If American jobs are being lost or subject to an adverse impact, the 
Secretary under this legislation should be required to, in fact, take 
immediate action.
  That is the general nature of the legislation. It is simply changing 
the discretionary may to a compelling shall in that regard.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Alaska [Mr. 
Young].
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I am so impressed that the 
gentleman from Ohio has made me accept his amendment with great 
happiness and joy. It makes great sense. We should have put it in to 
begin with, and I thank the gentleman for offering it.
  Mr. Chairman, we do accept the amendment.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from California 
[Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio. 
The gentleman has worked with us on a number of amendments, and it was 
a pleasure to operate in a process of discussion, in which we were 
trying to perfect amendments, instead of trying to create an amendment 
that would gut the bill. I want to thank the gentleman for his 
cooperation.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
  The amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was 
agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. 
Young]?


amendment offered by mr. gejdenson to the amendment in the nature of a 
               substitute offered by mr. young of alaska

  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gejdenson to the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Young of Alaska: Page 
     3, line 8, add the following after the period: ``In the event 
     that vessels so documented cannot be used to transport any of 
     the exported oil, the authority granted by paragraph (1) 
     shall terminate immediately.''.

  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I would hope the sponsors of the bill 
would support this amendment. This amendment takes them simply at their 
word that their confidence that American crews and bottoms would be 
used to export this oil will in fact become the case. Under the 
legislation, it is their argument that they will use American merchant 
mariners to ship this oil.
  What this amendment simply says is that if under any of the 
international agreements that we have, that this provision is struck 
and American bottoms and merchant mariners are not used, that would 
stop the shipment of the oil until we could resolve this issue.
  Part of the way the proponents of this legislation have been able to 
sell this, at least to some of the Members of this House, is by 
convincing them that Americans will move the oil. They assure us 
continuously that that will withstand any challenges.
  Well, if they are that confident that they are going to be able to 
fulfill this pledge, then I would hope the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. 
Young] would be willing to accept this amendment, unless, of course, he 
is not confident that the language in the legislation will withstand 
any and all legal challenges. If that is the case, then the gentleman 
is also telling Members of this body something about this legislation 
and the commitments within.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I say that this is dangerous legislation. It 
endangers our national security, and it endangers the environment.
  The gentleman from Alaska is doing the right thing as an Alaskan, 
possibly. It will benefit the State of Alaska; it will benefit oil 
companies, without any question, around this country. It does not work 
in the best interests of the United Sates, and it is questionable 
whether it will work in the best interests of American mariners, in 
that unless we are hearing there is support for the amendment, I would 
have to be left with the impression they are not even confident that 
this small commitment to American workers will be sustained.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill, H.R. 70, requires that all ships exporting 
Alaska oil be U.S.-flag ships.
  That provision in the bill is a clear response to the concerns raised 
regarding the employment of American merchant mariners.
  In this bill, British Petroleum makes a deal with U.S. merchant 
mariners: Congress will allow the export of Alaska oil and you, 
American workers on ships, will continue to have jobs on the ships 
carrying the oil abroad.
  I would hope that the sponsors of this bill would support the 
amendment that I am now offering.
  My amendment simply ensures that U.S. merchant mariners get the 
protection the bill's sponsors say they intended to provide.
  This is a very simple amendment.
  Under this amendment, should British Petroleum as the leading 
exporter of Alaska oil, (or anyone else) renege on its commitment that 
ships exporting Alaska oil be U.S.-flag ships, then Alaska oil could 
not be exported.
  So, if British Petroleum does not fulfill its end of the bargain with 
Americans working on ships carrying Alaska oil, then such oil cannot be 
exported.
  For example, if the U.S. Government and British Petroleum abandon the 
U.S.-flag requirement because it interferes with a treaty or other 
international obligation, then Alaska oil could not be sold abroad.
  Alaska oil could still be sent to California and other domestic 
destinations where U.S. seamen would have jobs in the ships carrying 
the oil.
  If the commitment in the bill to American merchant mariners is real 
and enforceable, then the proponents of the bill should wholeheartedly 
support this amendment.
  After all, the amendment is only ensuring that their commitment to 
these working Americans is fulfilled.
  The bill's proponents have minimized the potential problems with 
complying with the commitment to American merchant mariners.
  They have said that our international trade obligations are not 
violated and that there will be no problem complying with the 
requirement that ships carrying Alaska oil be U.S.-flag ships.
  If that is the case, then they should support my amendment.
  If there is a risk with compliance, and those wanting to export 
Alaska oil cannot fulfill their end of the deal, then American workers 
should be protected.
  Once again, I am hopeful that the supporters of this bill would 
support this amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I would rise in support of 
this legislation. As the gentleman knows as a member of the committee, 
when we 
 
[[Page H7499]]

discussed this legislation in committee, this was one of the major 
tenants of the acceptance of this bill, I think on a bipartisan basis, 
was that this oil would be carried in American transportation and would 
provide jobs for those individuals who are currently engaged, and 
hopefully if production is increased under this legislation, that were 
engaged in the transportation of oil now to the lower 48, they would 
continue to be utilized.
  Some people have suggested that that would raise trouble with 
international trade agreements. If that is the case, then we have to 
rethink what it is we have told people the benefits of this legislation 
will or will not be. Certainly we would have to rethink the arrangement 
by which we are then engaging in the export of that oil, should that 
ever happen.
  I think the gentleman's amendment is a good fail-safe amendment for 
those who have been supporting against their historical positions of 
opposition to this legislation, that they would in fact be protected 
and that a deal is a deal, as the gentleman has said. I would hope that 
we would support this amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very mischievous amendment. Just think of the 
term ``terminate.'' Terminator I, Terminator II. This is exactly what 
this does to the bill. Let us not kid ourselves.
  The bill is very self-explanatory. It says exports will be only on 
U.S.-crewed, U.S.-flagged vessels. That is in the bill. If it is not on 
U.S.-crewed or U.S.-flagged vessels, in fact there would be no oil 
export.
  What happens? Let us say that all the vessels for some strange reason 
became totally occupied, absolutely occupied, and we had to move the 
oil because the storage was not available, and we put it on one ship 
that was not, then the whole thing is terminated. We might as well go 
home. That is really what it does. Look at that word ``terminate,'' 
very smartly put in there.
  I want to suggest this amendment, as I say, is very mischievous and, 
by the way, not supported by any of the maritime unions. We worked 
closely with the maritime unions, closely with the Shipbuilding League, 
very closely with everybody involved in this issue, asking for their 
input, asking for their suggestions, and we have suggested very nearly 
everything they have suggested within the realities of other laws, such 
as GATT, international trade, et cetera, et cetera. We have done that.
  To have this amendment offered at this time, very frankly, with all 
due respect to my good friend from Connecticut, it causes me great, 
great anguish to have this presented as one that says well, this is 
just another fail-safe part of this bill. As a backup to what you say, 
it says it in the bill. The bill is very clear. It is there.
  By the word ``termination,'' it is absolutely a killer amendment, and 
I urge that it be defeated.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to find other 
terminology for the gentleman. But the basic issue here is in the 
gentleman's legislation there is no remedy for American workers and 
American shippers, if that rule is out.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there are all 
kinds of remedies, the Secretary of Commerce, the President of the 
United States, the Congress itself. Let us not kid ourselves. There are 
so many safeguards in this. This is the only State in the United States 
that has this ban put upon it.
  This is a mischievous amendment. I do not blame the gentleman. The 
gentleman did not support the bill in the committee, he talked against 
the bill in the general debate, he wants to defeat the bill, and I 
understand why he offers the amendment. I compliment him for that. This 
is a mischievous amendment that should be soundly defeated.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as the chairman of the committee indicated, we worked 
with a number of Members to either resolve their concerns about the 
bill or worked with them on the amendments that they proposed. The 
gentleman from Ohio, the gentleman from Hawaii, the gentleman from 
Washington are good examples.
  The rule underlying this debate indicated that to the extent 
possible, we wanted people to preprint their amendments in the 
Congressional Record. Obviously, the gentleman from Connecticut, for 
whatever reason, did not make the preprint date. I saw this amendment 
just a few moments ago, and, of course, we are trying to figure out 
exactly what it means.
  Apparently in the gentleman's amendment, and I will assume that the 
gentleman is offering it in good faith, if there is any deviation from 
the U.S.-flagged, U.S.-staffed ship, the entire legislation is 
terminated immediately.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman form Connecticut.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to change the language.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would have loved to 
have worked with the gentleman over the last 3 months that this bill 
has either been in front of the committee, of which he is a member, as 
the ranking member pointed out, and to which he did not offer this 
amendment or any of the last several weeks after the bill passed the 
committee when we were working on the legislation, if he felt this 
burning desire to come up with the proposal or any time last week when 
he knew this was possibly to be scheduled for floor debate. He did not 
seem to want to work on an amendment at that time. But now, not only at 
the 11 hour, but half past midnight when we are debating the bill, he 
comes to the floor and says he has an amendment on which he would like 
to work with us.
  What you need to know is that the exceptions in the bill cover all 
situations. U.S.-flagged and staffed vessels are required, with the 
exception of cases covered in any international agreements that we have 
entered into prior to 1979, and under the provisions of the Oil 
Emergency Act because, as you will recall, a number of nations were 
concerned about their ability to get oil if the unstable area of the 
Middle East, as the gentleman from Connecticut described it, actually 
denied them oil. We have a number of agreements on an emergency basis 
in which we will move oil on an as-needed basis.
  Obviously the President in his wisdom, in trying to assist nations 
who are being crippled by someone else's oil blackmail, will certainly 
take into consideration this legislation. But the President as 
Commander in Chief and the President of this country will make 
decisions as he sees fit in times of emergency.
  It is absolutely ludicrous to offer an amendment at this time that 
says if you do not stick to one provision of the bill, notwithstanding 
the emergency provisions or the international agreement provisions, 
that the act itself will terminate.
  I think we need to read the amendment the way in which I now believe 
it was presented, and that is as a pernicious amendment by the opponent 
of the legislation in an attempt to not only weaken it, but indeed to 
defeat it.
  I would ask that we reject the gentleman from Connecticut's first 
amendment, as I understand it.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I think there are some fundamental 
issues here being avoided. First, it is clearly not half past midnight. 
It is about 20 of 4. It is the middle of the day. We are not under a 
lot of pressure. We have a piece of debate here that I think, frankly, 
maybe we should have dealt with earlier, but I think what you are 
trying to do is avoid the merits.
  The merit is this: If we have an international body, which we are 
members to, throwing out the guarantee to American workers, then there 
is no protection for those workers and you have sold them a bill of 
goods.
  Again, I commend the gentleman from Alaska. He has taken care of his 
constituents; people on this floor are 

[[Page H7500]]
taking care of oil companies. I am talking about the rest of America, 
the people that depend on the reserves up there, the people who paid 
for Alaska in the first place. The gentleman from Alaska would be 
speaking Russian today, not English. This country went to great lengths 
to secure that area. The rest of America has a right to be protected in 
this legislation, workers, environmentalists, and consumers.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
remarks, and again I would hope that the committee would support the 
passage of the Gejdenson amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. 
Young].
  The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment will be postponed.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the 
distinguished chairman of the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, the version of the Alaskan oil export legislation which 
was passed in the other body as S. 395, included as section 206 an 
amendment to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to provide for a vessel in 
the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary or the Strait of Juan de 
Fuca to assist in towing and oilspill response efforts. H.R. 70 as 
reported by the Resources Committee does not contain a similar 
provision.
  I had been prepared to offer an amendment to H.R. 70 concerning this 
issue, but as you know our rules are different from those of the other 
body and I have been advised by the Parliamentarian that such an 
amendment would be ruled out of order as nongermane. Accordingly, I am 
hoping that this is a matter that can, with the assistance of the 
chairman, be addressed in conference.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I understand and appreciate the 
interest of the gentleman from Washington in this issue of importance 
to his district.
  May I say the gentleman has talked to me about this. He has done an 
excellent job in the past and into the future representing his district 
concerning this issue.
  We have discussed it. We will be discussing it in conference. The 
gentleman will be working very closely with me in the conference, and I 
hope we will be able to address his concerns as well as the State of 
Washington, especially with the State of Alaska working in conjunction.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his assistance.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there additional amendments to section 1?


 amendment offered by mr. miller of california to the amendment in the 
         nature of a substitute offered by mr. young of alaska

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of California to the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Young 
     of Alaska:
       Page 1, line 6, strike ``paragraphs (2) through (6)'' and 
     insert ``paragraphs (2) through (7)''.
       Page 2, line 19, strike ``(other than a volume 
     limitation)''.
       Page 4, line 11, strike the closing quotation marks and 
     period.
       Page 4, after line 11, insert the following:
       ``(7) The total average daily volume of exports allowed 
     under this subsection in any calendar year shall not exceed 
     the amount by which the total average daily volume of oil 
     delivered through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System during the 
     preceding calendar year exceeded 1,350,000 barrels per 
     calendar day.''.

  Mr. MILLER of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman I ask unanimous consent that debate 
on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 40 minutes, 
with the time to be equally divided and controlled. This was the 
suggestion of the gentleman from California, and I think it is an 
excellent suggestion.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alaska?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] will be 
recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] 
will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I offered this amendment in committee along with our 
colleague, the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie], and the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf]. It represents what I believe 
is a reasonable compromise which will allow Members to support exports 
as long as the needs of the United States are taken care of first. That 
is the intent and the purpose and the result of this amendment.
  This amendment does two things: First, it deletes the bill's 
unjustified restriction that the President cannot determine that a 
volume limitation on exports is in the national interest. Obviously, at 
some point, with some unforeseen circumstances, the President may 
conclude that and he ought to be given the powers to so decide. Second, 
the amendment provides that exports of Alaska oil are authorized but 
only in amounts produced in excess of what is currently refined and 
consumed on the west coast.
  This amendment speaks to the current consumption figure of 1.35 
million barrels per day which is the amount of Alaska oil used in 
Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Nevada, and Arizona. Under 
current production levels in Alaska, my amendment would allow up to 
250,000 barrels a day to be exported. This is significantly in excess 
of the 140,000 barrels projected by the Department of Energy and the 
State of Alaska as likely for export, as they have presented testimony 
when we were considering this bill in the committee.
  What this amendment does in effect is to allow the oil which is 
currently produced but not used on the west coast to be exported. This 
is the oil that is sent to the gulf or to other designations at 
significant extra expense. It is the oil that makes up the most 
economic sense for us to export to foreign nations.
  What this amendment does not do, unlike the bill, is to allow British 
Petroleum to manipulate the price and supply of Alaska oil for the west 
coast usage. This is an amendment which protects U.S. jobs and 
consumers. It allows exports if and when they do not come at the 
expense of our citizens. It neither denies profits to British Petroleum 
nor revenues to the State of Alaska. It is a reasonable compromise, and 
I urge its adoption.
  This amendment reflects the changes that have taken place since the 
study that was conducted to justify this legislation and that is the 
Alaska oil is now essentially at parity or finds itself more often at 
parity with the world price of oil than when it does not. And the so-
called glut on the west coast that was available is essentially 
evaporated and the margins that Members keep referring to with respect 
to west coast refiners has essentially evaporated because of the change 
in the demand for energy products on the west coast.
  Those margins, the evaporation of those margins, the narrowing of 
those margins are the same whether it is an independent refiner or 
whether it is one of the larger refiners. It is just simply a change in 
the world energy picture.
  Early on in the development of north coast, North Slope oil coming 
out of Alaska, a huge amount, because of the requirement that it could 
not be exported, a huge amount was sent to eastern markets through the 
Panama 

[[Page H7501]]
Canal. That oil essentially now, much of it, has been backed out of 
that market because it is really not competitive and because of the 
increased demands on the west coast as what was previously considered a 
glut has disappeared.
  So we now find ourselves in a situation where this very substantial 
amount of the oil that is currently produced in Alaska is, in fact, 
needed. It is needed on the west coast because it cannot be readily 
substituted by oil from the, by the central valley, although that can 
make up part of it.
  So what we would do is, without any impact on price, we would simply 
make sure that those West Coast users are held harmless as to the 
supply. That supply would be made available to them not at preferential 
prices; it would be made available to them at the world price. If they 
were not prepared to pay, if there becomes in fact a premium price on 
Alaska oil, in Singapore, in Japan, in Malaysia, in Korea, and they can 
sell that oil to that market and West Coast users do not want to bid 
that price for it, they will simply lose out.
  So the marketplace will continue to work in terms of the economics of 
the price of oil. In fact, as we know, when we started this venture 
many years ago, it was believed that there was a domestic price of oil 
and a world price of oil. As we know today, there is only one price of 
oil essentially, and that is the world price of oil.
  That does not matter whether you are Sadam Hussein, whether you are 
Iran, whether you are the Russians or you are the domestic developer 
within the United States, that is the price of oil. This honors that, 
the economics of the energy business with respect to that, but it does 
make sure that those people who have come to rely on this oil for 
domestic uses are in fact held harmless from this. As a market, if in 
fact the market continues to grow, if in fact the pipeline was ever put 
back to its full utilization in excess of about 2, 2.5 millions barrels 
of oil a day, all of that would be eligible for export.
  So I think this in fact provides the best of both worlds to make sure 
that American economic interests and the customers are taken care of 
first and then certainly free to export whatever is available over and 
above that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the gentleman from 
California is interesting. He talks about a world price for oil. I just 
have to say that, representing the oil patch, I would have to ask him 
what he means by world price for oil.
  Is it the price that the Federal Government charges for Elk Hills oil 
which has to cover the cost of sending it by pipeline to the strategic 
petroleum reserve? Is it the price of west Texas crude that gets to 
move through pipelines and through shipping that does not cross the 
Panama Canal? Frankly, you have to take a look at the price of oil and 
include the cost of delivering that oil as well.
  The issue in front of us is whether or not we should lock into a 
fixed amount on a given year and say that you can only export the 
amount of oil above that fixed amount.
  First of all, let us understand that because of the policy that has 
been in place for 20 years, the Alaska fields are declining fields. In 
addition to that, they have yielded their production as many fields 
have around the world and what we need to do is make sure we open up 
more fields.
  The idea was that if we could bring the true economic value to Alaska 
for that oil, they might in fact develop more fields. But what we have 
here is an amendment that locks in a fixed amount that comes to the 
lower 48.
  When we look at the Department of Energy's study, it shows that 1994 
is about 1,600,000 production; 1995, beginning to drop. And by the year 
2000, in either the pessimistic or the optimistic case, you have 
clearly reached the oil amount that is in the amendment of the 
gentleman from California.
  I think we need to do a little truth in packaging here.
  What this amendment does is guarantee oil continues to come to 
California. The whole purpose of this bill is to allow oil to find its 
economic home. If you put on a volume limit, you automatically affect 
the price. You cannot deliver in essence an amount of oil that would 
have violated this figure to a Far Eastern area or any other place 
because of the restriction placed by this amendment. What we are trying 
to do is to remove Government restrictions.
  I think that what we need to take a very long look at is what would 
happen if refineries on the West Coast would have to pay closer to the 
world price for oil.
  In the study it says: The appropriate conclusion is that the gross 
marginal differential between PAD 5, which is Alaska oil, and the 
Nation as a whole would amply support an increase in crude oil prices 
of $1.50 to $2 per barrel without necessarily causing an increase in 
consumer prices.
  If you can increase the price for crude oil and you do not increase 
the price of gasoline to consumers, what happens? In the middle between 
the crude oil and the consumer are the refineries. Frankly, the 
refineries, located in the gentleman's district, have enjoyed an 
enormous benefit over the years. The July 21 edition of the Wall Street 
Journal says: Tosco Corporation, located in the gentleman's district, 
net income surged 43 percent in the quarter. The petroleum products 
company attributed the net increase to improved refining margins.
  It is the difference between the price of crude oil and the price of 
gasoline.
  These people have been living off of an artificial market for years. 
The amendment of the gentleman from California wants to continue that 
artificial market. The gentleman wants a fixed amount that has to come. 
You try to negotiate a world price for oil when you know by Government 
edict there is a fixed amount that has to come. You break the 
economics. You do not have a world price for oil. You have somebody 
over a barrel, and it is the Alaska oil producer and the American 
consumer.
  It is about time we ended the sweetheart deal for the refiners. That 
is exactly what the gentleman's amendment tries to prevent. It tries to 
perpetuate a sweetheart deal. This legislation changes it.
  This amendment should be defeated.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dooley].
  Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Miller 
amendment.
  I think we really need to step back and ask why are we here today. 
Why are we on the verge of passing H.R. 70? We are here because of a 
policy of the past which placed limitations on the utilization of oil 
produced in Alaska. We have a policy in place which is forcing the 
crude which is being produced in Alaska to be refined on the West 
Coast. This has obviously had the adverse impacts in parts of 
California and other parts of the country of diminishing the amount of 
oil being produced there and also of having adverse economic impacts.
  What this amendment is doing is pretty much just the same. It is 
saying that we will allow for some exportation of oil, but we are still 
going to continue Government policies which arbitrarily state that you 
cannot export any oil except for that that is over the 1.35 million 
barrels per day.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. Chairman, We do not know what the future will hold. However, 
there is one constant. If we have the faith in the market system, the 
marketplace will dictate where oil was produced, whether it be in 
Alaska, in California, or in many other parts of the world, where it 
will be utilized. The bottom line is that if the refiners on the West 
Coast that are currently using Alaskan crude oil, if they are willing 
to pay the market price for that crude oil, that oil will flow to those 
refiners, as it is today. They might have to pay just a little more of 
that to reflect what the real market price for that crude oil will be.
  If we place this amendment in place, Mr. Chairman, we are once again 
putting up an arbitrary restriction or impediment to how the 
marketplace should work. Clearly, that is not good policy. We also have 
provisions within the legislation which I think address some of the 
concerns of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. That is, if we 
do find that any oil producer or exporter of oil is engaging in any 
type of activity which could have an adverse 

[[Page H7502]]
impact on consumers or refiners, the Secretary of Commerce is then 
authorized to take actions and impose sanctions against that export. 
Therefore, I think we have the safeguards in place which will ensure 
that consumers and refiners are not adversely impacted.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this country will be far better served if we 
embrace a policy which is predicted on the marketplace providing the 
best determination to where oil produced in Alaska should go.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] was 
explaining his amendment, he pointed out that this legislation removes 
the ability of the President to put in place any type of limitations in 
terms of the volume limits with regard to the exportation of oil. He 
takes that away.
  Of course, what the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] does 
beyond that is, he recognizes and gives the Chief Executive the right 
to put in place some limitations, and, of course, provides, the second 
part of his amendment, provides for an assurance of 1.3 million barrels 
a day that is first sent to the lower 48, and then the amounts over 
that amount could be exported. So he is trying to recognize one of the 
shortcomings, I guess, in terms of the North Slope oil, and some of the 
effect on the market, but at the same time trying to meet what is 
obviously a significant domestic need on the Pacific coast.
  Obviously, Mr. Chairman, the workability of the regulations and the 
law that exist in this instance are not perfect, nor is the global oil 
market perfect. We are hardly dealing with the handiwork of
 Adam Smith here in terms of the economy.

  I noticed that the opponents seem to marshal often very obtuse 
arguments to defeat or to reinforce what is in the bill, sort of 
extreme situations, but I do not think we have to really do much 
guessing in order to understand that the way that the volatility of 
this market in the last 30 years has gone has caused great distress and 
significant impacts on our market. Look at the terms ``oil shock,'' the 
``energy crisis'' in the 1970's.
  The last two decades are replete with problems that have grown out of 
the shortfalls in terms of the marketplace. I just think that we 
should, obviously, retain in the President's control the ability to 
have flexibility with regard to the export from these lands.
  Mr. Chairman, the tradeoff here that occurred with these State and 
Native American lands and other Federal lands where oil was flowing 
from in Alaska was that we would sacrifice these resources in an effort 
to try and provide security in terms of energy in the lower 48. Today 
we are even more vulnerable, but this has provided some stability, some 
constancy with regard to oil and energy policy on the West Coast and 
throughout the country.
  Now, of course, in the name of a more perfect market, in the name of 
trying to develop this, the excuse here is that we are going to 
actually unleash and develop more and more of our domestic oil because 
this price is being held down. Admittedly, it is lower in these 
instances than it would otherwise be if it were completely open and we 
were bidding against many other countries in the Pacific Rim. I do not 
think there is any question about it; but I do not necessarily think 
that that has happened, and constantly not, despite the Energy 
Department study, translated into higher costs in terms of the 
marketplace. After all, we have seen oil go from $10 a barrel all the 
way up to somewhere in the high thirties at various times in the 
market. That is not exactly because of this particular problem.
  Now we are talking about here much smaller, finite, or much smaller 
amounts of change that have occurred between this particular type of 
sour crude oil that exists in this instance that is being discussed. I 
think the issue here, obviously, is being pushed by those who want a 
higher price, who are not concerned today, and I would say to my 
friends, and many of them served here during periods and have put up 
with this role in terms of energy shortfall, that clearly this is 
something that is being shunted aside.
  I think the Miller amendment brings us back and gives us the 
opportunity to export but at the same time meet the domestic needs, to 
have both. We have, in essence, allowed for the opening of these areas, 
to provide the security. I think we still need that. I think we can 
still do that. I think there is a role.
  Some would take the Federal Government out of any type of policy role 
here. I am not a new Federalist, I am not a new Confederate, I am an 
unreconstructed Federalist and feel that the Federal Government is the 
only entity that can basically deal with this.
  We go through all sorts of arguments here in terms of U.S. bottoms 
and other issues which I think will provide for circumvention, I might 
say, of many of the policies and goals that are stated here in the 
legislation. I would hope that the Miller amendment could be and should 
be accepted by the proponents of this if they mean what they have said 
in regard to this issue. Obviously, there is opposition to it.
  I thank the gentleman from California for yielding time to me.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller] has the right to close on his amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The chairman of the committee has the right to close.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests 
for time, I think the amendment is necessary, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This amendment 
was offered in the committee. It was defeated 24 to 11. I believe it is 
a deal killer. It was designed to block export volumes by giving the 
President limited authority to place a volume cap on exports. The 
export ban requires 1.6 million barrels of oil produced today be 
shipped to the West Coast. This again is a cap, it is a requirement, it 
will affect the California production area, it will not give us the 
jobs. This is opposed, frankly, by the administration. As the gentleman 
from Louisiana says, I agree with this administration, but the previous 
administration also said the same thing: This again interferes with the 
marketplace.
  It is my belief that it will not do everything we want it to do if we 
adopt the amendment, so I strongly oppose the amendment, and urge 
``no'' on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller] to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] to the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from 
Alaska [Mr. Young] are postponed.
  Are there any further amendments to the bill?


 amendment offered by mr. metcalf to the amendment in the nature of a 
               substitute offered by mr. young of alaska

  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Metcalf to the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Young of Alaska: Page 
     4, line 11, strike the closing quotation marks and period.
       Page 4, after line 11, insert the following:
       ``(7) Any royalty accruing to the United States with 
     respect to any oil transported by pipeline over right-of-way 
     granted pursuant to section 203 of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline 
     Authorization Act (43 U.S.C. 1652) may be paid in oil. The 
     Secretary of the Interior shall offer any such oil accruing 
     to the United States for sale to independent refiners located 
     in Petroleum Allocation for Defense District V for processing 
     or use in refineries within such District and not for resale. 
     Such offers shall be made from time to time for such volumes 
     and for such periods as the Secretary deems appropriate, and 
     sales shall 

[[Page H7503]]
     be conducted by equitable allocation at fair market value among 
     eligible independent refiners. The term `independent refiner' 
     means a petroleum refiner which, in the preceding calendar 
     year, obtained, directly or indirectly, more than 70 percent 
     of its refinery input of crude oil from producers which do 
     not control, are not controlled by, and are not under common 
     control with, such refiner.''.

  Mr. METCALF (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I offer for my colleagues' consideration 
my amendment to the Alaskan oil export bill.
  Many of my constituents are concerned about potential increases in 
gasoline prices if oil exports are expanded. Refiners in Washington are 
particularly dependent on Alaska as a source of oil.
  My amendment would ensure that Northwest refineries have access to 
``royalty'' oil from Federal lands in Alaska. If oil exports increase 
the price of gasoline, the increased demand could stimulate greater 
production--and Northwest refineries must have access to the oil.
  Current procedures allow Northwest refineries to acquire royalty oil. 
My amendment would simply codify these procedures and give them the 
force of law--thus guaranteeing access to future oil production.
  I would also like to thank the chairman of the Resources Committee 
for his consideration and support on this important issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek to be recognized in opposition to 
the amendment?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would provide for the sale of oil. The 
volume of oil currently produced on Federal lands in Alaska is very 
minimal. This amendment in fact would really look to the future if 
something were to occur on Federal lands in Alaska. I want to stress 
again, this oil that we are talking about is on State lands. It is our 
oil.
  Very frankly, I do not see any harm in the amendment. I have one 
question to ask the author of the amendment, because after reading the 
amendment the only thing is, when does this kick in? When does that 
royalty oil kick in, if I may ask the gentleman from Washington?
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman, it would be as 
the new oil would be available.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I would ask, is the price of 
gasoline the factor? What kicks it in as far as getting the royalty 
oil? Does anybody know, because it is not clear in the amendment.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I am not absolutely sure.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to oppose the 
amendment at this time. I do compliment the gentleman from Washington 
in his efforts, because he has brought this to our attention, and more 
so than California, because they do not have oil fields in other areas, 
of the need for a constant supply of oil, I can just about guarantee 
everybody in this room, because it is not just BP that has ownership of 
this oil. ARCO ships all of its oil to the west coast. That is where it 
has occurred. The Exxon areas, part is shipped to the west coast. The 
only people really right now who will have any oil available will be 
BP.
  Mr. Chairman, I am inclined to accept the gentleman's amendment at 
this time, and we will be discussing the trigger date and conference, 
and seeing if there is a possibility we can further define that.
  Mr. METCALF. I thank the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Washington or anyone who 
understands this amendment, that I have some questions on the 
amendments. On line 5, it says, ``The Secretary of the Interior shall 
offer any such oil accruing to the United States.'' From time to time, 
the United States receives oil in lieu of royalties.
  What this amendment says is that when the United States get oil in 
that fashion, royalty oil is the common term, that the Secretary of the 
Interior ``shall offer'' any such oil accruing to the United States, 
and the Secretary of the Interior not only shall offer such oil, they 
must make it available to independent refiners located in pad 5. Such 
offer shall be made from time to time for such volumes and such periods 
as the Secretary deems appropriate, so the Secretary can control the 
volume and the period, and sales shall be conducted by equtable 
allocation at fair market value among eligible, independent refiners.
  As I read this amendment, Mr. Chairman, it is yet again an attempt to 
carve out a market for a particular group of folk. These are the 
independent refiners. They are the ones who for years have received the 
blessing of oil directed to the lower 48. Now we have a group of 
refiners who call themselves independent refiners. They want to take 
such royalty oil as comes to the United States, ``shall offer any such 
oil,'' a mandatory offering to a particular group, the independent 
refiners.
  Mr. Chairman, my belief is that this is one of the fallback positions 
offered by the refiners. If they cannot stop the bill, then they want a 
fixed amount of oil available to them in the marketplace, the gentleman 
from California, Mr. Miller's amendment. If they cannot get the fixed 
amount of oil, 1,350,000 barrels a day, then they want the royalty oil 
guaranteed only to them, and the Secretary of the Interior shall offer 
such sales only to the independent refiners.
  Here we go, with the fallback for a particular group of people to try 
to get a continuation of the current structure, which is, these people 
benefit by government policy.
  H.R. 70's underlying premise is that no one should benefit by 
government policy. The marketplace should determine the price. Our 
opposition to the Miller amendment was based upon the marketplace 
determining the price, and the marketplace should determine volume.
  The amendment of the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf] appears 
to this gentleman from California to be a smaller, narrow attempt, but 
nevertheless, an attempt to have government dictate who gets what in 
the marketplace. On that basis, Mr. Chairman, I would oppose the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf].
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Washington is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, what this does is codification of what is 
currently the government policy, and it would apply to future 
increases.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill says it is going to increase oil production. 
If it does, this puts into the law the policy that we have relative to 
that increased production.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. METCALF. I yield to the gentleman from California.
                              {time}  1615

  Mr. THOMAS. The problem I have with the gentlemen's amendment, is 
that it codifies it, it puts it into law. But what it puts into law, is 
a special benefit for a particular group. Independent refiners are the 
only ones who get the opportunity to bid on the royalty oil. No one 
else is allowed to bid. This is one more attempt to create a special 
relationship under the law.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf] to the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from 
Alaska [Mr. Young].
  The amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was 
rejected.

[[Page H7504]]



amendment offered by mr. gejdenson to the amendment in the nature of a 
               substitute offered by mr. young of alaska

  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gejdenson to the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Young of Alaska: Page 
     2, line 21, add the following after the period: ``In no event 
     may oil be exported under this paragraph before the end of 
     the period within which the President must make his national 
     interest determination under this paragraph.''.

  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, with the new inclination of the 
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] toward accepting amendments, I would 
hope he would read and accept this one. In the bill as it is drafted, 
we would have the President making a determination as to the impact of 
the export of this oil after the fact.
  It says first we start shipping this oil and signing contracts with 
people in the Pacific rim. Then the President is going to take a look 
at it and find out if there is a problem. If there is a problem, we 
will already have contracts for sending this oil out there.
  A number of gentlemen on the floor have indicated the administration 
is with them. So they are not facing a hostile administration. It seems 
to me unless again this is some window dressing in their language and 
they are not concerned with either the environment or our national 
security, that at minimum they would be ready to accept this amendment 
which simply says that, yes, as they wrote it, the President ought to 
do an assessment on what this change in the law would do to the United 
States but he ought to do that assessment before contracts are signed 
with people to ship this oil elsewhere. I would hope that the gentleman 
from Alaska [Mr. Young] could support this very limited amendment to 
try to improve what I think is a bad bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, hope of all hopes, and wishes of all wishes, I do 
oppose the amendment.
  The administration adamantly opposes the amendment. The 
administration has said they support the committee substitute. We have 
worked with them. It gives the President the flexibility he wants. Very 
frankly why should Congress mandate a bureaucratic delay? If the 
President, and that is what were saying, finds that this is an 
appropriate thing, why hold his hand for 5 months when he does not want 
it? That is like asking a girlfriend out on a date when she does not 
want to hold your hand. You are not going to get anywhere.
  Let's face up to it. I suggest respectfully the amendment is very 
frankly not supported by anyone I know other than the gentleman from 
Connecticut. I urge the defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do want to commend the gentleman from Connecticut on 
the effort that he is making with this amendment because it sounds 
extremely reasonable, that until the President makes his determination, 
we should not export any of the oil. The problem of course is, perhaps 
the gentleman from Connecticut has not read the amendment in the nature 
of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Alaska, the chairman. The 
gentleman from Alaska and this gentleman from California indicated that 
the administration supports the substitute as written. The substitute 
as written says that the finding that the President shall make is a 
negative finding; not a positive one that they should export oil but, 
in fact, a negative one that they should not.
  The gentleman from Connecticut is now saying, notwithstanding the 
fact that the administration supports the legislation and that the 
Presidential determination is a negative one, no oil should be exported 
until the President makes his determination, which is, under the 
substitute, a finding that they should not export any oil.
  I think when we come full circle, all this is, is, an attempt once 
again to offer an amendment for purposes that the gentleman from 
Connecticut well knows are not in the best interests of moving this 
bill forward and therefore not in the best interests of labor, energy 
production, or consumers in this country. I would ask that Members 
oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Connecticut.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. 
Young].
  The amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was 
rejected.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Bunning of Kentucky) having assumed the chair, Mr. Linder, Chairman pro 
tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 70) to permit exports of certain domestically produced crude oil, 
and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________