[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 176 (Wednesday, November 8, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H11854-H11881]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page H 11854]]


CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 395, ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION ASSET SALE AND 
                            TERMINATION ACT

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 256 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              h. res. 256

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (S. 395) to authorize and direct the Secretary of Energy 
     to sell the Alaska Power Administration and to authorize the 
     export of Alaska North Slope crude oil, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against the conference report 
     and against its consideration are waived. The conference 
     report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The gentleman from Colorado 
[Mr. McInnis] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McINNIS. 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 time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 256 is a simple resolution. The rule 
simply makes it in order to consider the conference report to accompany 
the bill S. 395 which authorizes and directs the Secretary of Energy to 
sell the Alaska Power Administration, and to authorize the export of 
Alaska North Slope crude oil. All points of order against the 
conference report and against its consideration shall be waived. This 
resolution was reported out of the Committee on Rules by an unanimous 
voice vote.
  The purpose of the underlying legislation, S. 395, is to lift the ban 
on the export of crude oil produced on Alaska's North Slope and to 
provide for the sale of the assets of the Alaska Power Administration. 
Additionally, the conference report contains a targeted royalty relief 
provision which, according to the Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary, 
will ``lead to and expansion of domestic energy resources, enhance 
national security, and reduce the deficit''. This legislation has broad 
bipartisan support, including the support of the Clinton 
administration. By lifting the ban on exports we will create thousands 
of new jobs in this decade, and we will generate millions in receipts 
to the Federal Government.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. This rule, as the 
gentleman from Colorado has explained, waives points of order against 
the consideration of the conference report on S. 395, a bill to lift 
the ban on exports of Alaskan oil and to privatize the Alaska Power 
Administration.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report also contains a provision which 
was not in the House-passed version of this legislation. This provision 
exempts oil and gas companies drilling under Federal oil and gas leases 
in deep waters offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, from paying royalties to 
the Federal Government. The inclusion of this provision is 
controversial in light of the instructions to conferees adopted by the 
House last July. That motion, offered by the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Miller], instructed conferees to insist on the House position on 
this issue. The House bill, of course, deleted these provisions.
  The conferees have, however, wisely included these provisions in the 
bill. Mr. Speaker, these exemptions will encourage exploration and 
drilling which will in turn increase the amount of available crude oil 
to U.S. markets. Mr. Speaker, increasing energy production in something 
our government should encourage and the provisions in this conference 
report do just that. I would encourage my colleagues to support the 
conference report and to oppose the Miller motion to recommit this 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding time to me, and I rise in support of the rule and in support 
of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this effort.
  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 rise in support of this rule and of the 
substance of the conference report, although I shall support the 
efforts of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] to strike an 
extraneous and controversial provision. This legislation is important 
because it is vital to preserving the independent tanker fleet and the 
cadre of skilled men and women who proudly sail today under our flag.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the conference report 
on S. 395, legislation that authorizes exports of Alaskan oil carried 
in American-flag vessels. This bill will help enhance our national 
security by spurring energy production and by helping to preserve our 
domestic merchant marine. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the 
rule and to overwhelmingly support this legislation, as you did when it 
was on the floor in July.
  According to recent press reports, a number of foreign governments 
continue to complain that the U.S.-flag requirement somehow violates 
our international obligations. As my colleagues may know, the U.S. 
Trade Representative has assured Congress that the bill does not 
violate our GATT obligations. To my knowledge, none of these 
governments complained when Congress enacted a comparable provision as 
part of the United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement. In any event, 
for the benefit of those who persist in arguing without foundation that 
the bill poses a problem, let me lay out the case here.
  This legislation is important 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.
  Specifically, section 201 of the conference report 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. 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 United 
States-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 Mexi- can 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 

[[Page H 11855]]
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 March 30, 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 longstanding 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 provision 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 longstanding precedent, 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 to carry this crude today, 
foreign governments can not 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 
concerns the foreign trade. The proposed legislation would not amend 
the Jones Act and thus 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. Note 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 

[[Page H 11856]]
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 ample 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.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 56 seconds to the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, the United States is now importing 50 
percent of our energy needs.
  The Department of Energy projects 60 percent import level by 2010.
  The United States has lost 450,000 jobs in the oil and gas industry.
  The temporary royalty relief in S. 395 will enable the private sector 
to risk its own funds to find and produce domestic oil and gas to 
enhance national energy security and create jobs.
  CBO scored the deep water Gulf of Mexico royalty provisions as a 
revenue gain of $100 million over 5 years. The Minerals Management 
Service estimates even greater revenue gains.
  The administration's Sustainable Energy Strategy stated:

       The Administration supports targeted royalty relief to 
     encourage the production of domestic oil and natural gas 
     resources in deep water in the Gulf of Mexico. This step will 
     help unlock the estimated 15 billion barrels of oil-
     equivalent in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, providing new 
     energy supplies for the future, spurring the development of 
     new technologies, and supporting thousands of jobs in the gas 
     and oil industry and affiliated industries.

  A letter from Hazel O'leary stated, ``The royalty relief provisions 
in S. 395 as adopted by the conference committee is a targeted 
deepwater royalty relief provision that the Administration supports.''
  The letter concludes, ``The ability to lower costs of domestic 
production in the central and western Gulf of Mexico by providing 
appropriate fiscal incentives will lead to an expansion of domestic 
energy resources, enhance national security, and reduce the deficit. 
Therefore, the Administration supports the deepwater royalty relief 
provision of S. 395.''
  The language in the conference report was changed in two important 
ways: First, it clarifies that the royalty incentives are applicable 
only to the western and central Gulf of Mexico west of the Alabama/
Florida border. Second, the legislation has been amended to make it 
clear that it will not affect an OSC area that is under a pre-leasing, 
leasing, or development moratorium, including any moratorium applicable 
to the eastern planning area of the Gulf of Mexico located off the Gulf 
Coast of Florida.
  The Minerals Management Service determined that the deepwater 
incentives will result in a minimum net benefit to the Treasury of $200 
million by the year 2000.
  These provisions will create thousands of jobs, enhance national 
security by reducing dependence on imported oil, and reduce the 
deficit. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for it, and I hope my colleagues will 
likewise vote for the rule, which I do support as well.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dooley].
  (Mr. DOOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the underlying 
Alaskan oil export legislation, which passed the House on July 24 by a 
324 to 77 margin, I rise in strong support of the rule and also the 
conference report for S. 395. With enactment of this historic 
legislation we will have a chance to benefit small, independent oil 
producers throughout this country.
  Current law may have made a great deal of sense in 1973. But like any 
other laws, it is having unintended consequences that were not foreseen 
by our colleagues. We therefore should repeal the Alaskan oil export 
ban and authorities exports carried in U.S.-flag vessels.
  What this will allow is to free up oil refining capacity on the west 
coast of the United States, which will help to encourage oil production 
and oil exploration in the west coast of the United States, much of 
that done by the independent oil producers. The California independent 
oil producers state a compelling case. Like them I was pleased that the 
Department of Energy similarly concluded last year that the export ban 
was depressing production and, if lifted, would benefit California and 
the Nation as a whole. The Department of Energy's comprehensive June 
1994 study provides a strong factual basis to support this legislation. 
Among others, the following study concluded production will increase by 
100,000 barrels per day, up to 25,000 additional jobs will be created, 
State and Federal revenues will increase by hundreds and millions of 
dollars, and these benefits will be achieved with little, if any, 
effect on consumer prices.
  We now have a unique opportunity in this Congress to spur additional 
energy production and to create jobs. With imports meeting over 50 
percent of our domestic consumption because of falling production, we 
must do something quickly to increase energy production in this 
country.
  This legislation, this conference report, will achieve those 
objectives, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
report.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today and urge the support of 
the conference report which is of immense importance to California and 
to our Nation's economic and national security, as well as our well-
being. This legislation will increase our domestic exploration and 
production of crude oil. It will mean that our reduced balance-of-
payments deficit, the deficit in our balance of payments, will be 
reduced, and everyone agrees that the United States today is too 
reliant on the import of crude oil. This legislation will spur domestic 
production, thereby enhancing our national security. As I have just 
said, it will also affect in a positive way our balance of payments.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation lifts the ban on the export of Alaskan 
crude. This will contribute to reducing our trade deficit, and this 
legislation thus is good for job creation in the United States, and it 
is good for our economy in general.
  My colleagues should not be swayed by side issues. This bill is not 
about side issues. It is about things that are fundamental to our 
economy. The legislation is about enhancing our economy and our 
national security. These things must be the overriding issues of 
importance, and we should not be sidetracked by some kind of fight over 
royalty holidays, holidays and other issues, that may be of importance 
in and of themselves, but coupled with this there is just no 
comparison. So today I suggest that we keep our eyes on the prize and 
we do not defeat this conference report on a side issue, and I would 
say that we should have a vote today for jobs, a vote for national 
security and thus I would suggest that we vote ``yes'' on the 
conference report and ``yes'' on the rule.

[[Page H 11857]]

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference 
report, which will create jobs and help American energy companies 
compete in the global marketplace.
  Investment in domestic energy exploration and production is vital to 
America's economic stability and national security. This conference 
report encourages such investment by lifting the ban on exports of 
Alaskan oil and providing royalty relief for energy companies that risk 
exploration in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. These provisions 
will create jobs in the energy industry and further limit our reliance 
on foreign oil, which continues to rise as a percentage of our balance-
of-payments deficit.
  We know the Gulf of Mexico contains large oil reserves. Royalty 
relief will help uncover the 15 billion potential barrels of oil in the 
gulf and will also spur the development of new offshore technologies 
and provide thousands of new jobs in the industry. Our energy industry 
needs these incentives to compete against innovative technologies and 
an increasingly skilled work force abroad. This policy is supported by 
Members of both parties in Congress and the Clinton administration.
  I want to underscore that royalty relief is not the free ride as some 
in Congress have portrayed it--the energy industry still must pay a 
substantial upfront bonus and they must also pay royalties when 
production exceeds the royalty relief period. In essence, this targeted 
royalty relief will provide the financial incentives to increase 
domestic energy exploration and production and to protect our national 
security. In the long run, by spurring exploration and development, 
this bill will generate more tax revenues for the Federal Government, 
not less. This conference report is sound economic policy and smart 
energy policy, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Beilenson].
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I must say I think this is really 
offensive that we are being asked to consider this rule waiving points 
of order for this controversial conference report that will have a 
significant effect on our Nation's energy and fiscal policy.
  There is no good reason at all for taking up this type of rule that 
waives, as it does, the very rules of the House that should be 
preventing the consideration of this controversial conference report in 
the first place.
  We listened for years to arguments from our colleagues, harangues 
perhaps one could properly call them, who now constitute the majority 
about how irresponsible and reckless we Democrats were when we provided 
waivers of rules for even the most minor provisions or rules 
violations.
  Yet here we are today being asked to waive a rule that should have 
prevented the conferees from including in their agreement a very 
controversial provision that not only is not germane to the House-
passed bill, but which in fact the House voted not to include in the 
conference report.
  I remind my colleagues that the bill passed by the House has one main 
purpose, to lift the ban on the export of Alaskan oil. One can properly 
question, I suppose, the wisdom of lifting that ban. It does mark a 
major change in the direction of our energy policy. I personally think 
it is probably a wise change for us to enact. But the House approved 
that change in our energy policy, and, as I said, I am not here to 
argue that point.

  What the House did not approve--in fact, what the House voted 261-161 
to prohibit--is granting royalty relief to U.S. petroleum producers 
operating in waters in the Gulf of Mexico. This controversial provision 
ought not to be a part of the conference report before us; we ought not 
to waive the rule requiring germaneness so that this controversial 
exemption for oil and gas producers--a provision the house voted to 
oppose--can become law attached to a much less controversial bill.
  This royalty exemption is a giveaway that we will live to regret. We 
should not be taking actions that reduce the Government's revenues from 
large profitable industries especially at a time of great budgetary 
constraints, and for the leadership to permit the conferees to get away 
with including this exemption for certain oil producers in this 
conference report on an entirely different piece of legislation is, 
many of us believe, totally irresponsible.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to join me in opposing this rule 
and in supporting the motion to recommit the conference report that 
will be ordered, I believe, by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller].
  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, Members of the House, after we 
consider the rule on this legislation, we will get into general debate 
on a conference report, a conference report that comes back to us on 
the Alaska oil export bill of which there is relatively little 
controversy, but that bill has now been hijacked in the conference by a 
very controversial provision for a royalty holiday for the oil 
companies in this country that go into the Gulf of Mexico and drill in 
what this legislation calls deep water. Although I must tell my 
colleagues in the industry today and with the technology today where we 
give a royalty holiday under this bill it is no longer deep water. The 
technology, the investment, the risks, and the oil have all gone past 
this legislation. This legislation, the provision that is hijacking the 
Alaska oil export bill, was originally thought of around 1988 when the 
Gulf of Mexico was in an oil depression. Since that time the Gulf of 
Mexico has come roaring back. The oil companies are submitting record 
high bids in that region to compete for the right to drill out there, 
and it is, in fact, probably the hottest oil place in the world today.

                              {time}  1400

  That is not because I say so, that is because every oil and energy 
and gas periodical in the country says that, and all of the oil 
companies say this is where they are going. They have set forth their 
5-year plan. They have set forth their 10-year plan. This is where they 
are going to make their investments, along with their other decisions.
  What we do here is not going to change that. We are just going to 
decide whether or not we are going to give away the taxpayers' dollars 
to a lot of oil companies that do not need it, have not particularly 
asked for it, and understand that it is not going to change their 
decisions. They are going to the Gulf of Mexico because that is where 
the oil is. That is where the profitable oil is.
  What you have here is you have, today you can be at the creation of 
corporate welfare because this does not exist today, but should you 
vote against the motion to recommit this conference report, you will be 
voting to create corporate welfare that CBO says will cost us $500 
million.
  Weigh that against the other decisions you are going to be asked to 
make later today: to increase Medicare premiums, to do all the things 
you are going to be asked to do in budget reconciliation, you will be 
asked to do in the continuing resolution, all the decisions this 
Congress has made about children's nutrition programs, about education, 
about science, about technology, about transportation; and in the 
middle of that, you are going to provide a royalty holiday to the oil 
industry of this country. I do not think that is what you want to tell 
your constituents.
  There is no need for this. The problem with this is, it is mandatory. 
It is not that the oil company makes a showing that, but for this, they 
would have drilled the well, or that they need it. It is mandatory. 
When they sink the well, they get up to 72 million barrels of oil, 
royalty free, for simply being there, doing what they were already 
going to do. As I said, they have already bid on the lands. They have 
already made the investment calculations. They have already leased the 
rigs, they have already contracted to build new ones, all absent the 
royalty oil holiday.
  This Congress should not be larding up, should not be larding up the 
budget 

[[Page H 11858]]
of the United States with this kind of special privilege. That is what 
the motion to recommit is about. The motion to recommit is about, in 
the middle of when we are making the most difficult budget decisions on 
both sides of the aisle, we find here a provision that CBO says will 
net out a $150 million loss to the Treasury of the United States, and 
$500 million between the year 2000 and 2020. We should not be doing 
that to the taxpayers, we should not be doing that to people who are 
asking us to put some balance in the balanced budget provision.
  The last time we had this provision before us, 100 Republicans and 
161 Democrats joined to instruct the conferees not to take this 
provision. The conferees decided otherwise. That is why this rule 
waives all points of order, because this is a nongermane provision. 
This is simply a highjacking of a bill that many of this Congress 
believe is very important, very important, to do that.
  For those who think if they vote for the motion to recommit they will 
be bringing down the bill, let me inform them that there is a 
conference committee scheduled today on the assumption that the motion 
to recommit will pass so that we can go back to conference, redo this 
bill, and send it out here. I have told the sponsor of this bill I 
would let it go on unanimous consent, so they can have the bill and 
they can stop the creation of new corporate welfare that just in no way 
can be justified.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the gentleman from 
California that I was in the chair when we last heard these arguments. 
Frankly, I was convinced by what the gentleman said. In fact, I 
supported the gentleman from California, because, and I quote the 
gentleman's statement, he said it was simply a raid on the Treasury by 
the Senate and major oil companies.
  Again today I hear the gentleman from California, and, in fact, I 
think he used the figure $500 million. After that vote, I had time to 
further examine the issue. In addition to that, I looked at what the 
CBO score did. I went through that accounting.
  I can tell the Members that the representation by the gentleman is 
not the way that I interpret that particular statement. In fact, 
according to the Secretary of Energy, who has also assessed the CBO 
score, the deep water language will actually put the Federal Treasury 
$200 million ahead. Let me repeat that language:

       The Minerals Management Service has estimated that the 
     revenue impacts of the new leasing under section 304 of 
     Senate 395 for lease sales in the central and western Gulf of 
     Mexico between 1996 and 2000, the deep water royalty relief 
     provisions would result in an increased bonus of $485 
     million, $113.5 million in additional bonuses on tracts that 
     would have been leased without relief, and $350 million in 
     bonuses from tracts that would not have been leased until 
     after the year 2000, if at all, without relief. This 
     translates to a present value of $420 million if the time and 
     value of money is taken into account.

  However, the Treasury would forego, and I think this is the number 
that the gentleman from California is using, ``an estimated $5.53 
million in royalties that would otherwise have been collected through 
the year 2018.'' But you have to complete the formula.
  But again, taking into account the time value of the money, this 
offset in today's dollars is only $220 million. Comparing this loss 
with the gain from the bonus bids on a net present value basis, the 
Federal Government would be ahead by $200 million.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we have to look at the CBO score. I intend to 
support that today. I think the rule is fair, but I think we have to 
look at that score accurately. We have to disclose all the numbers.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate everything the 
gentleman from Colorado stated. CBO went through that exact analysis of 
the Department of Energy, of Mineral Management Services, and rejected 
that. I find it rather interesting that we now see the proponents of 
this royalty holiday relying on an agency that they do not trust to 
give them estimates in Alaska on reserves and costs, and on the 
Department of Energy, which they think should be abolished.
  But they do not want to now look at what CBO, the agency they are 
relying on and we are all relying on to help us balance the budget, 
when they reject it and say flat out it is going to cost a net $150 
million to the taxpayers. When you get through all of the offsets and 
you get through the leases that are going to be moved forward and the 
leases that are going to be moved backwards, what you have in fact is a 
$150 million net cost, $500 million gross costs in the years 2000 and 
2020.
  So CBO, the agency we are relying on, that you are relying on, that 
we have given credibility to, that has rejected the administration 
arguments in many, many instances, now says, ``This is a net cost to 
the taxpayers of this country.'' That is why we should not be providing 
a royalty holiday to companies that do not need it. I thank the 
gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, clearly the gentleman from California and I disagree as 
to the value to the Treasury, but I would stand by my comments, as I 
think the majority of the people on both sides of the aisle will stand 
by, and that is that this is a positive. This puts money into the 
Treasury. At a time when we are facing this deficit, I think we need to 
look at that. It encourages jobs. It is a win-win deal. We have got 
jobs, we have money for the Treasury. I think we are going to have 
support from both sides of the aisle, in addition, of course, to the 
support from the Clinton administration. The Clinton administration has 
come out and endorsed this theory, this issue, and the way it has been 
put on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the 
gentleman from Texas, for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference committee report in 
its entirety of Senate bill 395, based on three reasons. One, it is 
safe for offshore drilling. We are only dealing with new leases or 
expanded leases, and also the jobs and economic growth that my 
colleague, the gentleman from Colorado, talked about.
  Let me explain. We are talking about the impact on the current budget 
and this resolution will help balance our budget. The agreement 
requires the Department of the Interior to exempt from royalties only 
new leases, or expanded production; it is production that may not be 
utilized. We may not receive one penny in royalty, but if they do 
expand it, if they do have new leases, we will see additional revenue. 
That is where I see the plus for our Treasury.
  This resolution also talks about expanded production under existing 
leases, but it mandates some of the royalty exemptions if the Interior 
Secretary determines this production will not be economic without 
royalty relief. We are giving the Department of the Interior the 
ability to say, ``If you will do it, then we will give you that 
benefit.'' We are really just letting them say, ``OK, depend on the 
market, and if it will work, it will help the Treasury and also help in 
the creation of jobs.''
  Let me talk about offshore drilling, because in Texas we do that a 
lot. I go to Galveston, TX, and see the wells out there and I am 
concerned, like everyone else, about the pollution in our waters. But, 
in the latest study I have, it shows that offshore oil production is 
responsible for only 2 percent of spills, whereas transportation is 45 
percent of whatever pollution may be, and waste and runoff is 36 
percent.
  We can solve a lot of problems with pollution of our waterways and 
our bodies of water if we just clean up what we put into the sewers, 
but the offshore production is one of the safest, ways to produce 
energy. We have had production off our coasts, successful production. 
Again, this would benefit not only those of us who live along the Gulf 
Coast, but would also benefit the economic security of our Nation. That 
is why, Mr. Speaker, I encourage the adoption of the conference 
committee report.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H 11859]]

  Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from a letter that we have just 
received from Citizens for a Sound Economy, and as we all know on both 
sides of the aisle, that is a very economically conservative 
organization. It watches very carefully for any type of legislation 
that would be a drain on the Federal Treasury.
  Their position on this, and I quote:

       Providing some degree of royalty relief creates economic 
     incentives to make such risky undertakings more feasible, 
     while increasing the supply of a vital natural resource and 
     providing increased employment opportunities. Moreover, the 
     royalty relief is not corporate welfare. It does not place a 
     burden on taxpayers or contribute to the deficit.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Archer], chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. ARCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and in opposition to 
the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from California. 
Enactment of the OCS Deep Water Royalty Relief Act will generate 
substantial revenues over the next 7 years as companies bid more for 
deep water leases and risk investing in leases that are currently too 
marginal to even consider. The revenues received by the Treasury for 
oil and gas leases are the combination of bonus bids received at the 
time of lease sales and royalties paid in the event a lease is 
developed and brought into production. Since the Federal leasing 
program began in 1954, $56 billion in bonus payments have been 
generated versus $47 billion in royalty revenues. In other words, we 
have received more money from producers paying for the option to 
produce leases than from actual production royalties. This is 
especially true in deep waters where only one out of 16 leases ever 
produce and pay royalties.
  The Congressional Budget Office has officially stated that this 
provision will not reduce the receipts to the Federal Government under 
the pay-as-you-go procedures. The only revenues scored for the 
provision have been in the context of budget reconciliation where 
revenues from non-routine asset sales are being counted for deficit 
reduction purposes. The bottom line is that CBO has conservatively 
estimated this provision would generate additional revenues of $130 
million over seven years. I urge you to vote again the Miller motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule, and 
believe it should be defeated. It is needed to circumvent the thorough 
consideration of this special interest's--oil interest's--benefits 
being placed into law.
  Mr. Speaker, the Miller motion is our avenue to send this back to 
conference, as we did in August, or in July, by a vote of 261 to 155. 
We instructed conferees to reject the Senate language providing royalty 
holidays to companies drilling for oil and gas in federally controlled 
deep waters in the Gulf of Mexico.
  The House voted against the Senate proposal because House Members saw 
this royalty holiday correctly for what it is. This policy is an 
unjustified giveaway, a tax break for big corporations at the expense 
of the American taxpayer. Unfortunately, House conferees completely 
ignored the wishes of the majority of the House and supported the 
corporate welfare approved by the Senate. This measure has not passed 
the House, but was slipped into the Senate measure and is being foisted 
upon the House through this conference measure, and facilitated by this 
rule, which I oppose.
  The deep water royalty fails in terms of process and economics. 
Royalty holiday legislation has not been introduced in the House, and 
the committee process has been circumvented by those who want to push 
this giveaway through without complete consideration. If this is such 
good legislation, why not subject it to hearings and full debate? Why 
are we being asked to settle for a nongermane amendment to Alaskan oil 
export legislation? The reason is simple: that a royalty holiday will 
not stand up to the light of day.

                              {time}  1415

  Today, the big oil companies pay only a 17-percent tax rate, and the 
small independent companies pay almost nothing after deductions. That 
beats the rates paid by most American taxpayers and hardly suggests the 
need for further cutbacks.
  Moreover, there is ample evidence that new technology has prompted a 
rush of bids in deep-water tracts in the gulf. The lease auction held 
last May was the fourth largest in gulf history, under the current tax 
and lease policies, and the American public would have lost an 
estimated $2 billion in future royalties if the proposed holiday had 
been in place then. Over the long haul, CBO estimates the royalty 
holiday will cost the taxpayers $420 million.
  The claim that this measure is justified for economic growth should 
not be the basis for giveaway tax breaks. The fact is that when someone 
else gets a break in terms of the Tax Code or in terms of royalty, 
other taxpayers have to make it up. They have to pay for it. So the 
fact is that if we give this away fast enough, if we can burn dollar 
bills, that we can heat the house is not a very good justification for 
a tax policy or for an energy policy.
  So I would suggest to my colleagues that we quit burning the dollar 
bills, we start dealing with the deficit by closing and not opening new 
loopholes, and that is what has happened throughout this Congress. The 
House tax bill that passed provided 75 percent of the benefits in 10 
years went to corporations and to investors--to corporations and 
investors--not to individual taxpayers.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the rule and passage of the motion of 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] to recommit to conference 
this report.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster].
  (Mr. BREWSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to support this 
important rule.
  This afternoon we will have an opportunity to cast a vote that will 
create jobs, increase domestic production of crude oil and natural gas, 
decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and raise at least $100 million 
for the Federal Government over 5 years.
  Almost every day news stories report more layoffs, more downsizing, 
more jobs destroyed as companies cut their payrolls. The men and women 
of the Nation's oil and natural gas industry know those stories too 
well, because they have lived them. Oil and gas workers have 
experienced more job losses than workers in any other American 
industry.
  Since 1982, 450,000 jobs were lost in just the exploration sector of 
the U.S. petroleum industry. That is almost half the number of jobs 
lost in the entire domestic manufacturing sector. More than one out of 
every two workers who searched for oil and natural gas, or helped 
recover it, lost their job.
  But today, Mr. Speaker we can begin to make a difference for oil and 
gas workers, for those in related industries, and for their families 
and communities. I urge my colleagues to vote for job creation by 
voting in favor of the rule to the conference report on S. 395.
  Congress must provide incentives for deepwater drilling in the 
central and western Gulf of Mexico.
  Deepwater incentives, which encourage oil and gas companies to risk 
their capital on new exploration and production, will create 20,000 new 
jobs for every $1 billion in private sector investment. These 
incentives will result in the creation of many new jobs in my State of 
Oklahoma, a State hundreds of miles from the gulf.
  There are 378 petroleum equipment supply facilities in my State 
alone. And nationally, there are 3,532 such facilities spread across 40 
States.
  Deepwater incentives mean jobs not only for oil and gas workers. It 
means jobs in steel, in machine tools, in heavy equipment and in the 
high technology industries that support oil and gas recovery. Deepwater 
incentives will create new jobs in the gulf region, 

[[Page H 11860]]
in my State, and throughout our country.
  We have been going the wrong way for too long. The United States has 
sent many oil industry jobs overseas. And we rely too much on foreign 
oil suppliers, who now deliver over half the oil we use.
  In just 15 years, the U.S. Department of Energy warns that we will 
rely on foreign sources for 60 percent of our oil.
  Mr. Speaker, we must invest in American workers. It is time to turn 
this situation around, and rely on our own abundant oil and gas 
resources. And we must create the job opportunities that go with 
domestic oil and gas exploration and production.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support the rule, and the conference report and say yes to jobs.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Wicker].
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, in support of the bill, 
and particularly in support of the Outer Continental Shelf deep-water 
incentives legislation; and I will be asking my colleagues later on to 
vote against the Miller motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I think this legislation is a good idea; and 
particularly, Mr. Speaker, I believe the OCS deep-water incentives 
provisions are good for business, they are good for job growth and, 
most importantly, they are good for the taxpayers.
  Let us look at the facts. Right now, restrictive royalties have 
effectively shut down deep-water drilling. Only 6 percent of the deep-
water leases are in production. That is compared to 50 percent of 
leases which are in production in shallow waters.
  My colleagues should not be fooled by the opponents of this measure. 
I believe their goal is to shutdown deep-water drilling with 
restrictive taxes. While Americans have continually rejected this 
approach to governing for the nonsense that it is, opponents have 
decided to change their approach to the charge of corporate welfare. So 
let us look again at this charge of corporate welfare.
  The Congressional Budget Office, the office that we rely on for our 
estimates, has determined that this bill will generate $100 million 
over 5 years in tax revenues. Is that corporate welfare?
  The Congressional Budget Office says that this bill will reduce our 
national deficit. Is that corporate welfare?
  This bill will create jobs. That is not corporate welfare, Mr. 
Speaker. This bill makes sense for the taxpayers, for the Federal 
budget and for our national security.
  What our friends who oppose this bill are not saying is the fact that 
the taxpayer benefits only if deep-water oil and gas production occurs. 
If they do not drill, they do not pay taxes. The taxpayer and producers 
are business partners. They both benefit from deep-water drilling.
  So who is being taken advantage of by this provision? It is not the 
offshore workers who sit idle by the drills. It is not the taxpayer who 
stands to make $100 million over the next 5 years. The only people 
being taken advantage of in this bill are those who fall for the basic 
theory of corporate welfare by the opponents of the bill today. This 
bill will expand domestic energy resources, enhance our energy 
security, create jobs and reduce the national deficit.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule, this is good legislation, and I 
urge its adoption.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss].
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend the honorable distinguished 
gentleman from Glenwood Springs, CO [Mr. McInnis], for yielding me this 
time and for his management of this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, and to thank the 
conferees on S. 395 for going the extra mile to address the concerns of 
the State of Florida with regard to the deep water drilling provisions 
contained in the conference report. I, along with many Members of the 
Florida Delegation, had reservations about the original Senate language 
that would have provided royalty relief for oil companies drilling in 
the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. The overwhelming majority of 
Floridians are opposed to taking risks with oil and gas exploration in 
our fragile coastal waters--risks that could jeopardize our tourism and 
housing industries. I am pleased that through the efforts of Mrs. 
Fowler and others on the conference committee, the report now spells 
out in no uncertain terms that ``nothing in this title shall be 
construed to affect any offshore pre-leasing, leasing, or development 
moratorium, including any moratorium applicable to the eastern planning 
area of the Gulf of Mexico located off the gulf coast of Florida.'' 
This clarification is consistent with our efforts to provide long-term 
protection for Florida's valuable coastline, and I support it's 
inclusion in this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I recognize there are many other issues in this 
particular report, and they have not all been attended to in exactly 
the way that is going to make everybody exactly happy. I have never 
seen a piece of legislation that I can recall that has made everybody 
happy in this body, and I do not think I will live that long. I think 
that everybody fees they can improve on it.
  But for the rule that we have here, I think that is a good rule; and 
I think it is important to point out that there has been a change and 
an improvement for the Florida interests that involve the protection of 
the Florida coastal waters; and I think those involved.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield I minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Scarborough].
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am from Florida. This bill does not affect the State 
of Florida, does not affect drilling off of Florida. This does affect 
the taxpayers.
  When I hear people get up and say that CBO has scored this one way or 
the other, that it is actually going to be $100 million plus, that is 
doublespeak that I have been hearing Democrats saying on the other side 
of the aisle, and how Republicans are saying this now for their own 
purposes shocks me.
  The fact of the matter is, CBO has scored this, and in their scoring 
they said it would cost us $450 million. Now, how anybody can stand up 
after defending CBO numbers for a year and then stand up and say, ``OK, 
CBO is right on everything but this one,'' absolutely strains any 
credibility any speaker has. CBO says it. It costs the American 
taxpayer $450 million. When you take to the microphone and say that you 
are helping the American taxpayers by shoveling more corporate welfare 
to big oil, you are lying to the American people.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Scarborough] stays on the floor long enough to hear some rebuttal, 
because the gentleman from Florida has very little basis, especially 
using the kind of strong language that he has used.
  I think we may have an honest disagreement here. I do not think 
either side in this situation is lying, as the gentleman from Florida 
might put it, or telling an untruth. In fact, the CBO has been I think 
fairly clear on its scoring of this. This will add to the Federal 
Treasury.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Tauzin].
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  As a matter of fact, CBO did say this would yield $100 million to the 
Treasury in the next 5 years. Confusion has come up when CBO tried to 
go 25 years out and estimate income and revenue as opposed to losses 
under the program, and CBO did a classic economic mistake in that 
analysis. They failed to count the present value of money.
  Minerals Management has done an analysis as well. Minerals 
Management, under the Secretary of Energy, has concluded that this bill 
will produce at least 630 additional leases which would be sold for a 
total increase in bonuses of $485 million over the next 5 years. Their 
analysis over the 25-year period is it not only reduces the deficit but 
it also adds, they believe, about $200 million to the Treasury.

[[Page H 11861]]

  Now, we can debate. Economists are arguing about what is going to 
happen 25 years from now. But one thing we cannot deny is that the 25-
year outlook by CBO originally done, which has been corrected by 
Minerals Management and the Department of the Interior, failed to take 
into account a very simple economic principle, the present value of 
money. When you do that, this is a net gainer for the Treasury. It is a 
net gainer for the Treasury in the first 5 years. It is a net gainer 
over the 25-year period, if the bill were extended beyond the first 5 
years.
  In fact, this is good for the Treasury. This produces jobs, economy. 
It produces income for Americans, and it does something even more vital 
than that. It produces oil and gas in regions that would not otherwise 
be produced in the Gulf of Mexico, only in an area where, in fact, 
economies of scale and deep-water drilling would not permit those 
drills to occur. This is good for the country.
  Too many of our young men and women have gone to battle to defend oil 
products in somebody else's land. It is about time we produce on the 
leases we have authorized to be produced here in the Gulf of Mexico. I 
would urge support for this rule and to keep the oil and gas relief 
bill intact when we send it back to the President.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule. I 
have no further speakers.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we have no other requests for time at this 
point. As my colleagues can see, there is some degree of controversy on 
this matter. I personally support the rule and support the bill, and I 
urge adoption of the rule, though there is some opposition, obviously, 
on both sides of the aisle on this question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I too support the rule, and urge my 
colleagues to support the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The previous question was ordered.
  The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 361, 
nays 54, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 770]

                               YEAS--361

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--54

     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Brown (FL)
     Clay
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Evans
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Kanjorski
     Kildee
     LaFalce
     Markey
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Nadler
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Peterson (MN)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wynn
     Yates

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Engel
       

                             NOT VOTING--16

     de la Garza
     Fields (LA)
     Foglietta
     McKeon
     Moakley
     Moran
     Peterson (FL)
     Ramstad
     Rose
     Skelton
     Tejeda
     Thornton
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Waldholtz
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1450

  Ms. BROWN of Florida and Mrs. SCHROEDER changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. HILLIARD changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 770, I am recorded as 
having voted ``present.'' I would like the Record to reflect that I was 
opposed to this resolution.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 256, I 
call up the conference report on Senate bill (S. 395) to authorize and 
direct the Secretary of Energy to sell the Alaska Power Administration, 
and to authorize the export of Alaska North Slope crude oil, and for 
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McInnis). Pursuant to House Resolution 
256, the conference report is considered as having been read.
  The text of the conference report and the statement of managers is as 
follows:

[[Page H 11862]]


                  Conference Report (H. Rept. 104-312)

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 
     395), to authorize and direct the Secretary of Energy to sell 
     the Alaska Power Administration, and to authorize the export 
     of Alaska North Slope crude oil, and for other purposes, 
     having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to 
     recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as 
     follows:

     Amendment numbered 1:
       That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the 
     amendment of the House numbered 1, and agree to the same with 
     an amendment, as follows:
       In lieu of the matter proposed to be stricken by the House 
     amendment, insert the following:
    TITLE I--ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION ASSET SALE AND TERMINATION

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Alaska Power 
     Administration Asset Sale and Termination Act''.

     SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this title:
       (1) The term ``Eklutna'' means the Eklutna Hydroelectric 
     Project and related assets as described in section 4 and 
     Exhibit A of the Eklutna Purchase Agreement.
       (2) The term ``Eklutna Purchase Agreement'' means the 
     August 2, 1989, Eklutna Purchase Agreement between the Alaska 
     Power Administration of the Department of Energy and the 
     Eklutna Purchasers, together with any amendments thereto 
     adopted before the enactment of this section.
       (3) The term ``Eklutna Purchasers'' means the Municipality 
     of Anchorage doing business as Municipal Light and Power, the 
     Chugach Electric Association, Inc. and the Matanuska Electric 
     Association, Inc.
       (4) The term ``Snettisham'' means the Snettisham 
     Hydroelectric Project and related assets as described in 
     section 4 and Exhibit A of the Snettisham Purchase Agreement.
       (5) The term ``Snettisham Purchase Agreement'' means the 
     February 10, 1989, Snettisham Purchase Agreement between the 
     Alaska Power Administration of the Department of Energy and 
     the Alaska Power Authority and its successors in interest, 
     together with any amendments thereto adopted before the 
     enactment of this section.
       (6) The term ``Snettisham Purchaser'' means the Alaska 
     Industrial Development and Export Authority or a successor 
     State agency or authority.

     SEC. 103. SALE OF EKLUTNA AND SNETTISHAM HYDROELECTRIC 
                   PROJECTS.

       (a) Sale of Eklutna.--The Secretary of Energy is authorized 
     and directed to sell Eklutna to the Eklutna Purchasers in 
     accordance with the terms of this Act and the Eklutna 
     Purchase Agreement.
       (b) Sale of Snettisham.--The Secretary of Energy is 
     authorized and directed to sell Snettisham to the Snettisham 
     Purchaser in accordance with the terms of this Act and the 
     Snettisham Purchase Agreement.
       (c) Cooperation of Other Agencies.--The heads of other 
     Federal departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the 
     United States shall assist the Secretary of Energy in 
     implementing the sales and conveyances authorized and 
     directed by this title.
       (d) Proceeds.--Proceeds from the sales required by this 
     title shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United States 
     to the credit of miscellaneous receipts.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to prepare, 
     survey, and acquire Eklutna and Snettisham for sale and 
     conveyance. Such preparations and acquisitions shall provide 
     sufficient title to ensure the beneficial use, enjoyment, and 
     occupancy by the purchasers.
       (f) Contributed Funds.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, the Alaska Power Administration is authorized to 
     receive, administer, and expend such contributed funds as may 
     be provided by the Eklutna Purchasers or customers or the 
     Snettisham Purchaser or customers for the purposes of 
     upgrading, improving, maintaining, or administering Eklutna 
     or Snettisham. Upon the termination of the Alaska Power 
     Administration under section 104(f), the Secretary of Energy 
     shall administer and expend any remaining balances of such 
     contributed funds for the purposes intended by the 
     contributors.

     SEC. 104. EXEMPTION AND OTHER PROVISIONS.

       (a) Federal Power Act.--(1) After the sales authorized by 
     this Act occur, Eklutna and Snettisham, including future 
     modifications, shall continue to be exempt from the 
     requirements of Part I of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 
     791a et seq.), except as provided in subsection (b).
       (2) The exemption provided by paragraph (1) shall not 
     affect the Memorandum of Agreement entered into among the 
     State of Alaska, the Eklutna Purchasers, the Alaska Energy 
     Authority, and Federal fish and wildlife agencies regarding 
     the protection, mitigation of, damages to, and enhancement of 
     fish and wildlife, dated August 7, 1991, which remains in 
     full force and effect.
       (3) Nothing in this title or the Federal Power Act preempts 
     the State of Alaska from carrying out the responsibilities 
     and authorities of the Memorandum of Agreement.
       (b) Subsequent Transfers.--Except for subsequent assignment 
     of interest in Eklutna by the Eklutna Purchasers to the 
     Alaska Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative Inc. 
     pursuant to section 19 of the Eklutna Purchase Agreement, 
     upon any subsequent sale or transfer of any portion of 
     Eklutna or Snettisham from the Eklutna Purchasers or the 
     Snettisham Purchaser to any other person, the exemption set 
     forth in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this section 
     shall cease to apply to such portion.
       (c) Review.--(1) The United States District Court for the 
     District of Alaska shall have jurisdiction to review 
     decisions made under the Memorandum of Agreement and to 
     enforce the provisions of the Memorandum of Agreement, 
     including the remedy of specific performance.
       (2) An action seeking review of a Fish and Wildlife Program 
     (``Program'') of the Governor of Alaska under the Memorandum 
     of Agreement or challenging actions of any of the parties to 
     the Memorandum of Agreement prior to the adoption of the 
     Program shall be brought not later than 90 days after the 
     date on which the Program is adopted by the Governor of 
     Alaska, or be barred.
       (3) An action seeking review of implementation of the 
     Program shall be brought not later than 90 days after the 
     challenged act implementing the Program, or be barred.
       (d) Eklutna Lands.--With respect to Eklutna lands described 
     in Exhibit A of the Eklutna Purchase Agreement:
       (1) The Secretary of the Interior shall issue rights-of-way 
     to the Alaska Power Administration for subsequent 
     reassignment to the Eklutna Purchasers--
       (A) at no cost to the Eklutna Purchasers;
       (B) to remain effective for a period equal to the life of 
     Eklutna as extended by improvements, repairs, renewals, or 
     replacements; and
       (C) sufficient for the operation of, maintenance of, repair 
     to, and replacement of, and access to, Eklutna facilities 
     located on military lands and lands managed by the Bureau of 
     Land Management, including lands selected by the State of 
     Alaska.
       (2) Fee title to lands at Anchorage Substation shall be 
     transferred to Eklutna Purchasers at no additional cost if 
     the Secretary of the Interior determines that pending claims 
     to, and selections of, those lands are invalid or 
     relinquished.
       (3) With respect to the Eklutna lands identified in 
     paragraph 1 of Exhibit A of the Eklutna Purchase Agreement, 
     the State of Alaska may select, and the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall convey to the State, improved lands under the 
     selection entitlements in section 6 of the Act of July 7, 
     1958 (commonly referred to as the Alaska Statehood Act, 
     Public Law 85-508; 72 Stat. 339), and the North Anchorage 
     Land Agreement dated January 31, 1983. This conveyance shall 
     be subject to the rights-of-way provided to the Eklutna 
     Purchasers under paragraph (1).
       (e) Snettisham Lands.--With respect to the Snettisham lands 
     identified in paragraph 1 of Exhibit A of the Snettisham 
     Purchase Agreement and Public Land Order No. 5108, the State 
     of Alaska may select, and the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     convey to the State of Alaska, improved lands under the 
     selection entitlements in section 6 of the Act of July 7, 
     1958 (commonly referred to as the Alaska Statehood Act, 
     Public Law 85-508; 72 Stat. 339).
       (f) Termination of Alaska Power Administration.--Not later 
     than one year after both of the sales authorized in section 
     103 have occurred, as measured by the Transaction Dates 
     stipulated in the Purchase Agreements, the Secretary of 
     Energy shall--
       (1) complete the business of, and close out, the Alaska 
     Power Administration;
       (2) submit to Congress a report documenting the sales; and
       (3) return unobligated balances of funds appropriated for 
     the Alaska Power Administration to the Treasury of the United 
     States.
       (g) Repeals.--(1) The Act of July 31, 1950 (64 Stat. 382) 
     is repealed effective on the date that Eklutna is conveyed to 
     the Eklutna Purchasers.
       (2) Section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 
     1193) is repealed effective on the date that Snettisham is 
     conveyed to the Snettisham Purchaser.
       (3) The Act of August 9, 1955, concerning water resources 
     investigation in Alaska (69 Stat. 618), is repealed.
       (h) DOE Organization Act.--As of the later of the two dates 
     determined in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (g), 
     section 302(a) of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 7152(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking subparagraph (C); and
       (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F) as 
     subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) respectively; and
       (2) in paragraph (2) by striking out ``and the Alaska Power 
     Administration'' and by inserting ``and'' after 
     ``Southwestern Power Administration,''.
       (i) Disposal.--The sales of Eklutna and Snettisham under 
     this title are not considered disposal of Federal surplus 
     property under the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 484) or the Act of October 3, 
     1944, popularly referred to as the ``Surplus Property Act of 
     1944'' (50 U.S.C. App. 1622).

     SEC. 105. OTHER FEDERAL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS.

       The provisions of this title regarding the sale of the 
     Alaska Power Administration's hydroelectric projects under 
     section 103 and the exemption of these projects from Part I 
     of the Federal Power Act under section 104 do not apply to 
     other Federal hydroelectric projects.
       And the House agree to the same.

       Amendment numbered 2:
       That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the 
     amendment of the House numbered 2, and agree to the same with 
     an amendment, as follows:
       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House 
     amendment, insert the following:

[[Page H 11863]]

              TITLE II--EXPORTS OF ALASKAN NORTH SLOPE OIL

     SEC. 201. 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.), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et 
     seq.), or Part B of title II of the Energy Policy and 
     Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6271-76) to prohibit exports.
       ``(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, shall 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 title 5, 
     United States Code.''.

     SEC. 202. 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 three years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act and, within twelve 
     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.
       And the House agree to the same.

     Amendment numbered 3:
       That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the 
     amendment of the House numbered 3, and agree to the same with 
     an amendment, as follows:
       In lieu of the matter proposed to be stricken by the House 
     amendment, insert the following:

     SEC. 203. GRANT AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation 
     (``Secretary'') may make grants to the Multnomah County Tax 
     Supervising and Conservation Commission of Multnomah County, 
     Oregon (``Commission'') in accordance with this section, not 
     to exceed the amount determined in subsection (b)(2).
       (b) Finding and Determination.--Before making any grant 
     under this section not earlier than one year after exports of 
     Alaskan North Slope oil commence pursuant to section 201, the 
     Secretary shall--
       (1) find on the basis of substantial evidence that such 
     exports are directly or indirectly a substantial contributing 
     factor to the need to levy port district ad valorem taxes 
     under Oregon Revised Statutes section 294.381; and
       (2) determine the amount of such levy attributable to the 
     export of Alaskan North Slope oil.
       (c) Agreement.--Before receiving a grant under this section 
     for the relief of port district ad valorem taxes which would 
     otherwise be levied under Oregon Revised Statutes section 
     294.381, the Commission shall enter into an agreement with 
     the Secretary to--
       (1) establish a segregated account for the receipt of grant 
     funds;
       (2) deposit and keep grant funds in that account;
       (3) use the funds solely for the purpose of payments in 
     accordance with this subsection, as determined pursuant to 
     Oregon Revised Statutes sections 294.305-565, and computed in 
     accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; and
       (4) terminate such account at the conclusion of payments 
     subject to this subsection and to transfer any amounts, 
     including interest, remaining in such account to the Port of 
     Portland for use in transportation improvements to enhance 
     freight mobility.
       (d) Report.--Within 60 days of issuing a grant under this 
     section, the Secretary shall submit any finding and 
     determination made under subsection (b), including supporting 
     information, to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
     of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation to 
     carry out subsection (a), $15,000,000 for fiscal year 1997, 
     to remain available until October 1, 2003.
       And the House agree to the same.

     Amendment numbered 4:
       That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the 
     amendment of the House numbered 4, and agree to the same with 
     an amendment, as follows:
       In lieu of the matter proposed to be stricken by the House 
     amendment, insert the following:
                        TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 401. EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN.

       (a) In General.--Within 15 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Commandant of the Coast Guard 
     shall submit a plan to Congress on the most cost-effective 
     means of implementing an international private-sector tug-of-
     opportunity system, including a coordinated system of 
     communication, using existing towing vessels to provide 
     timely emergency response to a vessel in distress transiting 
     the waters within the boundaries of the Olympic Coast 
     National Marine Sanctuary or the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
       (b) Coordination.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Commandant, in consultation with the Secretaries of State and 
     Transportation, shall coordinate with the Canadian Government 
     and the United States and Canadian maritime industries.
       (c) Access to Information.--If necessary, the Commandant 
     shall allow United States nonprofit maritime organizations 
     access to United States Coast Guard radar imagery and 
     transponder information to identify and deploy towing vessels 
     for the purpose of facilitating emergency response.
       (d) Towing Vessel Defined.--For the purpose of this 
     section, the term ``towing vessel'' has the meaning given 
     that term by section 2101(40) of title 46, United States 
     Code.
       And the House agree to the same.

     Amendment numbered 5:
       That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the 
     amendment of the House numbered 5, and agree to the same with 
     an amendment, as follows:
       In lieu of the matter proposed to be stricken by the House 
     amendment, insert the following:
      TITLE III--OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF DEEP WATER ROYALTY RELIEF

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be referred to as the ``Outer Continental 
     Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act''.

     SEC. 302. AMENDMENTS TO THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS 
                   ACT.

       Section 8(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)), is amended--
       (1) by designating the provisions of paragraph (3) as 
     subparagraph (A) of such paragraph (3); and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (A), as so designated, 
     the following:
       ``(B) In the Western and Central Planning Areas of the Gulf 
     of Mexico and the portion of the Eastern Planning Area of the 
     Gulf of Mexico encompassing whole lease blocks lying west of 
     87 degrees, 30 minutes West longitude, the Secretary may, in 
     order to--
       ``(i) promote development or increased production on 
     producing or non-producing leases; or
       ``(ii) encourage production of marginal resources on 
     producing or non-producing leases;
     through primary, secondary, or tertiary recovery means, 
     reduce or eliminate any royalty or net profit share set forth 
     in the lease(s). With 

[[Page H 11864]]
     the lessee's consent, the Secretary may make other modifications to the 
     royalty or net profit share terms of the lease in order to 
     achieve these purposes.
       ``(C)(i) Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act other 
     than this subparagraph, with respect to any lease or unit in 
     existence on the date of enactment of the Outer Continental 
     Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act meeting the requirements 
     of this subparagraph, no royalty payments shall be due on new 
     production, as defined in clause (iv) of this subparagraph, 
     from any lease or unit located in water depths of 200 meters 
     or greater in the Western and Central Planning Areas of the 
     Gulf of Mexico, including that portion of the Eastern 
     Planning Area of the Gulf of Mexico encompassing whole lease 
     blocks lying west of 87 degrees, 30 minutes West longitude, 
     until such volume of production as determined pursuant to 
     clause (ii) has been produced by the lessee.
       ``(ii) Upon submission of a complete application by the 
     lessee, the Secretary shall determine within 180 days of such 
     application whether new production from such lease or unit 
     would be economic in the absence of the relief from the 
     requirement to pay royalties provided for by clause (i) of 
     this subparagraph. In making such determination, the 
     Secretary shall consider the increased technological and 
     financial risk of deep water development and all costs 
     associated with exploring, developing, and producing from the 
     lease. The lessee shall provide information required for a 
     complete application to the Secretary prior to such 
     determination. The Secretary shall clearly define the 
     information required for a complete application under this 
     section. Such application may be made on the basis of an 
     individual lease or unit. If the Secretary determines that 
     such new production would be economic in the absence of the 
     relief from the requirement to pay royalties provided for by 
     clause (i) of this subparagraph, the provisions of clause (i) 
     shall not apply to such production. If the Secretary 
     determines that such new production would not be economic in 
     the absence of the relief from the requirement to pay 
     royalties provided for by clause (i), the Secretary must 
     determine the volume of production from the lease or unit on 
     which no royalties would be due in order to make such new 
     production economically viable; except that for new 
     production as defined in clause (iv)(I), in no case will that 
     volume be less than 17.5 million barrels of oil equivalent in 
     water depths of 200 to 400 meters, 52.5 million barrels of 
     oil equivalent in 400-800 meters of water, and 87.5 million 
     barrels of oil equivalent in water depths greater than 800 
     meters. Redetermination of the applicability of clause (i) 
     shall be undertaken by the Secretary when requested by the 
     lessee prior to the commencement of the new production and 
     upon significant change in the factors upon which the 
     original determination was made. The Secretary shall make 
     such redetermination within 120 days of submission of a 
     complete application. The Secretary may extend the time 
     period for making any determination or redetermination under 
     this clause for 30 days, or longer if agreed to by the 
     applicant, if circumstances so warrant. The lessee shall be 
     notified in writing of any determination or redetermination 
     and the reasons for and assumptions used for such 
     determination. Any determination or redetermination under 
     this clause shall be a final agency action. The Secretary's 
     determination or redetermination shall be judicially 
     reviewable under section 10(a) of the Administrative 
     Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 702), only for actions filed within 
     30 days of the Secretary's determination or redetermination.
       ``(iii) In the event that the Secretary fails to make the 
     determination or redetermination called for in clause (ii) 
     upon application by the lessee within the time period, 
     together with any extension thereof, provided for by clause 
     (ii), no royalty payments shall be due on new production as 
     follows:
       ``(I) For new production, as defined in clause (iv)(I) of 
     this subparagraph, no royalty shall be due on such production 
     according to the schedule of minimum volumes specified in 
     clause (ii) of this subparagraph.
       ``(II) For new production, as defined in clause (iv)(II) of 
     this subparagraph, no royalty shall be due on such production 
     for one year following the start of such production.
       ``(iv) For purposes of this subparagraph, the term `new 
     production' is--
       ``(I) any production from a lease from which no royalties 
     are due on production, other than test production, prior to 
     the date of enactment of the Outer Continental Shelf Deep 
     Water Royalty Relief Act; or
       ``(II) any production resulting from lease development 
     activities pursuant to a Development Operations Coordination 
     Document, or supplement thereto that would expand production 
     significantly beyond the level anticipated in the Development 
     Operations Coordination Document, approved by the Secretary 
     after the date of enactment of the Outer Continental Shelf 
     Deep Water Royalty Relief Act.
       ``(v) During the production of volumes determined pursuant 
     to clauses (ii) or (iii) of this subparagraph, in any year 
     during which the arithmetic average of the closing prices on 
     the New York Mercantile Exchange for light sweet crude oil 
     exceeds $28.00 per barrel, any production of oil will be 
     subject to royalties at the lease stipulated royalty rate. 
     Any production subject to this clause shall be counted toward 
     the production volume determined pursuant to clause (ii) or 
     (iii). Estimated royalty payments will be made if such 
     average of the closing prices for the previous year exceeds 
     $28.00. After the end of the calendar year, when the new 
     average price can be calculated, lessees will pay any 
     royalties due, with interest but without penalty, or can 
     apply for a refund, with interest, of any overpayment.
       ``(vi) During the production of volumes determined pursuant 
     to clause (ii) or (iii) of this subparagraph, in any year 
     during which the arithmetic average of the closing prices on 
     the New York Mercantile Exchange for natural gas exceeds 
     $3.50 per million British thermal units, any production of 
     natural gas will be subject to royalties at the lease 
     stipulated royalty rate. Any production subject to this 
     clause shall be counted toward the production volume 
     determined pursuant to clauses (ii) or (iii). Estimated 
     royalty payments will be made if such average of the closing 
     prices for the previous year exceeds $3.50. After the end of 
     the calendar year, when the new average price can be 
     calculated, lessees will pay any royalties due, with interest 
     but without penalty, or can apply for a refund, with 
     interest, of any overpayment.
       ``(vii) The prices referred to in clauses (v) and (vi) of 
     this subparagraph shall be changed during any calendar year 
     after 1994 by the percentage, if any, by which the implicit 
     price deflator for the gross domestic product changed during 
     the preceding calendar year.''.

     SEC. 303. NEW LEASES.

       Section 8(a)(1) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 
     as amended (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (H) as subparagraph (I);
       (2) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (G); and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (G) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(H) cash bonus bid with royalty at no less than 12 and 
     \1/2\ per centum fixed by the Secretary in amount or value of 
     production saved, removed, or sold, and with suspension of 
     royalties for a period, volume, or value of production 
     determined by the Secretary, which suspensions may vary based 
     on the price of production from the lease; or''.

     SEC. 304. LEASE SALES.

       For all tracts located in water depths of 200 meters or 
     greater in the Western and Central Planning Area of the Gulf 
     of Mexico, including that portion of the Eastern Planning 
     Area of the Gulf of Mexico encompassing whole lease blocks 
     lying west of 87 degrees, 30 minutes West longitude, any 
     lease sale within five years of the date of enactment of this 
     title, shall use the bidding system authorized in section 
     8(a)(1)(H) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, as 
     amended by this title, except that the suspension of 
     royalties shall be set at a volume of not less than the 
     following:
       (1) 17.5 million barrels of oil equivalent for leases in 
     water depths of 200 to 400 meters;
       (2) 52.5 million barrels of oil equivalent for leases in 
     400 to 800 meters of water; and
       (3) 87.5 million barrels of oil equivalent for leases in 
     water depths greater than 800 meters.

     SEC. 305. REGULATIONS.

       The Secretary shall promulgate such rules and regulations 
     as are necessary to implement the provisions of this title 
     within 180 days after the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 306. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

       Nothing in this title shall be construed to affect any 
     offshore pre-leasing, leasing, or development moratorium, 
     including any moratorium applicable to the Eastern Planning 
     Area of the Gulf of Mexico located off the Gulf Coast of 
     Florida.
       And the House agree to the same.

     Amendment to title:
       That the House recede from its amendment to the title of 
     the bill.

     For consideration of House amendment No. 1:
     Don Young,
     Ken Calvert,
     Tom Bliley,
     For consideration of House amendment No. 2:
     Don Young,
     Ken Calvert,
     William Thomas,
     Tom Bliley,
     Howard Coble,
     Lee H. Hamilton,
     Jim Oberstar,
     For consideration of House amendment No. 3:
     Floyd Spence,
     John R. Kasich,
     For consideration of House amendment No. 4:
     Howard Coble,
     Tillie K. Fowler,
     Jim Oberstar,
     For consideration of House amendment No. 5:
     Don Young,
     Ken Calvert,
                                Managers on the Part of the House.
     Frank H. Murkowski,
     Pete V. Domenici,
     J. Bennett Johnston,
     Wendell Ford,
                               Managers on the Part of the Senate.

       JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE

       The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the 
     conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the 
     amendments of the House to the bill (S. 395) to authorize and 
     direct the Secretary of Energy to sell the Alaska Power 
     Administration, and to authorize the export of Alaska North 
     Slope crude oil, and for other purposes, submit the following 
     joint statement to the House and the Senate in explanation of 
     the effect of the action agreed upon by the managers and 
     recommended in the accompanying conference report:
       House amendment numbered 1 struck title I of the Senate 
     bill. House amendment numbered 2 struck sections 201 through 
     204 of the Senate bill and inserted the text of H.R. 70, as 
     passed by the House. House amendment 

[[Page H 11865]]
     numbered 3 struck section 205 of the Senate bill. House amendment 
     numbered 4 struck section 206 of the Senate bill. House 
     amendment numbered 5 struck title III of the Senate bill.
       With respect to House amendment numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, 
     and Senate receded from its disagreement to each House 
     numbered amendment with an amendment.
       The differences between the Senate bill, the House 
     amendments, and the amendment agreed to in conference are 
     noted below, except for clerical corrections, conforming 
     changes made necessary by agreements reached by the 
     conferees, and minor drafting and clarifying changes.

    Title I--Alaska Power Administration Asset Sale and Termination


                              Senate bill

       Title I of the Senate bill provides for the sale of the 
     Alaska Power Administration's (APA) assets, an the 
     termination of the APA once the sale occurs. It also provides 
     for the exemption of the two hydroelectric projects from the 
     licensing requirements of Part I of the Federal Power Act.


                       House amendment numbered 1

       The House amendment struck Title I of the Senate bill.


                          Conference agreement

       The House receded to the Senate with an amendment.
       The Conference Report adopts the Senate language with minor 
     changes. The APA's assets will be sold pursuant to the 1989 
     purchase agreements between the Department of Energy and the 
     purchasers. The Snettisham hydroelectric project and related 
     assets will be sold to the State of Alaska. the Eklutna 
     hydroelectric project and related assets will be sold jointly 
     to the Municipality of Anchorage, the Chugach Electric 
     Association, and the Matanuska Electric Association. For both 
     projects, the sale price is determined by calculating the net 
     present value of the remaining debt service payments the 
     Treasury would receive if the Federal Government retained 
     ownership.
       This provision and the separate formal agreements provide 
     for the full protection of fish and wildlife. The purchasers, 
     the State of Alaska, the National Marine Fisheries Service 
     (NMFS), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have 
     entered into a formal agreement providing for post-sale 
     protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife 
     resources affected by Eklutna and Snettisham. This provision 
     makes that agreement legally enforceable.
       As a result of the formal agreements, the Department of 
     Energy, the Department of the Interior, and NMFS all agree 
     that the two hydroelectric projects warrant exemption from 
     the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing 
     under Part I of the Federal Power Act. The August 7, 1991, 
     formal purchase agreement states:

       NMFS, USFWS and the State agree that the following 
     mechanism to develop and implement measures to protect, 
     mitigate damages to, and enhance fish and wildlife (including 
     related spawning grounds and habitat) obviate the need for 
     the Eklutna Purchasers and AEA to obtain FERC licenses. 
     [Emphasis supplied.]

       The Alaska Power Administration has 34 people located in 
     the State of Alaska. The purchasers of the two projects have 
     pledges to hire as many of these as possible. For those who 
     do not receive offers of employment, the Department of Energy 
     has pledged it will offer employment to any remaining APA 
     employees, although the DOE jobs are expected to be in the 
     lower 48 States.
       The House-passed bill did not contain any comparable 
     provisions. The Conference Agreement adopts the Senate-passed 
     bill with two material changes.
       First, section 104(a)(1) of the Conference Agreement 
     provides an exemption for Eklutna and Snettisham only from 
     Part I of the Federal Power Act (hydroelectric licensing), 
     not from the entire Federal Power Act. That was intended by 
     the Senate. By making this change, the Conferees do not 
     intend to imply that the purchasers who are already exempt 
     from other aspects of the Federal Power Act lose that broader 
     exemption. Nor do the Conferees intend to imply that merely 
     by reason of this provision the other parts of the Federal 
     Power Act apply to Eklutna and Snettisham. They apply if they 
     would have applied in the absence of this provision.
       Second, new section 104(b) provides that upon sale or 
     transfer of any portion of Eklutna or Snettisham from the 
     purchasers to any person (i.e. a person other than a 
     purchaser defined in section 102), the exemption from Part I 
     of the Federal Power Act shall cease to apply to that portion 
     of Eklutna or Snettisham. However, the exemption from Part I 
     will continue to apply if the sale or transfer is from one 
     purchaser to another purchaser, as defined in section 102. 
     The elimination of exemption from Part I for a sold or 
     transferred portion of Eklutna or Snettisham does not mandate 
     the licensing of that portion, it only eliminates the 
     exemption from the application of Part I. If licensing is not 
     otherwise required under Part I of the Federal Power Act for 
     that portion, it is not required by reason of section 104(b). 
     The disposition of a portion of the Eklutna or Snettisham 
     assets does not affect the remaining portions. The one 
     exception to this rule is a subsequent assignment of 
     interests in Eklutna by the Eklutna Purchasers to the Alaska 
     Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative Inc. 
     pursuant to section 19 of the Eklutna Purchase Agreement will 
     not result in the elimination of the exemption from Part I of 
     the Federal Power Act for that interest.
       Sections 104(d) and 104(e) address selection and transfer 
     of Eklutna and Snettisham lands. It is the intent of these 
     provisions that notwithstanding the expiration of the right 
     of the State of Alaska to make selections under section 6 of 
     the Alaska Statehood Act, the State may select lands pursuant 
     to this provision and the Eklutna and Snettisham Purchase 
     Agreements. Likewise, it is the intent of this legislation 
     that the Secretary of the Interior shall convey lands 
     selected by the State of Alaska, notwithstanding any 
     limitations contained in section 6(b) of the Alaska Statehood 
     Act.
       The Conferees agree that the circumstances justifying 
     exemption from licensing under Part I of the Federal Power 
     Act for these two Federally-owned hydroelectric projects are 
     unique, and that they would not justify a similar exemption 
     for any other Federally-owned hydroelectric project if sold. 
     The Conferees agree that if other Federally-owned 
     hydroelectric projects whose generation is marketed by other 
     Federal power marketing administrations are privatized, these 
     circumstances would not justify an exemption from Part I. 
     This is reflected in section 105 of the Conference Agreement.

              Title II--Exports of Alaskan North Slope Oil


                              senate bill

       Sections 201 through 204 of Title II of the Senate bill 
     authorized exports of Alaskan North Slope (ANS) crude oil; 
     mandated the filing of additional information in an annual 
     report under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act; and 
     required a study by the General Accounting Office (GAO).


                       House amendment numbered 2

       The House amendment similarly authorized exports of ANS 
     crude oil and provided for a GAO study.


                          conference agreement

       The Senate receded to the House language with an amendment.
       Under section 201, Committee of Conference recommends 
     authorizing exports of ANS oil under terms substantially 
     similar to, and drawn from, both the Senate bill and the 
     House amendment.
       Paragraph (1) authorizes ANS exports, making inapplicable 
     the general and specific restrictions on these exports in 
     Section 7(d) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 
     U.S.C. App. Sec. 2406(b)), Section 28(u) of the Mineral 
     Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. Sec. 185), Section 103 of the 
     Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 6212), and 
     the Short Supply regulations issued thereunder. However, the 
     export of the oil can be stopped if the President determines 
     (within five months of the date of enactment) that they would 
     not be in the national interest. (Other statutory 
     restrictions on the export of U.S. crude oil either 
     inapplicable or superseded with respect to ANS exports are 10 
     U.S.C. Sec. 7430 and 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1354, restricting exports 
     of crude oil from the Naval Petroleum Reserve and the outer 
     continental shelf.)
       Before making the national interest determination, the 
     President must consider an appropriate environmental review 
     (to be completed within four months of enactment). Consistent 
     with the 1973 Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act, the 
     President also must consider whether exports would diminish 
     the total quantity or quality of petroleum available to the 
     United States. The President must also consider whether 
     exports 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, in particular in noncontiguous 
     States and Pacific territories.
       In a comprehensive report submitted to Congress, the 
     Department of Energy found ``no plausible evidence of any 
     direct negative environmental impact from lifting the ANS 
     crude export ban.'' Based on this finding and the weight of 
     the testimony, section 201 of the Conference Agreement 
     directs, as the ``appropriate environmental review,'' an 
     abbreviated four-month study. The environmental review is 
     intended to be thorough and comprehensive, but in light of 
     the prior Department of Energy findings and the compressed 
     time frame, neither a full Environmental Impact Statement nor 
     even a more limited Environmental Assessment is contemplated. 
     If any potential adverse effects on the environment are 
     found, the study is to recommend ``appropriate measures'' to 
     mitigate or cure them.
       In making the national interest determination, the 
     President is authorized to impose appropriate terms and 
     conditions, other than a volume limitation, on ANS exports. 
     However, nothing in this section or Title IV of the 
     Conference Agreement authorizes the imposition of new 
     requirements for oil spill prevention and response in 
     locations which would not be affected by ANS exports, such as 
     the Strait of Juan de Fuca or within the boundaries of the 
     Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary.
       The Conference Agreement takes cognizance of the changed 
     condition of national oil demand and available oil resources. 
     Title II is intended to permit ANS crude oil to compete with 
     other crude oil in the world market under normal market 
     conditions. To facilitate this competition and in recognition 
     that section 201 specifically precludes 

[[Page H 11866]]
     imposition of a volume limitation, the President should direct that 
     exports proceed under a general license. In further 
     recognition that some information (such as volume and price) 
     will be needed to monitor exports, the President may wish to 
     impose after-the-fact reporting requirements as may be deemed 
     appropriate by the Secretary of Commerce.
       Given the anticipated substantial benefits to the Nation of 
     ANS exports, the Conferees urge the President to make the 
     national interest determination as promptly as possible. If 
     the President fails to make the required national interest 
     determination within the statutorily imposed deadline, ANS 
     oil exports are authorized without intervening action by the 
     President or the Secretary of Commerce.
       Section 201 requires, with limited exceptions, that ANS 
     exports be carried in U.S.-flag vessels. The only exceptions 
     are exports to Israel under the terms of a specific bilateral 
     treaty that entered into force in 1979 and exports to a 
     country pursuant to the International Emergency Oil Sharing 
     Plan of the International Energy Agency. The Committee of 
     Conference concurs with the Administration's assessment that 
     the U.S.-flag cargo reservation requirement is consistent 
     with U.S. international obligations and is supported by ample 
     precedent, including in particular a comparable provision in 
     the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, as implemented under 
     U.S. law.
       Section 201 preserves any authority the President may have 
     under the Constitution and the enumerated statutes to 
     prohibit ANS exports in an emergency.
       Section 201 also directs the Secretary of Commerce to issue 
     any rules necessary to govern ANS exports within 30 days of 
     the President's national interest determination. In light of 
     the clear benefits to the Nation of ANS exports, the 
     Conferees urge the Secretary of Commerce to promulgate any 
     rules necessary to implement that determination, including 
     any licensing requirements and conditions, contemporaneously 
     with the determination.
       Section 201 further provides that, if the Secretary of 
     Commerce (after consulting with the Secretary of Energy) 
     later finds that exports have caused sustained material oil 
     shortages or sustained prices significantly above the world 
     level and that the shortages or high prices have caused or 
     are likely to cause sustained material job losses, the 
     Secretary must recommend appropriate action, including 
     modification or revocation of the authority to export ANS 
     oil. The President has the discretion to adopt, reject, or 
     modify any recommendation made by the Secretary. In 
     recognition that prices fluctuate and supply patterns change 
     under normal market conditions, the authority of the 
     Secretary is limited to addressing activity that causes the 
     specified sustained unanticipated price and supply effects.
       Finally, section 201 provides that administrative action is 
     not subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements or 
     other requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act.
       Under section 202, the Committee of Conference recommends 
     that a GAO report be submitted four years after the date of 
     enactment. The report must contain a statement of principal 
     findings and recommendations to address job loss in the 
     shipbuilding and ship repair industry on the West Coast and 
     Hawaii, if any, as well as adverse impacts on consumers and 
     refiners on the West Coast and in Hawaii, if any, that the 
     Comptroller General attributes to ANS exports. The Committee 
     believes that the market should be given a reasonable period 
     of time to operate before submission of the report. The 
     Conferees want to be sure the Comptroller General has a solid 
     basis on which to make his analysis and offer any 
     recommendations for Congress and the President.


                              senate bill

       Section 205 of Title II provided for the retirement of 
     certain costs incurred for the construction of a non-Federal 
     publicly-owned shipyard.


                            house amendment

       House amendment numbered 3 struck section 205 of the Senate 
     bill.


                          conference agreement

       The Senate receded from its disagreement with an amendment 
     (now designated as section 203).
       Under section 203(a) of the conference amendment, the 
     Secretary of Transportation is authorized to make grants to 
     the Multnomah County Tax Supervising and Conservation 
     Commission of Multnomah County, Oregon. The grants may be 
     used only for the relief of port district ad valorem taxes 
     that would otherwise be levied under Oregon law. In addition, 
     at the conclusion of the grant payments under this section, 
     any remaining funds (plus interest) would be transferred to 
     the Port of Portland for making transportation improvements 
     to enhance freight mobility.
       Under subsection (b), before issuing any grant, the 
     Secretary must find on the basis of substantial evidence that 
     Alaskan North Slope oil exports are a contributing factor to 
     the need to levy certain port district taxes. In addition, 
     the Secretary must determine the amount of the tax levy 
     attributed to the oil exports. The amount of the grants is 
     limited to the amount of the tax levy attributed to the oil 
     exports.
       Before receiving any grant under this section, subsection 
     (c) requires the Commission (by agreement with the Secretary) 
     to establish a separate account for the funds, to use the 
     funds as directed, and to terminate the account and transfer 
     any remaining funds to the Port of Portland at the conclusion 
     of the grants.
       Under Subsection (d), the Secretary must report to the 
     relevant Congressional Committees on any findings and 
     determinations made under subsection (b) within 60 days of 
     issuing a grant under this section.
       Subsection (e) provides an authorization for appropriations 
     of up to $15 million for fiscal year 1997, to remain 
     available until October 1, 2003.


                              senate bill

       Section 206 of the Senate bill included a provision that 
     would amend Title VI of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 
     '90) by adding a new section 6005 that would impose a 
     requirement for an additional towing vessel to be listed in, 
     and available to respond under, vessel response plans 
     developed in accordance with section 311(j) of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended by OPA '90, 
     for tank vessels operating within the boundaries of the 
     Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary or the Strait of Juan 
     de Fuca near the coastline of the State of Washington. In 
     particular, the provision would require an emergency response 
     tugboat capable of towing tank vessels, initial firefighting, 
     and initial oil spill response to be repositioned in the area 
     of Neah Bay, the western-most harbor in the Strait.


                            house amendment

       The House amendment numbered 4 struck section 206 of the 
     Senate bill.


                          conference agreement

       The Senate receded from its disagreement with an amendment 
     (now designated as Title IV of this Act). See explanation 
     below.

      Title III--Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief


                              senate bill

       Title III of the Senate bill would provide royalty relief 
     for leases on Outer Continental Shelf tracts in deep water in 
     certain areas of the Gulf of Mexico.


                            house amendment

       The House amendment numbered 5 struck title III of the 
     Senate bill.


                          conference agreement

       The Senate recedes from its disagreement with the House 
     with an amendment.
       The amendment agreed to by the committee of conference is 
     the text of Title III of S. 395 as passed by the Senate with 
     several technical corrections and a new provision clarifying 
     that nothing in this title shall be construed to affect any 
     offshore pre-leasing, leasing, or development moratorium, 
     including any moratorium applicable to the Eastern Planning 
     Area of the Gulf of Mexico located off the Gulf Coast of 
     Florida.

                        Title IV--Miscellaneous

       OPA '90 contemplates a comprehensive approach to oil spill 
     prevention and response, with the Coast Guard given an 
     instrumental role in implementing all aspects of that Act. In 
     addition to establishing a new liability and compensation 
     scheme for oil spills, OPA '90 amended existing law to 
     broaden the Coast Guard's authority under the Ports and 
     Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) regarding navigation and vessel 
     safety and protection of the marine environment and the FWPCA 
     regarding oil spill prevention and response. Under OPA '90 
     (as delegated by the President), the Coast Guard is the 
     principal Federal agency charged with conducting Federal 
     removal and prevention activities in coastal areas. 
     Accordingly, the Committee of Conference believes that the 
     Coast Guard is the most appropriate agency to evaluate 
     emergency response services in the Olympic Coast National 
     Marine Sanctuary and the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
       Subsection (a) of title IV requires the Commandant of the 
     Coast Guard to submit to Congress within fifteen months of 
     enactment a plan on the most cost effective means of 
     implementing an international private-sector tug-of-
     opportunity system to utilize existing towing vessels to 
     provide emergency response services to any vessel (including 
     a tank vessel) in distress transiting the waters within the 
     boundaries of the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary or 
     the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
       Subsection (b) provides that the Commandant, in 
     consultation with the Secretaries of the State and 
     Transportation, is to coordinate with the Canadian Government 
     and with both Canadian and American maritime industries.
       Subsection (c) provides that if necessary, the Commandant 
     is to allow United States non-profit maritime organizations 
     access to Coast Guard radar imagery and transponder 
     information to identify and deploy towing vessels for the 
     purpose of facilitating emergency response.
       Subsection (d) provides for the definition of ``towing 
     vessel'' as that term is defined under title 46, United 
     States Code. Section 2101(40) of title 46, United States 
     Code, defines towing vessels to mean ``a commercial vessel 
     engaged in or intending to engage in the service of pulling, 
     pushing, or hauling alongside, or any combination of pulling, 
     pushing, or hauling alongside.'' The reference to this 
     section ensures that, at a minimum, all commercial towing 
     vessels are included in the definition and, therefore, are 
     covered by the provisions of this section.
       Section 206 of the Senate bill was developed to respond to 
     a perceived threat to the 

[[Page H 11867]]
     marine environment of Puget Sound and the Straits of Juan de Fuca from 
     tank vessel traffic. The Committee of Conference believes 
     that, absent convincing information to the contrary, the 
     marine environment of Puget Sound is adequately protected 
     under the existing vessel response plan requirement found in 
     FWPCA, as amended by OPA '90. The Senate provision is 
     therefore unnecessary because the Coast Guard's existing 
     authority under OPA '90 to prevent and respond to oil spills, 
     as well as under PWSA and FWPCA (particularly as those two 
     statutes have been amended by the OPA '90), to evaluate and 
     to impose vessel operating requirements to minimize the risks 
     of navigation and vessel safety and risks to the marine 
     environment is fully sufficient to address the needs of the 
     waterways of the United States, including Puget Sound and the 
     Strait of Juan de Fuca.
       Accordingly, the Committee of Conference does not believe 
     that the mandate implicit in the Senate provision is required 
     nor is it related to any authorization to export Alaskan 
     North Slope crude oil. The Committee believes that the more 
     appropriate step is to require the Coast Guard to examine the 
     most cost-effective method to use existing towing vessel 
     resources in a tug-of-opportunity system within the authority 
     of existing law to respond to any vessel (including a tank 
     vessel in distress). Consequently, nothing in this section or 
     in section 201 is intended to authorize the President or the 
     Coast Guard to impose additional oil spill preventing and 
     response requirements in the Strait of Juan de Fuca or within 
     the boundaries of the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary 
     in excess of those in the relevant Area Contingency Plan for 
     those areas as a result of requiring the Commandant to submit 
     this plan to Congress nor to impose requirements under any 
     national interest determination or implementing regulations 
     regarding the export of Alaskan oil.
     For consideration of House amendment No. 1:
     Don Young,
     Ken Calvert,
     Tom Bliley,
     For consideration of House amendment No. 2:
     Don Young,
     Ken Calvert,
     William Thomas,
     Tom Bliley,
     Howard Coble,
     Lee H. Hamilton,
     Jim Oberstar,
     For consideration of House amendment No. 3:
     Floyd Spence,
     John R. Kasich,
     For consideration of House amendment No. 4:
     Howard Coble,
     Tillie K. Fowler,
     Jim Oberstar,
     For consideration of House amendment No. 5:
     Don Young,
     Ken Calvert,
                                Managers on the Part of the House.
     Frank H. Murkowski,
     Pete V. Domenici,
     J. Bennett Johnston,
     Wendell Ford,
                               Managers on the Part of the Senate.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] each will be recognized for 
30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are short of time. We have many speakers who would 
like to speak. I will not read the statement I had made, but I am happy 
to bring the conference report on S. 395 to the floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, it contains four provisions: Title I sells the Alaska 
Power Administration. Title II lifts the ban on the export of crude oil 
produced on Alaska's North Slope.
  Title III provides incentives to producers operating in the deep 
waters of the central and western Gulf of Mexico. Title IV contains the 
provision dealing with emergency tug services in the mouth of Puget 
Sound, an authorization for a grant program for the Port of Seattle.
  Mr. Speaker, the controversial part about this conference report is, 
in fact, the deep water drilling holiday. I will not address that issue 
to the extent I would like to at this time because there are many other 
speakers. I believe very frankly that this provision does and will 
create new jobs for America. It will produce oil for America and it is 
not corporate welfare.
  I listened to the debate on the rule, and I heard many comments made 
on both sides about the CBO scoring. I am not going to question either 
one of these statements about what scores what. What I am going to ask 
the Members of this House to consider, those that are going to make the 
motion to recommit this conference report and why they are doing so and 
what it will possibly do to the industry that we are talking about 
today, we no longer have a domestic oil industry in the United States 
today. We are importing today over $1 billion a week into the United 
States of foreign-produced fossil fuels. We have heard many statements 
about this is not necessary. I can understand that statement but I 
cannot understand the rationale.
  I am going to suggest if we want to try to reestablish some form of 
domestic production off our shores, an area that has been supported by 
the Clinton administration and many other departments within this 
administration, then we ought to take and vote against the motion to 
recommit.
  On the part about exporting oil, we all know the jobs it will create, 
many jobs for America. It will create possibly 25,000 new jobs. I would 
like at this time to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] 
for his efforts in leading this bill over the years.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring before the House the conference 
report on S. 395. The Conference Committee worked very hard to ensure 
that all provisions were retained. What we have before us is a well-
reasoned conference report which I hope will pass with broad bipartisan 
support.
  I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] for his 
hard work and dedication on this issue. He has been the prime sponsor 
in the House of legislation to lift the ban on the export of Alaska 
crude for many years. I know he is just as happy as I am to see a final 
product come to the floor today.
  The conference report contains four titles: Title 1 sells the Alaska 
Power Administration; title 2 lifts the ban on the export of crude oil 
produced on Alaska's North Slope; title 3 provides incentives to 
producers operating in the deep waters of the central and western Gulf 
of Mexico; title 4 contains a provision dealing with emergency tug 
services in the mouth of Puget Sound and an authorization for a grant 
program for the Port of Portland.
  Title 1 authorizes and directs the Secretary of Energy to sell the 
Alaska Power Administration to entities within the State of Alaska, 
according to purchase agreements with the Department of Energy. The 
sale has strong bipartisan support, including the administration. I am 
not aware of any opposition.
  The Alaska Power Administration consists of two hydroelectric 
projects which were built to encourage economic development in Alaska. 
To date, these projects have served their intended purpose well. The 
State of Alaska and local electric utilities are set to manage the 
projects in a manner consistent with Alaska's future energy and 
development needs.
  The sale will relieve the Federal Government of the responsibility of 
owning and operating the projects. Taxpayers' interests will be served 
by recovering nearly all of the original investment in the projects. 
The sale also addresses consumers' concerns that hydropower will 
continue to be provided without a significant increase in rates. 
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the sale of this power marketing administration 
is in no way intended to set a precedent for the sale of any others.
  This provision has been considered by the House before and passed 
with broad bipartisan support.
  Title 2 of the conference report lifts the ban on exports of Alaska 
North Slope crude and requires the use of U.S.-flag, U.S.-manned 
vessels to carry those exports. Alaska is the only State presently 
subject to such a ban on the export of its resources.
  Present law requires that all oil transported through the Trans-
Alaska pipeline be consumed in the lower 48 States. Alaska crude is 
forced into the west coast market, creating a glut and artificially low 
prices. This glut has allowed the west coast refiners to enjoy huge 
profits and purchase crude at a discount which they historically have 
not passed on to consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, this ban no longer makes sense. Rather than decreasing 
our dependence on foreign oil, it has discouraged domestic production 
and made us more reliant on imported oil.
  In June 1994, the Department of Energy issued a study which stated 
that lifting the ban would: create 25,000 jobs; preserve 3,300 maritime 
jobs; and increase U.S. oil production by as much as 110,000 barrels a 
day; all by the year 2000.
  With the support of the administration, this provision passed the 
House with strong bipartisan support on July 24 by a vote of 324 to 77.
  It is high time we lift the ban. Lifting the ban will create jobs, 
increase domestic production and investment.
  Title 3 contains the deep-water provision. The conferees adopted an 
amended offered 

[[Page H 11868]]
by Representative Fowler to clarify that this inventive would in no way 
impact the Florida coast. This too is good policy that will create 
jobs, encourage domestic investment, and increase domestic production.
  I urge support for this conference report which is long overdue.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this debate today will not be 
about the underlying bill which is overwhelmingly supported in this 
House but, rather, it is about the hijacking of this bill by the Senate 
to include a royalty holiday for the major oil companies that drill in 
what the Senate says is deep water. That is a provision that we should 
not allow to stand because it simply cannot be justified. It cannot be 
justified because it is a raid on the taxpayers of this country to 
provide one of the wealthiest industries in this country help that they 
do not need.
  They do not need that help because they are drilling in the gulf 
today. They are standing in line to drill in the gulf tomorrow. And 
they are putting many, many of their resources in the gulf. Why? 
Because they can make money. As one of them said, they can make serious 
money.
  This has become of one of the hottest oil prospects in the entire 
world. Some of my colleagues have talked about 1982 and the loss of 
jobs in 1985. This is 1995. This is an area that is brimming with 
competition. The marketplace is working. People are competing. We have 
had record participation in the bids. They are looking to get their 
hands on these blocks so they can drill for oil and make money.
  That is why we should not be providing a royalty holiday. A royalty 
holiday says, if you sink a well in 200 meters of water, which is not 
deep by today's technology or today's investment or today's activity, 
you get 17 million barrels of oil royalty-free. If you sink it in 800 
meters of water, which by today's standard is not deep, you get a 
minimum of 85 million barrels of oil royalty-free. That means for those 
85 million barrels of oil or more, each one of those barrels you dip 
into the taxpayers' pocket and you take out the royalty and give it to 
the oil company.
  That should not be allowed. That should not be allowed because the 
marketplace is working. Yet we find people who say that this is what 
they do.

                              {time}  1500

  If my colleagues do not vote for the motion to recommit, what they 
are doing is creating new corporate welfare when in fact much of the 
debate in this Congress has been about how to eliminate some of that 
corporate welfare, and at the same time they are creating a new 
entitlement. This is an entitlement for the next 5 years because this 
is mandatory. This is not discretionary. It does not weigh the economic 
health of the lease, it does not weigh whether or not the lease will be 
drilled, it does not weigh the economic health of the company making 
that bid or drilling that oil. It is mandatory, when they sink the well 
into this water, that should not be allowed. That is an entitlement 
that the CBO tells us will cost us over $100 million.
  Mr. Speaker, CBO has looked at all of the alternative ways that my 
colleagues want to talk about scoring this provision, present value, 
and leases forgone, and incentives and leases moved forward in time and 
backward in time. When they got all done with that scoring, CBO said,

       This costs the taxpayers in excess of $100 million. This is 
     a big loser in the out years, in the out years when you're 
     trying to keep the budget balanced, when you're trying to 
     make up for some of the taxes, when you're trying to make up 
     for those problems. We start to lose, and we start to 
     hemorrhage, taxpayer dollars to the oil industry.

  I would hope that my colleagues, the 261 who voted for the motion to 
instruct the conferees, would now say that they meant it that we do not 
want to create new welfare for the oil companies, we do not want to 
create an entitlement for the oil companies when we have all of the 
other budget decisions that confront us in the next 2 weeks.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, like many of my Republican and 
Democratic colleagues alike, I do not believe in the concept of 
corporate welfare, however I think it is important that we must enhance 
the domestic energy industry which for so long has been for hearing in 
contrast to foreign energy development. This royalty relief provision 
and this legislation, is only a prudent way to lower the barriers to 
commercial development for the greater good of a growing economy. I 
think it is important to note that today, only 6 percent of existing 
deep water leases are producing, whereas 50 percent of existing leases 
in shallow waters are producing. This needs to improve. And we need to 
clarify what this legislation actually says, it is not unbridled 
corporate welfare.
  This is not a loss of income for all times, the energy companies will 
pay royalties to this Government after a reasonable period to allow the 
project to become commercially viable. It provides a real incentive to 
allow them to create the opportunity for jobs and to enhance the 
domestic energy industry, which I believe is vital for this Nation's 
national security.
  This legislation helps create jobs. A recently completed deep water 
project in the Gulf of Mexico, a $1.3 billion project, employed 2,850 
people in the United States. It also provided goods and services for 
670 vendors, and it impacted 33 States economically, including my State 
of Texas.
  This is a good bill. This is not corporate welfare. This is a bill we 
should support. The royalty relief provision can help create jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, like many of my Democratic and Republican colleagues, I 
do not believe in the concept of corporate welfare, however, I do think 
that there are times when it is only prudent to lower barriers to 
commercial development for the greater good of society. The current 
issue of deep water royalty relief is such a case in point. Other 
Members of this body would have both us and the public believe that the 
royalty relief provisions of this bill force the Government to give 
away vast amounts of money to oil companies. I am here to refuse that 
claim and demonstrate that this assertion is patently incorrect and 
downright uninformed.
  The economics of oil exploration and production are such that it may 
cost lessees anywhere from $75 to $200 million just to determine if oil 
or gas is present and up to $1 billion to bring production on line. Due 
to the expensive and speculative nature of deep water exploration and 
production, many deep water leases are not profitable enough under the 
current royalty system for production. Thus these royalties will never 
be realized as income for the Federal Government. As evidence, today, 
only 6 percent of existing deep water leases are producing, where 50 
percent of existing leases in shallow waters are producing.
  It is estimated, that this legislation will provide the Treasury with 
$200 million that it would not have realized if not for this bill. Not 
only does the Government come out ahead, but the citizens of this 
country do as well. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, each 
$1 million invested in the oil and gas sector creates 20 jobs 
throughout the economy. Thus, each deep water development project could 
generate an additional 20,000 jobs all over the Nation, jobs that would 
not have been created otherwise.
  Let me clarify that this bill will not relieve companies from their 
royalty obligation, it will only mitigate that obligation enough so as 
to make the production commercially viable; we are not giving anything 
away by doing this. We are instead providing incentives aimed at 
offsetting the costs of developing leases in deep water until the 
capital costs are recovered, in order to spur increased domestic 
production.
  Foreign countries have used this same royalty relief mechanism to 
stimulate deep water oil and gas development. Witness Britain and 
Norway which have done precisely this and as a result, have increased 
by 27 percent the first quarter 1995 production above 1993 levels.
  Let me remind my colleagues that both the Clinton administration, and 
the Bush administration before it, support the deep water incentives 
legislation. And for clear, reasonable, and sound reasons so do I and 
so should you.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, we are back to the bargain basement fire 
sale because we have got to make the 

[[Page H 11869]]
next 7 years look good on revenue, and so we will do anything with the 
numbers that bring in a little cash up front, no matter how stupid it 
is long term.
  Let me ask my colleagues one question: If you're confused about 
whether this brings in more money or less money, think about which side 
the oil companies are on. They're for the underlying bill. Why? Because 
they pay less. They would not be for a bill where they pay the Treasury 
more. They pay less.
  And what are we doing? We have got this new Congress here that wants 
to run Congress like a business. I do not know anybody who has oil on 
their land that has oil companies lining up to buy the leases that 
says, ``Wait, stop. Before you knock me over I want to lower the price 
and get less money.''
  Mr. Speaker, we are taking food away from children, we are taking 
health care away from senior citizens, so we can give a half a billion 
dollars to oil companies. If that is what is running this country like 
a business means, I am against it. This is wrong. It is ethically 
wrong. It robs the Treasury. We end up hurting children and young 
people so we can help oil companies.
  A half a billion dollar switch from senior citizens and children to 
oil companies; if my colleagues want to stop that, vote for the motion 
to recommit. If my colleagues think the oil companies need the half a 
billion dollars more than the children and the old people, then vote 
for the underlying bill, and again, as to the question of which one 
gets more money back to the Treasury, the oil companies are for the 
underlying bill. They do not like the motion to recommit because the 
present program brings more money back to the taxpayers. It is a 
ripoff. My colleagues ought to be ashamed of themselves.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, apparently the gentleman from 
Connecticut believes his President is a rip-off artist because his 
President supports this very strongly.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Calvert], a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference 
report. This bill is about creating jobs and stimulating our economy 
and I urge a yes vote on this rule and on final passage.
  Over a year ago, over 100 Members of Congress wrote to the President 
about the alarming deterioration of our domestic oil and gas industry. 
All across the Nation, small businesses have been forced to close and 
hard-working Americans have been let go.
  Over a year later, we still have not done nearly enough to spur 
domestic production and preserve these vital jobs. Last year, for the 
first time, we had to import over a half of our domestic oil 
requirements because of decreased production within the United States. 
The Department of Interior has estimated that Alaskan exports would 
increase production in Alaska and California by 110,000 barrels per day 
by the year 2000. In addition, these exports could help create up to 
25,000 jobs over the same period.
  In my State, the oil and gas industry has been devastated in recent 
years. These are real people losing good jobs. This bill will create 
jobs, stimulate our economy, and raise State and Federal revenues. I 
urge a vote on the rule on the conference report, which rule we already 
passed. In addition, I understand that the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Miller] will offer a motion to recommit to strike the deepwater 
royalty incentive.
  There has been much misinformation regarding the deep-water provision 
in this bill. Let me make this clear, this provision will generate $130 
million of revenues to the Treasury over the next 7 years. In addition, 
and more importantly, it will help offset some of the $50 billion that 
the United States currently spends to import oil.
  The deepwater royalty provision is important because it will increase 
production in the central and western Gulf of Mexico. This area 
accounts for a full 25 percent of the Nation's estimated oil and gas 
reserves. By increasing the incentive to produce oil and gas in the 
deepwater of the gulf, this measure will result in a significant 
increase in domestic energy production.

  Why is this provision needed? It is simple. The costs and 
difficulties of exploration and production in deep water are immense. 
These costs frighten companies from even bidding on available leases. 
Last year, only 18 percent of the deepwater tracts received multiple 
bids. The taxpayers are not receiving the compensation they deserve in 
this no-competition bidding process.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important that my colleagues know that this 
legislation does not apply to shallow water leases, where bids are 
numerous and prices strong, but only to deepwater leases where startup 
capital can reach upward of $1 billion and risks are great.
  If we do not pass this conference report as we receive it today, we 
are losing a golden opportunity to create thousands of jobs and 
generate millions in revenue. Do not listen to false claims of 
corporate welfare. Look at the facts. They bear out the truth--this 
bill is good for the taxpayer and good for the country. I urge a ``no'' 
vote to this motion to recommit.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
  (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker and Members, I am reluctant, and I am 
sorry, and the gentleman from Alaska knows this, that I am reluctant to 
have to get up on this bill and speak on the issue that the chairman of 
my Subcommittee on Minerals has just spoken on. In all honesty this was 
not the intention of the House, and I think the bill that we had before 
was something, while there were arguments back and forth, we could deal 
with. But this has been attached to the bill, to the original bill and 
the intent of the bill, and I want to be consistent on this.
  I have, as the chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Calvert], knows, and the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. 
Young] knows, taken a consistent position with respect to the royalty 
payment. I think it is fair, I think it is straightforward, I think the 
competition is there. I do not intend to remake all the arguments. I do 
not believe that the deepwater drilling is going to be inhibited in any 
way by having the royalty element with it, as it should. I am one who 
favors drilling for oil in the gulf. I think that the environmental 
questions have been answered that may have existed in the past. I have 
no difficulty with that.
  That is why to see this kind of thing come up now when we have 
essential agreement about what is being done just to give a holiday 
when other people have seen their wages stagnate and all the rest of it 
just seems to me to be incomprehensible as to why we would be doing 
that. I believe the House is being shoved at this point into something 
that it is really reluctant to do, and I think the vote previously 
showed that.
  So I think if we go with this recommittal, we are not undermining in 
any respect what the House did before on a bipartisan basis. So I hope 
this does not come down to, oh, this is Republicans versus Democrats 
and, as my colleagues know, there is a party line that has to be 
followed here because that would not accurately reflect either the 
tenor of our conversations in the Committee on Resources, nor in the 
House of Representatives, on a bipartisan basis. I think the gentleman 
from Alaska [Mr. Young] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert] 
would agree, and I hope, by extension, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Thomas], although I have not spoken directly with him about it, 
that this bill, minus this provision, was fairly well agreed upon in 
the House by Democrats and Republicans and we came to a fair conclusion 
on it.
  I think the Senate is taking advantage of us on this, and that is why 
I ask to support the recommittal, not to make arguments back and forth 
about the drilling or not drilling, but rather to assert ourselves as 
Members of the House who have come to a conclusion on a bill which now 
contains a provision from the Senate in which I think they are trying 
to take advantage of us. If we send it back to them with this 
recommittal, I think then the message will be clear that let us deal 
with the issues that the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and the 
committee brought forward in the first place, 

[[Page H 11870]]
which I think will receive the favorable approbation of this House.
  So I speak in favor of the recommittal, not as some kind of a 
contest, not as some kind of confrontation, but as a reassertion of the 
authority of the House and the Good sense of the original bill.
  Mr. Speaker, on July 25 of this year, 261 of us expressed our 
opposition to the creation of a new form of corporate welfare--the 
deepwater royalty holiday--by voting to instruct the conferees to 
reject the nongermane rider to S. 395, the Alaska Oil Exports bill, 
added by the Senate.
  Yet, today the conference report on that bill still includes the 
royalty holiday.
  Why would the House conferees ignore our instructions? The royalty 
holiday would grant royalty-free oil and gas to corporations that bid 
on Federal leases in the Gulf of Mexico. The holiday's sponsors 
maintain that the royalty holiday will raise revenues for the Treasury 
even though the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has repeatedly 
rejected this assertion.
  The holiday's defenders argue that the earlier CBO cost estimate of a 
$500 million net loss to the Treasury is overly simplistic because it 
did not take into account the time value of money. However, in a 
November 2, 1995, letter, the CBO refuted the ``net present value'' 
analysis prepared by the holiday's proponents, and found that even 
using the discounting method preferred by the proponents, the royalty 
holiday would still be a net loss of about $150 million--not a net gain 
as asserted by Energy Secretary O'Leary and other defenders of the 
royalty relief proposal.
  The CBO has carefully reviewed the royalty holiday several times this 
year and has remained steadfast in its position that the deepwater 
royalty will cost the Federal Government revenues in the long term, 
using either the standard cash basis or the net present value formula 
favored by the holiday's supporters. Either way it's a net loss.
  On a cash basis--the holiday will cost taxpayers about a half billion 
dollars. Using discounted dollars, it will cost about $150 million.
  So don't be fooled into thinking that this hand-out to the oil and 
gas industry will raise money.
  It's a bad deal for the Federal Government and a bad deal for the 
taxpayers of this country.
  Vote ``aye'' on the motion to recommit Mr. Miller will offer when the 
conference report on S. 395 is brought to the floor.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Thomas], the sponsor of the bill, who has been a 
leader on this issue for many, many years.
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentleman fro Alaska [Mr. Young], chairman of 
the committee, for this time and for his help over the years frankly.
  I guess I am going to do something radical. I am going to talk about 
the legislation itself. I tell my colleagues I have to have a very high 
comfort level when the former chairman, the ranking member, says the 
underlying bill is not at issue, that it is, in fact, an item that was 
attached in the Senate that seems to be generating all of the debate. 
Well, I tell my colleagues that for a long time the underlying bill was 
the issue.
  In the end of May 1986 I introduced a bill because I tried to 
understand the logic of having the No. 1 oil-producing State in the 
Union by Federal law required to ship all of its production to the 
lower 48 States, which meant by virtue of the west coast, the 
population, the consumption of the oil, that the vast majority of that 
oil would come to California. Since I have been in Congress I have 
represented Kern County. Kern County, if it were a State, would be the 
No. 4 State in oil production. Only Alaska, Texas, and Louisiana would 
produce more oil. By Government edict all of that Alaskan North Slope 
oil was required to come to the lower 48, the vast majority to 
California, depressing California oil prices.
  Now I tried to understand the logic of those people who were here in 
the 1970's as to why you would require all of that production to be put 
in tankers, come down the coast of Alaska, the coast of Canada, the 
coast of Washington, Oregon, and California, in tankers jeopardizing 
that entire pristine coastline arguably to make sure that we were 
energy self-sufficient. When we depress a market, we do not get the 
production we would have gotten out of it, and in fact that California 
oil production has been depressed for years. So I introduced a bill 
that said let Alaska North Slope oil find its economic home. If it is 
California, bring it to California, but if it is someplace else, let it 
go someplace else.

                              {time}  1515

  In May of 1986, I introduced a bill with one sponsor: me. The 
gentleman from Connecticut, in one of the subsequent Congresses, was 
the chairman of a subcommittee which basically told me to take a hike. 
So it is with some pleasure that I come to the floor with a bill in the 
104th Congress that had 75 cosponsors, two dozen of the Democrats, and 
the Clinton administration in support of allowing Alaskan North Slope 
oil to find its economic home.
  Why? Because it will make us more energy independent if we allow our 
Alaskan North Slope oil to find its economic home. It will produce more 
jobs, not just in the oil patch but in other areas as well. It is more 
environmentally sound to allow Alaskan North Slope oil to find its 
economic home, and on and on and on, including the maritime unions 
supporting what we are doing.
  Frankly, I take the floor with some degree of satisfaction, knowing 
that a number of myths are being destroyed today. I also take the floor 
with some satisfaction, knowing that if the new majority was not the 
majority in this House, I would probably be in a subcommittee, bumping 
up against a subcommittee chairman telling me to take a hike. So it is 
with great pleasure that I come to the floor in support of this 
conference report, which finally after more than 20 years has decided 
that perhaps, to a small measure, economics ought to dictate what we do 
in the oil industry.
  Mr. Speaker, It seems to me if we allowed economics to dictate more 
of what we do in the oil industry, we, frankly, would be less energy 
dependent, we would have more jobs, it would be more environmentally 
sound.
  Today, I think ought to go down as a red-letter day that we finally 
corrected one of the mistakes of more than 20 years ago. There is a 
series of legislation working its way through the Committee on 
Resources and other committees which revisit those ill-conceived 
positions from the 1970's, and I hope we are able, on a bipartisan 
basis, to correct those ill-conceived pieces of legislation as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask all my colleagues to support the underlying 
measure that we have before us in the conference report.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey].
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am one of those apparently 
few in this House who have some misgivings about the underlying bill 
itself. I continue to question the wisdom of allowing this precious 
resource of ours, located in Alaska, to be exported in this way when we 
know the price of oil is only going to go up, when we know that this is 
a finite resource, when we know that in the future we are going to have 
to be importing larger and larger quantities of oil from markets that 
are going to be, in all probability, more and more difficult.
  That aside for the moment, however, the very idea that we are going 
to provide leases in the Gulf of Mexico to oil companies and not charge 
those oil companies the royalties, the 12\1/2\ percent royalty that 
they would under other conditions owe to the people of this country, is 
to my mind shocking.
  There are people who come to these microphones and talk about the 
idea that we ought to let economics dictate, that the free market ought 
to dictate what we do, but when it comes to the special interests like 
the oil companies, they seem to forget their own words and their own 
advice. What are we doing in this particular case? We are giving away 
the patrimony of future generations, we are giving away the taxes of 
the people of the country.
  At 12\1/2\ percent, it will amount to tens of millions, perhaps 
billions of dollars, by which we could reduce the deficit, by which we 
could fund Medicare, by which we could improve the quality of 
education, by which we could keep the earned income tax credit, by 
which we could improve investment in education and research and jobs 
and job training, you name it; for all the things we need in this 
country, we are going to give away millions, perhaps billions of 
dollars to oil companies because somebody says they will 

[[Page H 11871]]
not drill for the oil unless we give it to them. That is just absurd, 
totally absurd. They are salivating at the idea of getting at these 
leases.
  This is the wrong thing to do. Let us vote for the motion to recommit 
and against this bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I suggest respectfully that those speaking, none of them 
support drilling in other areas, they have never supported drilling in 
any area to produce any oil for the domestic market. None of the 
speakers on that side of the aisle that have spoken in opposition to 
this conference report have ever supported any development of any oil 
field anywhere. I challenge them to show me that if I am wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Tauzin] who is very, very well acquainted with this issue.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the chairman, the 
gentleman from Alaska, Don Young, and I thank the chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Miller motion to recommit 
this conference report to strike from it the deep water royalty relief 
provisions. I think it is important to understand what the provisions 
are.
  Number one, they are temporary. They are a 5-year program. We 
authorize them again in 5 years, if in fact it has worked as well as 
our own Government believes it will work. Our President, the Secretary 
of the Interior, and the Secretary of Energy all support this 
provision.
  Second, it applies both to new leases and existing leases. It is only 
eligible in existing leases if the Secretary determines that a drill 
will not occur unless there is some sort of new arrangement to 
encourage that, critical to drill, based on the economies of deep water 
drilling. I will explain that in a second.
  Finally, it is not the same bill we voted on earlier. It has been 
amended now to say it only applies to the central Gulf of Mexico and 
the western Gulf of Mexico, not to any other area where moratoria or 
different laws apply to drilling offshore. It is not the bill you voted 
on earlier.
  Finally, it is a bill that it likely, according to early CBO 
estimates and NMS refinements of later CBO estimates, to yield money to 
the Treasury of the United States. Why? Because we collect more money 
in this country in bonuses paid for the right to drill than we actually 
collect in royalties. If we can encourage people in fact to engage in 
more drilling, we are going to in fact ensure more money to the U.S. 
Treasury.
  There is a bigger reason why this is essential. I want to show 
Members that big reason. The gentleman from California indicated we are 
not talking about deep drilling. This is a picture of what auger, the 
shell platform that costs $1.3 billion to build, looks like 
superimposed over Washington, DC. You say, ``Wait a minute, Washington, 
DC does not have any tall buildings.'' So we imposed auger over the 
city of Houston, which does have tall buildings. You can see how 
tremendously deep these projects are. The bill says about 1,800 feet, 
1,800 feet or more before you are eligible to qualify under this 
program.
  Number two, you have to prove that you would not drill it anyhow, 
unless you get some kind of relief, the sort of deal two business 
people would make by saying we are not going to take dividends out of 
the project until we prove it works, until there is income for all of 
us to share.
  Let me tell you what auger did for the rest of the country. Auger, 
this $1.3 billion project, produced contracts across America, not just 
in the Gulf of Mexico. This is good economy for the country, not only 
producing oil, not only producing more revenues to the Treasury, but 
producing jobs, 20,000 jobs across America.
  When we look at the reasons why this is necessary, I think it is 
important to understand what is happening in terms of offshore 
drilling. What is happening is that there are very few high-production 
drills left in the offshore. What is left are marginal areas with a 
limited amount of production, but you have to go real deep to find 
them, and the economies are such that oil companies would much prefer 
to go produce offshore in somebody else's country than take a risk in 
the Gulf of Mexico.
  Most of the new fields are smaller production fields, but in deep 
water. That is the problem.
  Second, the second problem is that in terms of cost, what it costs 
you to get a drill platform going, when you look at drills on the shelf 
in shallow water compared to drills in deep water as this bill 
provides, you can see a huge increase in the cost of actually putting 
the drilling rig out there and drilling the wells. Not only are the 
facilities and platform much more expensive than on-shelf drilling, but 
drilling the wells themselves is much more expensive, a much bigger 
risk, not only to those who go out and put capital out there, but, 
indeed, to the country, because we need those resources.
  Finally, if you look at the production delay impact, what it costs, 
how much longer it takes to produce a barrel of oil at the deeper 
limits of the outer Continental Shelf, you will see that the present 
value of a barrel of oil is only 50 percent of what the present value 
of a barrel of oil is if you drill onshore in America. It is simply 
high cost, terrible economics, and yet we need those resources.
  Why? Why do we need to drill deep offshore? Here is a comparison of 
U.S. net oil consumption, U.S. net imports as opposed to oil 
consumption, and the United States' oil bill for imported petroleum. We 
are now at over 50 percent dependence upon foreign sources. I took this 
mike at another year, in another Congress, to make a speech one day. It 
was right after the Persian gulf war, when we discovered that more 
young men and women in Louisiana per capita had served in that war than 
any other State, and we wondered why.
  It suddenly dawned on us why. Because they could not work in the oil 
fields in America, they signed up with the Army Reserve, they had 
signed up with the National Guard, and they found themselves, all of a 
sudden, fighting over somebody else's oil in the Persian Gulf instead 
of working to produce oil here in America.
  This incentive bill will put Americans back to work producing oil for 
Americans. That is why it makes sense. It makes sense because it is 
going to produce areas that would not be produced otherwise. It will 
produce income to America that would not be produced otherwise. It will 
give us some decent hold on our reserves that we have in this country, 
that we ought to produce for the sake of our country. I urge Members to 
reject the Miller motion to recommit.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, the gentleman from Louisiana 
has made the case why we do not need a royalty holiday. The rig that he 
is discussing is built. The decision to lease in the tracts has been 
made. The money has been invested. It was based upon decisions that the 
oil companies made 1 year ago, 2 years ago, and 3 years ago.
  This may come as a surprise, but after many, many years of watching 
the Government make policy, whether it is tax policy or depletion 
policy or resource policy, one of the CEO's of the major oil companies 
in my district said to me:

       George, understand something. We do not make our decisions 
     anymore based upon what you are going to do. The money is so 
     great now, we do it based upon profit. We do it based upon 
     going to our shareholders and telling them, ``This is the 
     best decision we can make, whether it is to go to Russia or 
     to Kazakhstan or to China or the deep Gulf.''

  Right now what the oil companies are telling their shareholders is 
that it is the deep gulf. That is why, in this last May, we had record 
numbers of bids. We had over 800 bids for some 500 tracts. Why? Why? 
Because that is where the money is. That is where the profit is. That 
is where you can convince your shareholders to stick with the 
management decisions. That is what is going on in the oil industry. The 
market is working. The rigs are being built.
  Yes, they are $1 billion. That calculation has already been made 
without the oil royalty. That, Mr. Speaker, is the definition of 
corporate welfare. 

[[Page H 11872]]
That is corporate welfare. The market does not demand it, the incentive 
is not needed, the industry is healthy, they are moving on their own, 
so there is no reason for a Government incentive, but you give it 
anyway. You give it anyway.
  This plan was thought up back in the 1980's, when the gulf was in the 
doldrums, when the gulf was in a recession. That is not the Gulf of 
Mexico today. Listen to what they say in the Dallas Morning News:

       The analysts are projecting third-quarter profit increases 
     of 400 percent over the 1994 period. The large reason for 
     Zonac's success is its emphasis on deep water drilling in the 
     Gulf of Mexico, perhaps the hottest niche market in business 
     today.

  The Houston Chronicle: ``the demand for rigs now is so great that 
deep water rigs have been contracted out as far as 1998.'' No royalty 
holiday, long-term leases.
  The Times Picayune:

       Texas is among the major oil companies starting to heavily 
     spend in deep water at depths of 1,000 feet or more. This is 
     definitely an area of strong interest among major oil 
     companies.

                              {time}  1530

  The Oil and Gas Journal: A Texaco official says, ``The deep water in 
the Gulf of Mexico is not the next frontier, it is the now frontier.'' 
As they said, you can make real money in the Gulf of Mexico at 1,500 
feet. At 1,000 feet, you can make serious money. That is why they are 
going to their shareholders; that is why they are going to their 
lenders and asking for money to go to the Gulf of Mexico; not because 
we decide that all of a sudden 200 meters is deep water, they blew by 
that years ago. Six hundred meters is deep water. They are there now, 
and they are looking to go far out, far out beyond that, because of new 
technology.
  Go to your major oil company if you live near one and ask them to 
look at the technology. Look at what they combine in terms of the 3-D 
geophysical information. Look at Forbes magazine 2 weeks ago about the 
subsea platforms that they can use today to reduce the cost of 
drilling.
  The fact is, technology, computerization has blown right by many of 
the cost barriers to deep-water drilling. That is why the oil companies 
are going there. We should not now take, we should not now take the 
Government's money and give it to them to do that which they are 
already doing.
  The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] said we receive much more 
money in bonus bids than we do in royalty. No, we do not. It is a 10-
to-1 ratio. That is why many countries do not provide bonus bids. The 
would rather have the royalties. It is the royalties where you make 
money, and it is the royalties that we forgive.
  In fiscal year 1995 the Treasury received $2.4 billion in royalties 
and $200 million in bonus bids. The fact of the matter is, we should 
not even be charging a bonus bid. Why would we want them to put their 
nonproductive money into the Treasury? Why do we not let them put that 
into drilling and take it out when they find oil share in a royalty? 
But they have chosen not to do that.
  Listen to what the business journals, listen to what the experts in 
the industry, listen to what the officers in the industry are saying. 
Listen to what Wall Street and the banking industry in this country are 
saying. They are saying, these boys have it calculated about right, and 
that is why they are lending them record amounts of money. That is why 
their stocks continue to soar, because they now have the potential to 
find what they think may be larger than Prudhoe Bay at far less expense 
than they ever, ever envisioned, and that is a smart play.
  It is protected in the good old U.S. of A. They do not have to cut a 
deal with Iran or with Turkey or with Azerbaijan or with the Russians 
or with the Kazakhstans, nobody. It is right here. That is why it is so 
valuable. That is why the marketplace is working. We ought to let the 
marketplace go. We ought to put this money back into the Treasury of 
the United States or give it back to the taxpayers, but there is no, no 
compelling economic reason to provide this kind of largesse to this 
industry at this given time.
  They have made the decision, they made it based upon the free market 
system. They do not need the Government help. There is little 
indication they want the Government help, but yet we are going to force 
ourselves into doing something that will be tragic for the taxpayers of 
this country.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the royalty relief provision of S. 395, as adopted by 
the Committee on Commerce, has targeted deep water relief provisions 
that the administration supports for existing leases. It targets relief 
for only those leases that would not be economic without the release, 
and that is the Clinton administration.
  I include for the Record a letter from Secretary O'leary on this 
subject, as follows:

                                      The Secretary of Energy,

                                 Washington, DC, October 19, 1995.
     Hon. Don Young, Chairman,
     Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Administration reiterates its 
     support for the title providing deepwater royalty relief to 
     the central and western Gulf of Mexico.
       In the energy policy plan, Sustainable Energy Strategy: 
     Clean and Secure Energy for a Competitive Economy in July 
     1995, the Administration outlined its overall energy policy 
     stressing the goals of increased energy productivity, 
     pollution prevention, and enhanced national security. To 
     achieve these goals, ``the Nation must make the most 
     efficient use of a diverse portfolio of domestic energy 
     resources that will allow us to meet our energy needs today, 
     tomorrow, and well into the 21st century. The Administration 
     continues to promote the economically beneficial and 
     environmentally sound expansion of domestic energy 
     resources.'' (page 33) In furtherance of this objective, 
     ``The Administration's policy is to improve the economics of 
     domestic oil production by reducing costs, in order to lessen 
     the impact on this industry of low and volatile oil prices.'' 
     (page 35) One of the ways indicated to lower these costs is, 
     ``providing appropriate tax and other fiscal incentives to 
     support our domestic energy resources industries.'' (page 34) 
     Finally, the Strategy specifically targets the opportunities 
     in the Gulf of Mexico.
       One of our best opportunities for adding large new oil 
     reserves can be found in the central and western Gulf of 
     Mexico, particularly in deeper water. Royalty relief can be a 
     key to timely access to this important resource. The 
     Administration supports targeted royalty relief to encourage 
     the production of domestic oil and natural gas resources in 
     deep water in the Gulf of Mexico. This step will help to 
     unlock the estimated 15 billion barrels of oil-equivalent in 
     the deepwater of Gulf of Mexico, providing new energy 
     supplies for the future, spurring the development of new 
     technologies, and supporting thousands of jobs in the gas and 
     oil industry and affiliated industries. (emphasis in 
     original, page 36)
       The royalty relief provision in S. 395 as adopted by the 
     conference committee is a targeted, deepwater royalty relief 
     provision that the Administration supports. For existing 
     leases, it targets relief for only those leases that would 
     not be economic to develop without the relief. Few new 
     leases, the provision is targeted for a specific time period 
     for only a specific number of barrels of production, and 
     could be offset by increased bonus bids.
       The Minerals Management Service has estimated the revenue 
     impacts of new leasing under section 304 of S. 395. For lease 
     sales in the central and western Gulf of Mexico between 1996 
     and 2000, the deepwater royalty relief provisions would 
     result in increased bonuses of $485 million--$135 million in 
     additional bonuses on tracts that would have been leased 
     without relief, and $350 million in bonuses from tracts that 
     would not have been leased until after the year 2000, if at 
     all, without the relief. This translates to a present value 
     of $420 million, if the time value of money is taken into 
     account. However, the Treasury would forego an estimated $553 
     million in royalties that would otherwise have been collected 
     through the year 2018. But again, taking into account the 
     time value of money, this offset in today's dollars is only 
     $220 million. Comparing this loss with the gain from the 
     bonus bids on a net present value basis, the Federal 
     government would be ahead by $200 million.
       It is important to note that affected OCS projects would 
     still pay a substantial upfront bonus and then be required to 
     pay a royalty when and if production exceeds their royalty-
     free period. A royalty-free period, such as that proposed in 
     S. 395, would help enable marginally viable OCS projects to 
     be developed, thus providing additional energy, jobs, and 
     other important benefits to the nation.
       In contrast, in the absence of thorough reform of the 1872 
     Mining Law, hard rock mining projects on Federal lands can be 
     initiated without paying a substantial bonus and are never 
     required to pay a royalty on the resources developed. The end 
     result is that the public is denied its fair share of the 
     benefits from the resources developed.
       The ability to lower costs of domestic production in the 
     central and western Gulf of Mexico by providing appropriate 
     fiscal incentives will lead to an expansion of domestic 
     energy resources, enhance national security, 

[[Page H 11873]]
     and reduce the deficit. Therefore, the Administration supports the 
     deepwater royalty relief provision of S. 395.
       The Office of Management and Budget has advised that it has 
     no objection to the presentation of these views from the 
     standpoint of the Administration's program.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Hazel R. O'Leary.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. 
Fowler].
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit this conference report on the issue of royalty relief.
  As a conferee on another aspect of this bill, I have carefully 
studied the supporting documents and believe strongly that this does 
not represent corporate welfare as it has been characterized.
  In addition to not being corporate welfare, this provision does not 
impact existing pre-leasing, leasing, or development moratorium, 
including any moratorium applicable to the eastern planning area of the 
Gulf of Mexico located off the Gulf Coast of Florida.
  These incentives are very limited in that they only apply in water 
depths of 200 meters or greater. Further, I was able to work with my 
conferees to ensure that these royalties would only be available to the 
western and central areas of the Gulf of Mexico, west of the Alabama/
Florida border.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the royalty relief language contained in this 
conference report and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] the subcommittee chairman.
  (Mr. SCHAEFER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I yield to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, two corrections. Number one is that oil was drilled 
because it is a huge reserve, what is left of small reserves, which are 
uneconomical.
  Second, we received, since OCS drilling began, $56 billion in bonus 
bids versus only $47 billion in royalties. We receive more money in 
bonuses than we do in royalties today.
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Tauzin] for bringing that out.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Miller motion to 
recommit and certainly in support of this legislation.
  The Miller motion is a clear attempt to undermine this important 
legislation. Currently, as has been stated, America is importing more 
than half of its oil needs, now, I might add, at a cost of over $50 
billion a year. By the year 2010, we will be importing over 60 percent 
of this Nation's oil needs. This legislation will help reduce U.S. 
reliance on foreign oil.
  In recent years, domestic oil production has been declining. As oil 
fields become depleted, the domestic oil industry must find new ways 
and new sources of oil if they are going to stay in business.
  The deep water area of the Gulf of Mexico is one of the few remaining 
areas left in the United States which holds a promise of significant 
oil and gas reserves. Estimates of this reserve range from 10 to 15 
billion barrels of crude oil equivalent. However, without this 
legislation, it is unlikely that these minerals will ever be produced.
  The Miller motion would significantly roll back the advances promoted 
by this legislation, placing America's energy security at risk. It 
would eliminate royalty incentive provisions specifically designed by 
the U.S. Department of the Interior to encourage natural gas and oil 
exploration in the deep water areas in the Gulf of Mexico.
  During the past three decades, Americans have come to realize the 
danger of relying on oil imports. From the 1970's embargo to the recent 
Persian Gulf war, the consequences of foreign oil reliance are very 
clear: economic instability and national security vulnerability. 
Encouraging deep water oil exploration will go a long way toward 
correcting this problem. We can give Americans jobs and the country a 
big step towards energy security.
  The subcommittee I chair, the House Committee on Commerce 
Subcommittee on Energy and Power, has worked with the Senate and with 
the House Committee on Resources on other portions of this bill. We 
have crafted legislation that addresses other important energy issues, 
including privatization, the Alaska Power Administration, and allowing 
the export of Alaskan North Slope oil.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to 
recommit and support the bill. It will move the United States toward a 
reasonable and long-term energy policy.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Laughlin].
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill and would 
urge rejection of the gentleman from California's motion to recommit.
  To the gentleman from California I would say I would agree that this 
would be corporate welfare if it did not cost substantial millions of 
dollars to go out into the deep water to drill. To the gentleman from 
Connecticut that takes offense to oil companies, all I can say is, 
having being on the shores of Connecticut many times, I have never seen 
an oil rig out in their waters. So apparently he is not aware that my 
constituents and friends who work offshore do pay taxes and do, in 
fact, support senior citizens and children.
  I would like to point out some of the inconsistencies that the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] has made in various statements 
about the cost.
  On July 25, he told us that we stand to lose somewhere between $10 
billion and $15 billion, and we have not even dealt with the issue of 
future leases. On October 12, he told us the royalty holiday would cost 
the Treasury more than $400 million. On October 13 he told us that the 
royalty holiday will cost the taxpayers nearly a half billion dollars 
in lost royalty revenues. On November 2, he told us that the CBO scores 
the royalty holiday as costing taxpayers at least $420 million and 
possibly much more, all inconsistent figures.
  Then when you take into consideration the Secretary of energy, Hazel 
O`Leary's October 19, 1995 letter in which she states, comparing the 
gain from the bonus bids on a net present value basis, the Federal 
Government would be ahead by $200 million. So the Secretary of energy 
is telling us that this action we attempt to take here today in fact 
would be a net gain. Is this corporate welfare? The answer is no.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to 
respond to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. Speaker, all of those figures that the gentleman from Texas 
referred to still stand. The first figure is a worst-case scenario. If 
everybody who is qualified for this in fact desires to take advantage 
of it, that is what the agency has told us. The other one is for the 
scoring of this legislation, and then the other one obviously is after 
they took a look at the MS figures and went back and forth on them, 
they still say it is a half a billion. So that is where we are.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do is do something we have not done 
in this debate up to this point which is to focus on the underlying 
legislation. What we are about to do this afternoon is to sell off two 
hydroelectric projects in Alaska, projects originally established in 
the 1950's. Frankly, I think this is a transaction long overdue. In 
fact, we have another 130 hydroelectric projects in this country that I 
think the Federal Government should sell off as quickly as possible.
  Today's sale will net the Federal Government about $73 million. If we 
manage to move those 130 other dams located and stretched across the 
country from the Tennessee Valley up to the Pacific Northwest, we can 
literally bring billions and billions of dollars into the Federal 
Treasury and also eliminate nearly one-third of the bureaucracy at the 
Department of Energy.
  Now the great tragedy in this is that it took 20 years to do this and 
14 different studies on the subject of the privatization. I would like 
to applaud the 

[[Page H 11874]]
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] and the gentleman from Alaska 
[Mr. Young] for moving this legislation forward today, as well as our 
colleagues in the other House. But let me suggest with the Reagan, the 
Bush, and the Clinton administrations, the Alaska delegation, the State 
of Alaska, it should not take us long to sell the other dams as well.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Hall].
  (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I, of course, rise today in support of the deep-water 
royalty relief provision. Basically, I am interested in that. This 
provision is good fiscal policy, it is sensible economic policy, and, 
most importantly, it is very sound energy policy. By supporting deep-
water royalty relief, we are ensuring that this country can maintain a 
very healthy and robust domestic oil and gas industry.
  One of our best opportunities for adding new oil reserves can be 
found in the Gulf of Mexico, particularly in the deep water, where only 
1 in 16 deep-water leases is even producing. By reducing costs and 
providing appropriate tax and other fiscal incentives, we can speed the 
production of sorely needed oil and gas reserves.

                              {time}  1545

  At the same time royalty relief will also generate revenue for the 
U.S. Treasury. Opponents who argue that deep-water royalty relief is a 
Government subsidy should know that which provides an increase in 
Government revenue cannot possibly be a Government subsidy.
  In addition, deep-water royalty will also create thousands of good 
paying jobs that can be sustained well into the 21st century.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon].
  (Mr. McKEON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report on S. 395.
  As a Member from the State of California, I particularly want to 
express my support for language to repeal the ban on the export of 
Alaska North Slope crude oil. While this prohibition seemed like the 
right thing to do during the 1970's, it violated free-market principles 
and inhibited domestic oil exploration in the western United States at 
a time when it should have been encouraged. The forced introduction of 
Alaskan oil to the west coast was particularly harmful to my own State 
of California.
  Lifting the export ban will also increase revenue to the Treasury 
once the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve in California is sold by the 
Government. I have worked on the National Security Committee in support 
of this sale, and since repeal of the Alaska export prohibition will 
result in an increase in the price of California crude oil, the value 
of the price of California crude oil, the value of the reserve will 
also rise.
  Mr. Speaker, the Clinton administration and Congress both agree that 
repealing the export ban is the right thing to do. I share this belief 
and urge support of the rule and the legislation before us today.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha].
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation and 
applaud Chairman Young for the work that he has done, and against the 
motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from California.
  There are two reasons: One is obviously energy independence is so 
important, and this is a provision I think that is well thought out and 
will certainly help us in that direction.
  The other is domestic jobs. We have suffered greatly in western 
Pennsylvania over the years with the decline in the steel industry. The 
steel industry is now back on its feet. I have been deeply involved 
with the steel caucus for years trying to produce as many jobs as we 
can. This will take a lot of steel. It will create a lot of domestic 
jobs. We feel very strongly about it.
  Western Pennsylvania at one time had as high as a 24-percent 
unemployment rate, and anything that helps bring it down, at the same 
time reduces our dependence on foreign oil, is a real asset to this 
country.
  I applaud the gentleman from Alaska and am in strong support of his 
legislation and would ask the Members to oppose the gentleman from 
California's motion to recommit.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn].
  (Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. 
Its passage is long overdue. In a recent study, the Department of 
Energy determined that lifting the ban on Alaskan oil from the North 
Slope would create 25,000 jobs on land and preserve 3,300 maritime 
jobs. Of particular interest to Californians is that the opening up of 
this part of Alaska in an environmentally sound way will increase 
American production by at least 110,000 barrels a day in Alaska and 
California combined.
  With the export of Alaskan oil to the Far East, the trade deficit of 
the United States will be reduced. Instead of much of the Alaskan oil 
flowing into California, there will now be the opportunity for some of 
the very dormant California oil fields to come alive in meeting the 
needs of the western economy.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough].
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say I certainly have a great deal of respect 
for the chairman and, in fact, spoke with the chairman and also spoke 
with representatives from oil companies and others that said that this 
was good for America, after the first vote.
  I said to them, if we come back with CBO estimates that show that 
this is revenue neutral, that it is not corporate welfare, I will write 
a letter to my colleagues whom I asked to oppose this royalty giveaway 
and tell them that I was wrong and to switch their position.
  The fact of the matter is, and we have heard bantering going back and 
forth, but the bottom line is this: CBO has come back with an estimate, 
and it has said that this will cost the American taxpayer over $400 
million. Cut it any way you want it. That is what CBO said.
  Who did we have come in defending royalty relief? I am going to focus 
my remarks to Republicans, because I am speaking to you on some very 
sound Republican principles, and this is a great vote to put up or shut 
up.
  Who did the oil companies go to get support? They went to Hazel 
O'Leary, Secretary of Energy. Their argument was, ``Don't trust CBO. 
Trust Hazel O'Leary. Trust Bruce Babbitt.'' My goodness, there is a 
defender of Republican ideals and values. ``Trust the Clinton 
administration. But, for heaven's sakes, don't trust CBO.''
  If CBO says that we are going to be costing the American taxpayers 
$400 million and this money is going to go to oil companies that are 
going to be drilling in the Gulf of Mexico anyway, let us ignore CBO 
estimates and instead trust the Clinton administration. I do not 
understand that.
  Let me say right up front, this has been framed by many as a Florida 
issue. It is not a Florida issue. This is not about protecting 
Florida's shores. Florida was exempted from this process. This has 
nothing to do with Florida. This has everything to do with American 
taxpayers.
  Any Republican that has heard me speak from the beginning of this 
session this year knows that I am a strident fiscal conservative. I 
think I am one of the only Members in Congress who believed that the 
balanced budget amendment did not go far enough, that we needed to cut 
more. You do not get any more probusiness. You do not get any more 
progrowth.
  But, at the same time, how do I explain to people back in my district 
that even though we are saying let us cut the budget, even though we 
are depending on CBO to give us our estimates, that now we need to give 
oil companies $400 million to drill in the Gulf of Mexico in areas 
where they are going to drill anyway? It makes absolutely no sense. Any 
way you want to cut it, paying oil companies to drill in areas where 
they are going to drill anyway is corporate welfare.
  Second, as a Republican, how many times have I heard my fellow 
colleagues talk about letting the free market prevail? We have got 
people going around with Adam Smith on their ties, the invisible hand 
of capitalism. Today the invisible hand of capitalism must have oil 
money in it, because now they are saying we have got 

[[Page H 11875]]
to help oil companies go out and drill in an area where they would not 
drill anyway.
  This is a kicker. This is from Citizens for a Sound Economy, a letter 
supporting this giveaway. They say here, ``In particular, providing 
royalty relief for oil and natural gas production in this region will, 
quote, promote economic activity.''
  Is that not what we are fighting against? Is that not what this 
conservative revolution is fighting against, paying Federal money out 
to corporations to get involved in the free market and say we have got 
to pay these people off to stimulate growth?
  I have heard other people talk about this being a Federal jobs 
program. We should know, as Republicans, as conservatives, for 30 years 
that the Federal Government throwing billions of dollars at job 
programs does not work. What works is letting the free market dictate 
what happens in the United States of America. Let the free market 
prevail, and if the free market will not support oil drilling off the 
coast of Louisiana, in Alabama, then what does that tell us as economic 
conservatives, as descendants of Adam Smith? That tells us that we as a 
Federal Government should not step in. We should let the market 
prevail. Yet I hear people talking out of both sides of their mouths.
  If it makes good economic sense, go to it. Drill. If not, do not ask 
the taxpayers of America to spend $400 million so oil companies can go 
out there.
  But the fact of the matter is, and this is not a dirty little secret, 
there is no secret at all to it, oil companies are lined up to go out 
and drill in the Gulf of Mexico. They are lined up stumbling over each 
other. That is the fact.
  Read Business Week. Read the New York Times. Read the Wall Street 
Journal. They say the great oil rush of the 1990's is on, and it is 
occurring in the Gulf of Mexico, and oil companies that have left the 
Gulf of Mexico are now stumbling over each other to get back into the 
Gulf of Mexico.
  Yet we are asking the American taxpayers in a year where we beat our 
chests in self-righteous indignation saying we have got to balance our 
budget, we are now asking them to divvy up almost another half billion 
dollars to oil companies to go drill in areas where they would drill 
anyway.
  If they are not going to drill there anyway, then maybe that tells us 
that right now the free market does not support that economic activity.
  It is a perversion of Republican ideas to push for this program; and, 
in the end, I understand the chairman has been put in a very difficult 
position and I have a great amount of respect for him, but in the end, 
this is a deal for Senator Bennett Johnson. That is all it comes down 
to. The Clinton administration is trying to help Bennett Johnson, so 
Hazel O'Leary and everybody else----


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McInnis). The gentleman will suspend. 
Members shall refrain from personal references to U.S. Senators.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I apologize.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's apology is accepted.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, this is a deal for some Senators. That 
is all it comes down to.
  Unfortunately, it is messing up a very good bill. The chairman has a 
good bill. This thing has been tacked on. It makes no sense. But now we 
have got the Clinton administration stumbling over each other, throwing 
out numbers from Hazel O'Leary and from Bruce Babbitt that skew 
reality, skew budgetary reality.
  CBO says it costs the taxpayers. Let us get this thing straight. Do 
we trust CBO or not? We have been throwing out CBO numbers all year. 
Let us be consistent. Let us be consistent with CBO. Let us be 
consistent being supporters of the free market. Let us be consistent 
fighting corporate welfare, and let us be consistent protecting and 
defending the rights of the American taxpayers.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I 
want to just say that the gentleman makes an important point. CBO 
considered all of the alternative analysis, all of the suggestions. 
They have been besieged with people asking them to rescore this, from 
the Department of Energy, to Minerals Management had another way, 
Members of Congress have gone to them, but when it was all done, 6 days 
ago, CBO said, ``It loses $400 million,'' and that is the point I think 
the gentleman was making.
  There are a lot of alternative ways to score it, but none of them as 
reliable as CBO. Most of them, the Members of Congress on both sides of 
the aisle would not accept in any other fight but they are accepting 
them for this fight, but the one that we have decided to trust for our 
scoring has said this is a $400 million loss to the taxpayers of this 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following statement for the Record:
  Mr. Speaker and my colleagues in the House, the integrity of the 
House, our responsibilities to the taxpayers, and our commitment to 
ending unnecessary spending and corporate welfare--all these reasons 
compel us to reject the conference report before us and to vote to 
recommit it to the conference committee.
  Once again, the Senate has insisted that we accept a provision that 
is totally nongermane to the main subject of Alaskan oil exports. This 
is not the first time the Senate has sent us the deep water royalty 
holiday; we have rejected it each time in the past, and we should 
reject it here again today.
  When the House considered this bill, we voted on a bipartisan basis 
to instruct our conferees to reject the royalty holiday in conference 
by an overwhelming vote of 261 to 161. Included in that 261-vote 
majority were Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives--
all in agreement that we should not spend hundreds of millions of 
taxpayers' dollars to encourage the oil industry to do what it is 
already doing: searching for oil in the deep water of the Gulf of 
Mexico.
  Since that vote, oil company lobbyists have swarmed over the Hill. 
The oil corporations have hired Republicans, Democrats, anybody to 
plead their special interest case. And the lobbying has come from the 
Clinton administration, too, that cut a special deal with the oil 
industry.
  It has been a massive lobbying effort. You'd spend a lot of money on 
well-connected lobbyists, too, if the prize was a half billion dollars 
for doing nothing more than you are doing right now. And I know what 
they're telling you: without a royalty holiday, no one will drill in 
the gulf; without a holiday, jobs will be lost; without a holiday, we 
will become more and more dependent on foreign oil.
  And they tell you this holiday won't cost you anything; they show you 
estimates OMB whipped up.
  Well, there's just one problem with their arguments: they are not 
supported by the facts.
  We don't need to spend a half billion dollars to encourage deep water 
development in the gulf; we won't make money, we'll lose hundreds of 
millions of dollars; and most significantly, their own publications 
illustrate and confirm that deep water in the gulf is among the premier 
offshore leasing prospects in the world today.
  They will deny all of the above today on the floor. But before you 
give into the pleas of the oil lobbyists, let's reexamine the facts.


           fact 1. the royalty holiday is a big revenue loser

  The holiday's proponents will recite MMS and OMB numbers asserting 
the holiday will make money. But CBO, the only official source of 
budget scoring, considered and rejected those same MMS and OMB 
assertions.
  CBO definitively states that the royalty holiday will cost 
taxpayers--who own the oil and gas--at least $420 million, and possibly 
much more. Even using the specious accounting methods employed by OMB, 
but rejected as distorted by CBO, the royalty holiday loses over $150 
million.


 fact 2. the royalty holiday would be mandatory for every tract leased 
         in more than 200 meters of water for the next 5 years

  Proponents of the holiday, including Secretary of Energy Hazel 
O'Leary, have argued the Holiday is discretionary and would only be 
granted on tracts where the Secretary determines it is necessary to 
encourage development. This is absolutely false, as the legal division 
of the Congressional Research Service has advised. The Energy 
Department has admitted it erred in asserting that the holiday is 
discretionary.
  Under the language of the conference report, all leases in more than 
200 meters must be granted on a royalty-free basis for the next 5 years 
with no finding of need even though that need is the only rationale for 
granting the royalty holiday in the first place. Don't let anyone tell 
you the royalty holiday is discretionary for new leases. My amendment, 
offered in the conference, to make it clear the holiday is 
discretionary was voted down. So there should 

[[Page H 11876]]
be no doubt: this holiday is mandatory, regardless of need, regardless 
of facts, regardless of cost.


 fact 3. the gulf of mexico--including deep water areas--is one of the 
              hottest oil prospecting regions in the world

  The royalty holiday was dreamed up years ago when the oil industry 
was not interested in the ``played out'' gulf and technology was not 
yet developed for deep water development. But recent lease sales in the 
gulf have been record-setters, with active bidding on tracts in as much 
as 3,000 meters. The royalty holiday mandates royalty-free oil for 
tracts in as little as just 200 meters.
  Here is just a small sampling of what the oil press says about deep 
water leasing:

       New technologies cut the cost of deep-sea production * * * 
     armed with new technology, U.S. companies are venturing into 
     ever deeper waters. (Business Week, October 20, 1995).
       Sonat Offshore Drilling Inc. * * * analysts are projecting 
     third quarter profits to increase more than 400 percent over 
     the 1994 period. A large reason for Sonat's success is its 
     emphasis on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and 
     elsewhere, perhaps the hottest niche market in the business 
     these days. (Dallas Morning News, October 24, 1995).
       The demand for rigs is now so great that deepwater rigs 
     have been contracted out as far as 1998, [a stock analyst at] 
     Simmons [& Co.] said. (Houston Chronicle, September 21, 
     1995).
       Texaco is among the major oil companies starting to spend 
     heavily in the deepwater at depths of 1,000 feet and more. 
     This is definitely an area of strong interest among major oil 
     companies (Times Picayune, New Orleans, LA, September 19, 
     1995).
       Our activity level is based on our commitment to the 
     strategy of developing oil and gas in deep water, Mobile said 
     * * * Texaco said bidding at sale 155 sustained the trend 
     into deepwater that is driving exploration success * * * New 
     technology capabilities are leading the industry farther and 
     farther out into the gulf, a Texaco official said, Deep water 
     in the Gulf of Mexico is not the next frontier, it's the now 
     frontier. (Oil and Gas Journal, September 18, 1995).

  These are just a few of the candid remarks by those most familiar 
with leasing and development deep water trends in the oil industry. And 
I mean real deep water, not the 200 meters that S. 395 defines as deep. 
Let's remember that the Ursa project is located in 3,950 feet of water, 
and ``industry executives believe tension-leg platforms can be 
affordable in water as deep as 6,000 feet,'' according to the Wall 
Street Journal (January 25, 1995).


 fact 4. alternatives to the royalty holiday already exist to provide 
the industry will incentives but without costing taxpayers hundreds of 
                          millions of dollars

  In fact, I helped write the 1978 OCS law that allows use of bidding 
systems that forgive payment of a royalty until a tract is profitable. 
Unlike the royalty holiday, taxpayers would recoup the foregone royalty 
later in the production phase, as MMS originally proposed.
  Proponents of the holiday are probably going to argue today that the 
conference accepted an amendment offered by Congresswoman Fowler that 
addresses all of the environmental issues in the royalty holiday 
dispute by removing offshore Florida lands for coverage.
  But the major objection to the royalty holiday has never been 
environmental: it is economic. The objection is not that offering 
leases will encourage offshore development near coastal communities. 
Indeed, CBO concludes that few leases that would not be leased anyway 
would be leased because of the royalty. They just might he bought 
sooner to qualify for royalty-free status.
  The Fowler amendment fails to address a single one of the economic 
and subsidy objections I have raised or the House has voted on. It was 
an effort to defuse the opposition to the royalty holiday by appearing 
to fix the wrong problem. It should influence no one to change their 
vote on the motion to recommit.
  The objection to the royalty holiday is not that it will damage the 
environment. The objection is that it will damage taxpayers to the tune 
of $450 million, and maybe much more, for no good reason whatsoever.
  You may be told the Senate just voted for the royalty holiday in 
their reconciliation bill--because it's been stuck in there, too. But 
that is not true: the Senate never got to vote on the holiday because a 
parliamentary device was used to prevent a vote on the merits, just as 
we have been denied a chance here in the House, or in the Resources 
Committee, to consider this legislation on its merits.
  Now, if this legislation is so important and so meritorious, why 
haven't we had a hearing on it? Why haven't its proponents in the House 
or the Senate put it before the committees and on the floor of both 
Houses and allowed a real debate and amendatory process to occur? Why 
does it always come to us, tucked into a nongermane bill, with no 
opportunity for testimony or examination?
  The reason is because this proposal is an idea whose time has passed. 
Years ago, when leasing and drilling activity in the gulf was 
deteriorating, the industry and its friends cooked up the royalty 
holiday scheme. The world has changed, and the gulf--including the deep 
water gulf--is competitive and highly attractive. We have had two 
highly successful lease sales there in the past 6 months, including in 
the deep water.
  So the issue here today is, having already voted 261 to 161 to reject 
the deep water scheme, are we going to cave into the oil lobbyists, are 
we going to cave into the phony financial projections that our own CBO 
rejects, are we going to cave into the Senate and let them cram this 
expensive, special interest, corporate welfare scheme down our throats?
  Or are we going to say that this issue should be considered with 
deliberation and thoroughness by the Resources Committee and by the 
House of Representatives? Those who believe it is a good idea should 
come up here and testify for it and subject themselves to cross-
examination instead of skulking around the Halls of Congress, lining up 
votes secretively, evading the public review that a half billion 
dollars in public money deserves.
  The royalty holiday is bad policy and a terrible waste of taxpayer 
dollars. On those grounds alone, backed up by CRS, CBO, and the oil 
industry's own evidence, we should reject this provision and send this 
report back to the conference, where the royalty holiday will surely be 
stripped out. In fact, the conference has scheduled another meeting for 
this afternoon to strip it out if the House votes to do so.
  But I believe there is another reason we should vote for the motion 
to instruct, and that is to stand up for the honor of this House. We 
voted to instruct our conferees to reject the royalty holiday, and 
those conferees ignored that direction. If this House will not reassert 
its position and again direct the conferees to reject the royalty 
holiday, we are giving up the powers of this House to the Senate and to 
a tiny number of senior Members who will make all the decisions for the 
rest of us, and that is not how decisions should be made.
  Some Members have asked me why I care so much about this royalty 
holiday. Why am I so concerned about a scheme that will only cost us a 
few hundred million dollars at a time when tens of billions are being 
cut elsewhere?
  Here is the reason: because this royalty holiday is wrong. It is the 
worst kind of special interest giveaway at a time when we are demanding 
that everyone in the country sacrifice. The oil industry already enjoys 
one of the lowest tax rates of any industry; they do not need more 
incentives to explore the Gulf of Mexico, and this House must have the 
courage to stand up to the international oil industry on behalf of the 
working men and women of this country who own that oil.
  The evidence is overwhelming that we do not need the royalty holiday. 
I urge my colleagues to vote to recommit the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, let me first correct the record. If anybody 
is trying to help the Senator who was mentioned in his reelection bid, 
he is not running for reelection.
  Second, if anybody assumes that people are rushing to the Gulf of 
Mexico to drill in those deep waters, let me point out, we have lost 
180,000 jobs in Louisiana alone, 400,000 jobs in America because of the 
fact that people are rushing to somebody else's waters, somebody else's 
lands to drill because we have made it uninviting to drill and produce 
in America. That is the truth.
  If anybody is coming to the Gulf of Mexico, it is because my friend 
from California and others have led the charge to make sure you cannot 
drill anywhere else in America offshore but in the Gulf of Mexico and 
in Alaska. That is the only place you can go.
  While we are discussing it, let us discuss the numbers. The gentleman 
from California said in response to the gentleman from Texas, who 
quoted him, then when he said on June 25 it would cost $15 billion, and 
when he said today on the floor that it would cost $400 million, that 
he was right both times, the numbers still stand. That is a little over 
a 3,000-percent discrepancy, 3,000-percent differences, but he asks us 
to trust those numbers.
  On the other hand, Minerals Management Service, who estimated what it 
would raise and what it would cost, estimated that this amendment would 
save the American Treasury not just the $200 million extra it would 
raise in royalty bonuses but about $600 million in interest payments on 
the Federal debt because that $200 million would cost that much over 
that 25-year period that nobody seemed to pay much attention to--$600 
million in addition to the $200 million.

[[Page H 11877]]

  It just so happens that Minerals Management has been doing this kind 
of estimation for 10 years. What is their record of failure? They have 
missed it over the 10-year period by not 3,000 percent but by 3 
percent.
  So we are asked today on this floor to take the advice of folks who 
are estimating numbers who are going to miss it by as much as 3,000 
percent as opposed to Minerals Management who has been wrong only 3 
percent in all of their estimates for 10 years. Minerals Management 
Service, the people that run the offshore program for our country, the 
people that lease the lands and collect the royalties and collect the 
bonuses, tell us this thing is going to win for us $485 million of new 
bonus royalties.

                              {time}  1600

  It is going to save the American taxpayer $600 million in interest 
payments over this 25-year period.
  Who do you want to trust, Minerals Management or someone who comes to 
the floor and admits that his numbers are 3,000 percent different from 
June 25 to November 8, and those numbers still stand?
  I want to say again this bill has changed. It only affects the Gulf 
of Mexico. It is not the same bill we voted on earlier.
  Second, it is limited to 5 years. Even CBO estimates that, in that 5-
year period, it is going to make $100 million for this country.
  And, finally, if you believe in this country as we all do, if you 
believe in the strength of this country and its workers and its 
productive capacity, why would you not want to incentivize an industry 
that is moving offshore rapidly because we make no room for it in this 
country, particularly an industry that is producing energy for our 
people? Why would you want to depend upon people, when we have to go to 
war to defend those oil reserves, when you could produce it at home? 
That is the choice today.
  Let us produce oil for Americans, by Americans, here in this country. 
That is what this is all about.
  Vote ``no'' on the recommittal by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller].
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I suggest voting ``no'' on recommittal.
  We talk about a level playing field. There is no level playing field 
as long as the Federal Government is involved in leasing those lands.
  This is an attempt by this administration, this Congressman and the 
rest of this Congress to give us the opportunity to take and further 
develop those areas that cannot be developed under the present system.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, on this historic day for which the citizens of our great 
State have for so long waited, I am proud to bring before the House the 
conference report on S. 395. With adoption of this vital legislation, 
my State at long last will be authorized to export its most important 
resource, and thereby promote our national security, spur energy 
production, and create jobs.
  Because of the gracious offer of the chairman of the Senate Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee, who along with our State's senior 
Senator has done so much to make this dream come true, I bring this 
bill before you as chairman of the conference committee. In that 
capacity, I rise to put title II in historical context and to describe 
in greater detail the substantive provisions of the bill, a discussion 
circumscribed by the more limited space available in the joint 
explanatory statement of the managers.
  The ANS export restrictions were first enacted shortly after 
commencement of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war and the first Arab oil 
boycott. Many believed enactment of these restrictions would enhance 
our energy security. Following the second major oil shock in 1979, 
Congress went further and effectively banned 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. 
Yet, for the first time, imports last year met more than half of our 
domestic demand--not because consumption had risen, but rather because 
domestic production had declined so significantly.
  Even though imports are even higher today, they come from far more 
secure sources than in the 1970's. Over half of our imports now come 
from the Western Hemisphere and Europe. Mexico and Canada are among our 
largest suppliers. We have stopped buying crude from Iran, Iraq, and 
Libya. In addition, international sharing agreements are in place and 
the United States has filled the Strategic Petroleum Reserve with 
approximately 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, while production is falling in the lower 
48 as well. My committee heard compelling testimony, for example, about 
the problems faced by small businesses in California, which have felt 
first hand the effects of the current ban. Small independent producers 
have been forced to abandon wells or defer further investments. Faced 
with glut-induced prices for their own crude, they have laid off 
workers. By precluding the market from operating normally, the export 
ban has had the unintended effect of discouraging further energy 
production. Through adoption of the conference report, we will at long 
last change that situation.
  In addition to receiving testimony from small businesses hurt 
directly, my committee got advice from the experts as well. The 
Department of Energy, for example, provided Congress with a 
comprehensive study. The Department concluded that ANS exports would 
boost production in Alaska and California by 100,000 to 110,000 barrels 
per day by the end of the century. The Department also concluded that 
ANS exports could create up to 25,000 jobs. With the evidence now in, 
we know that the sooner we change current law, the sooner we can spur 
additional energy production and create jobs in Alaska and in 
California.
  To achieve this objective, I bring before the House the conference 
report authorizing ANS exports under terms substantially similar to the 
underlying Senate and House bills. The conference report authorizes ANS 
exports, making inapplicable the general and specific restrictions in 
section 7(d) of the Export Administration Act of 1979, section 28(u) of 
the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, section 103 of the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act, and the Department of Commerce's short supply 
regulations, unless the President determines that they would not be in 
the national interest. This provision negates, as well, any other 
existing law, regulation, or executive order that might otherwise be 
interpreted to restrict ANS exports.
  Before making his national interest determination, the President must 
consider an appropriate environmental review. We have given the 
President discretion to have a working group conduct the type of 
environmental review that would be appropriate under the circumstances. 
Because appropriate environmental review is not defined in the 
conference report or the National Environmental Policy Act, I think it 
particularly important to explain our intent in developing this term.
  In its report, the Department of Energy found ``no plausible evidence 
of any direct negative environmental impact from lifting the ANS crude 
export ban.'' In fact, the Department concluded that, ``[w]hen indirect 
effects are considered, it appears that the market response to removing 
the ANS export ban could result in a production and transportation 
structure that is preferable to the status quo in certain respects.'' 
The Department found, for example, that ``[l]ifting the export ban will 
reduce overall tanker movements in U.S. waters.'' The weight of the 
testimony taken before my committee and the Senate Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources was to the same effect.
  Thus, the conference report directs, as the appropriate environmental 
review, an abbreviated 4-month study. The environmental review is 
intended to be thorough and comprehensive, but in light of the 
Department's findings and the compressed timeframe, neither a full 
environmental impact statement nor even a more limited environmental 
assessment is contemplated. If any potential adverse effects on the 
environment are found, the study is to recommend appropriate measures 
to mitigate or cure them. In fact, the procedure set forth in the 
conference report tracks the well-recognized procedure whereby an 
agency may forego a full EIS by taking appropriate steps to correct any 
problems found during an EA. Under current law, if an EA reveals some 
potentially adverse 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. Similarly, as long as potentially adverse impacts 
can be mitigated by conditions on exports included in the President's 
national interest determination, NEPA is satisfied.
  In making his national interest determination, the President is 
authorized to impose appropriate terms and conditions, other than a 
volume limitation, on ANS exports. The conference report takes 
cognizance of the changed condition of national oil demand and 

[[Page H 11878]]
available oil resources. The conference report is intended to permit 
ANS crude oil to compete with other crude oil in the world market under 
normal market conditions. To facilitate this competition and in 
recognition that the conference report precludes imposition of a volume 
limitation, the President should direct that exports proceed under a 
general license.

  Although crude oil exports historically have been governed through 
the use of individual validated licenses, this type of licensing 
procedure would not be appropriate here. The more appropriate model is 
the rule governing exports of refined petroleum products, which are 
permitted under a general license. First, the conference report 
explicitly negates the short supply regulations and the statutory 
authority underlying them as they relate to ANS exports. Our intent was 
to clear away two decades of accumulated obstructions to ANS exports. 
Second, the conference report specifically precludes the President from 
imposing a volume limitation. In almost every instance today, 
individual validated licenses on crude exports are necessary because of 
the need to deal with volume limitations, such as those imposed on 
exports of California heavy crude oil or ANS crude to Canada. Finally, 
it is our intent that the market finally be given an opportunity to 
operate. We do not want unnecessary paperwork to impede proper 
functioning of the market.
  The conferees recognize that some information is needed to monitor 
exports. Again, petroleum products provides the proper model. Shippers 
of petroleum products, like all exporters, submit export declarations 
at the time of export. This information is compiled into trade 
statistics by the Department of Commerce. Similarly, exporters of ANS 
crude under a general license would routinely file export declarations. 
These filings will provide any information needed for monitoring.
  Given the anticipated substantial benefits to the Nation of ANS 
exports, the President should make his national interest determination 
as promptly as possible. Of course, if the President fails to make the 
required determination within 5 months, ANS oil exports are authorized 
without intervening action by the President or the Secretary of 
Commerce.
  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. There can be little doubt that 
Congress has a compelling interest in preserving a fleet essential to 
our Nation's military security, especially one vital to moving an 
important natural resource such as my State's oil. In recognition of 
this, the conference report requires that ANS exports be carried in 
U.S.-flag vessels. The only exceptions are exports to Israel under a 
bilateral treaty and to others under the international emergency oil 
sharing plan of the International Energy Agency.
  The U.S. Trade Representative has assured Congress that this 
provision does not violate our GATT obligations. Based on the testimony 
presented to my committee and the Senate Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources, I concur with the administration's view that this 
provision is fully consistent with our international obligations. 
Moreover, it is supported by ample precedent, including in particular a 
comparable provision in the United States-Canada free trade agreement, 
as implemented under United States law.
  The conference report also directs the Secretary of Commerce to issue 
any rules necessary to govern ANS exports within 30 days of the 
President's national interest determination. In light of the clear 
benefits to the Nation of ANS exports, the Secretary should promulgate 
any rules necessary contemporaneously with the determination.
  In closing, let me emphasize that the current ban no longer makes 
economic sense. For too long, it has hurt the citizens of Alaska, it 
has damaged the California oil 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 shipbuilding sector of our Nation.
  As chairman of the conference committee, I thus urge my colleagues to 
support this historic legislation. Through swift enactment and 
implementation of this legislation, Congress and the administration can 
demonstrate their ability to work together to promote our national 
security, to spur energy production, to reduce our net dependence on 
imports, and, above all, to create jobs.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to reject the attempt 
by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] to recommit the 
conference report on S. 395 in order to strike the Outer Continental 
Shelf deepwater incentives provision.
  This provision is urgently needed to provide incentives to produce 
more oil and natural gas in the very deep waters of the central and 
western portions of the Gulf of Mexico. Its enactment will strengthen 
U.S. energy security, bolster the economy, generate jobs for American 
workers, and help reduce the Federal deficit.
  At a time when the United States is importing some 50 percent of its 
oil supplies, when oil industry jobs and investment are flowing 
overseas, and when the Congress is struggling to reduce the deficit, 
this is no time to reject such a critically needed provision.
  Mr. Speaker, the Outer Continental Shelf currently produces about 14 
percent of our oil and about 23 percent of our natural gas. The OCS 
contains approximately one-fourth of our estimated domestic oil and gas 
reserves. The deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico remain one of the most 
attractive areas for new oil and gas discoveries. But because of the 
extremely high cost of deepwater development, only about 6 percent of 
deepwater leases in the Gulf of Mexico have been developed. As a 
result, the Nation is not benefiting as much as it could from the large 
oil and gas resources of the Gulf--and the Federal Government is not 
earning as much as it could in bonus bids and royalty payments.
  The deepwater incentives provision would temporarily reduce royalties 
on existing OCS leases in the central and western portions of the gulf, 
and delay royalty payments on new leases until a specified amount of 
production has occurred. The provision would have no effect in those 
areas covered by preleasing, leasing, or development moratoria.
  Let me point out that the Congressional Budget Office officially 
scored the deepwater incentives provision as providing $100 million in 
additional Federal revenues over 5 years and $130 million over 7 years. 
And, on a present value basis, the administration has determined that 
the Federal Government would net as much as $200 million over 25 years 
as a result of this provision.
  Mr. Speaker, I also favor the deepwater incentives provision because 
it will create jobs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, each 
$1 billion invested in the oil and gas extraction industry generates 
20,000 new jobs. These jobs are created primarily in industries which 
support and service the oil and gas exploration industry, including the 
steel, machine tool, heavy equipment, and high-technology industries. A 
healthy and productive offshore industry will mean new jobs in 
virtually every State of the Union. We cannot afford to throw these 
jobs away.
  The deepwater incentives provision has bipartisan support. The 
Clinton administration strongly supports this provision. Secretary of 
Energy Hazel O'Leary had this to say in an October 19 letter to Senator 
Bennett Johnston:

       The ability to lower costs of domestic production in the 
     central and western Gulf of Mexico by providing appropriate 
     fiscal incentives will lead to an expansion of domestic 
     energy resourcers, enhance national security, and reduce the 
     deficit.

  Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that Secretary O'Leary is 
right. We do not have the luxury--in terms of energy, the economy, or 
U.S. jobs--to remove the deepwater incentives provision from S. 395. I 
urge you to defeat the motion to recommit the conference report.
  There is a tendency to view the Gulf of Mexico as one oil and natural 
gas province. From an economic and technical viewpoint, however, the 
gulf should actually be seen as two hydrocarbon provinces: First, a 
developed but marginally economic shallow water shelf province and 
second, an undeveloped world-class frontier deep water province.
  It is this deep water province that holds the potential for 
discoveries of large oil and gas reserves.
  The deep water Gulf of Mexico offers a tremendous opportunity for the 
discovery and production of new world-class natural gas and oil fields. 
It is the only undeveloped domestic offshore area of high resource 
potential open for exploration and production today and can make 
valuable contributions to the country's energy and economic future.
  Today, the Gulf of Mexico represents approximately 25 percent of this 
Nation's domestic natural gas and 13 percent of its domestic oil 
production.
  While production from the mature shallow waters of the gulf is 
declining, the deep water is poised to sustain gulf production well 
into the next century. Without deep water production, Federal 
royalties, rents, and taxes from Gulf of Mexico production will 
continue to decline.
  A report of the Department's OCS Policy Committee noted that there 
have been a number of deepwater discoveries but there are no plans for 
development ``because proceeding is not economic.''
  The Department of Interior has estimated that in water depths of 200 
meters or more there are more than 11 billion barrels of oil equivalent 
in the Gulf of Mexico.
  The Gulf of Mexico is a significant contributor to U.S. natural gas 
supply, and continued 

[[Page H 11879]]
production from this prolific natural gas basin must be encouraged if 
this Nation's growing demand for natural gas is to be met.
  Even with the most accelerated switch to alternative fuels domestic 
crude oil demand will clearly outstrip domestic supply. It is therefore 
incumbent upon the Congress and the administration to make a deliberate 
and conscious decision regarding how that demand will be met--by 
increased domestic production or by more imported oil.
  Gulf of Mexico deepwater incentives are needed if this Nation is to 
take full advantage of the reserve potential of this significant new 
natural gas and oil province. The royalty relief provisions in S. 395 
should be supported. The provisions encourage full development of this 
resource and the achievement of important national economic and 
environmental goals--namely job creation, economic stimulation, much 
needed natural gas and oil reserves, and reduced U.S. dependence on 
imported oil.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Speaker, today the House is honoring the 
memory of one of this century's most courageous soldiers for peace, 
Yitzhak Rabin. His tragic death was a profound loss for the State of 
Israel, for the entire Middle East, and for all who believe in the 
peaceful resolution of international conflict.
  I well remember meeting with Mr. Rabin when, as a first-term Member 
of Congress, I traveled to Israel and talked with him in his office. He 
was warm, cordial, and informative, and reaffirmed to me the importance 
of the United States-Israel relationship.
  Just 2 weeks ago, I again met the Prime Minister when I joined in the 
``Jerusalem 3000'' celebration here in the Capitol. This wonderful 
ceremony recognized three millennia of Jerusalem's history, and Mr. 
Rabin spoke passionately both about Israel's precious heritage and its 
need for a peaceful future.
  And now he is gone. His passing was so swift and sudden that we are 
still in a state of shock as we consider a world without Yitzhak Rabin. 
Yet his remarkable example lives on. Tenacious in battle, resolute in 
peace, dedicated to his country and its future, his statesmanship will 
remain with us for generations.
  It is rare to find a leader who harnesses the tide of history and 
redirects it for the good of the world. Yitzhak Rabin's gift was his 
willingness to, in the words of Theodore Roosevelt, ``dare greatly'' 
for the sake of a just peace. It is a gift that no assassin's bullet 
can ever take away, and a legacy that will endure through the ages.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the conference 
report on S. 395, the Alaska Power Administration Sale Act. I believe 
this bill is an important part of reducing America's dependency on 
foreign oil. A provision to provide royalty relief for deep offshore 
drilling is still contained in the bill. I previously opposed the 
royalty relief due to uncertainty about its need. Since the last vote, 
I have heard from North Dakota oil and gas producers about the 
importance of this provision to ensuring domestic oil security. I have 
also received new information from the Department of Energy indicating 
the importance of retaining this provision. According to DOE, enactment 
of this royalty relief will reduce our reliance on foreign sources of 
crude oil by unearthing the estimated 15 billion barrels of oil in 
deepwater Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, it is estimated that through 
new leasing revenues, enactment of this provision will result in a 
minimum net benefit to the Treasury of $200 million by the year 2000.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I applaud Congress' decision to conduct a 
comprehensive overhaul of an archaic export policy. Today I am speaking 
in support of S. 395, which includes provisions to end the ban on 
exports of Alaskan North Slope crude oil. This is an opportunity to 
enhance the ability of the U.S. energy industry to compete in the arena 
of international trade.
  The ANS ban has been in effect for over 20 years, and was supposedly 
created to, among other things, ``safeguard our energy security.'' 
During this 20-year period, there has been no evidence to support this 
hypothesis. In fact, the evidence clearly demonstrates that our 
dependence on foreign oil has increased over this period. Domestic 
production is declining as a result of this export ban, while demand 
for oil continues to increase. The shortfall can only be met through 
increased imports, which helps to explain why we now import around 50 
percent of all energy consumed in the United States. Perhaps the 
supporters of the ban could try to explain to the American people how a 
continued decline in domestic production, coupled with increasing 
consumer demand, has safeguarded our energy security?
  It is critical that we recognize the importance of the ANS issue. Do 
we want to sell the naval petroleum reserves or increase its value? Do 
we want to help heavy oil producers maintain their economic viability 
through royalty relief proposals such as those offered by the Bureau of 
Land Management? Whatever options we choose with regard to these 
issues, we must repeal the ANS ban first, to ensure that we are dealing 
with the cause of the problems, and not just the symptoms.
  This issue has been debated at length on the floor and in the 
Resources Committee. The Resources Committee passed the bill on a voice 
vote and the bill enjoyed wide bipartisan support in committee and on 
the floor, where it passed by a vote of 324 to 77. In addition, over 75 
of my colleagues have already cosponsored H.R. 70, 23 Democrats and 55 
Republicans, including 23 Californians.
  Recently, there has been discussion in Congress of the possible sale 
of the naval petroleum reserves [NPR] at Elk Hills, CA. With the 
current price of crude artificially depressed due to the ban on the 
sale of ANS crude, eliminating the ban would greatly enhance the value 
of the facility and its return to the taxpayer would be subsequently 
enhanced. With the Defense bill resolution which included the sale of 
NPR having already passed the House and Senate, it is imperative that 
we move to reform this artificially distorted market to project the 
true value of this crude oil.
  This bill truly has value in closing the deficit, for in addition to 
the $55 million in reduced Federal outlays which CBO has predicted over 
the next 5 years, the taxes payable on the 15,000 to 20,000 oil 
production jobs and increased oil production created through the repeal 
of the ban would be significant.
  Government interference in this market has not worked and must be 
ended. Our economy is based on the operation of the market, and there 
is no economic argument that can be advanced to justify the continued 
market-distorting ban on exports of ANS crude. The market can and 
should dictate where this oil goes and the price for which it is sold.
  Additionally, lifting this ban would lead to a reduction in the 
number of tankers, loaded with crude oil, traveling along nearly the 
entire Western coastline of the North American Continent. By allowing 
the export of ANS crude, some amount of this oil will be shipped to 
markets in the Far East. As a result, fewer tankers will make the trip 
along our coast to their current destinations in Washington and 
California, and it will eliminate movement of ANS crude oil to the gulf 
coast that involves multiple loading and unloading operations. This 
clearly translates into a reduced risk of oil spills, small and large, 
along both Canadian and United States coastlines.
  For years, efforts to repeal the ban have been met with opposition 
from maritime unions, who were concerned that the repeal of the ban 
would adversely affect U.S. merchant fleet jobs. Now, a compromise has 
been reached which accomplishes the goal of lifting the ban while 
ensuring the interests of the maritime unions.
  The unions now agree that ending of the ANS crude ban is consistent 
with the economic security and defense interests of the Nation in that 
it provides employment opportunities for American citizens and ensures 
the Nation a fleet of American-flag tankers.

  Given the current declining North Slope production, the independent 
tanker fleet and the men and women who crew the vessels face a bleak 
future. By encouraging oil production, ANS exports can help secure 
their future and preserve jobs that otherwise would be lost.
  On March 1, the administration announced that it was ``convinced that 
there are economic and energy benefits that can be gained from 
permitting exports of ANS crude.''
  In setting forth requirements for inclusion in the final legislative 
language, the administration stated:

       All ANS oil must be exported in U.S.-flagged and U.S.-
     crewed vessels. Reforms should not transfer existing seafarer 
     employment abroad. Legislation must provide substantial 
     protection of seafarer employment opportunities for American 
     workers.

  As introduced, S. 395 satisfies this condition. Under the bill, ANS 
crude may be exported only if ``transported by a vessel documented 
under the laws of the United States and owned by a citizen of the 
United States * * *''
  In addition, our government's own energy experts have recently 
confirmed the substantial benefits to be gained in lifting the ban; 10 
months ago, the Department of Energy [DOE] released a report, outlining 
the effects of lifting the current Alaskan North slope (ANS) crude oil 
ban. The report confirmed:

       There would be a net increase in U.S. employment of up to 
     16,000 jobs. By the end of the decade, job increases could 
     reach 20,000.
       Oil production in Alaska and California could be increased 
     by as much as 100 to 110 thousand barrels per day by the end 
     of the decade. Reserve additions in Alaska alone could be as 
     large as 200 to 400 million barrels of oil.
       Increased federal receipts related to royalties and sales 
     of oil would total between $99 and $180 million.
       All of these benefits would occur without any significantly 
     negative environmental implications.

  All of the issues have been settled: The unions have agreed that this 
legislation will ensure an independent tanker fleet; the trade 

[[Page H 11880]]
issues have been addressed, and the U.S. Trade Representative has noted 
that the U.S.-flag requirement does not present any legal problems to 
international trade; producers will benefit as increased revenues from 
marginal wells are realized.
  Mr. Speaker, who can argue against national security, increased jobs, 
more domestic oil production, increased Federal revenues and reduced 
environmental danger? I urge my colleagues to give this issue careful 
consideration and not overlook the fact that our domestic oil industry 
is being harmed by this knee-jerk political reaction over 20 years ago. 
If we are truly serious about encouraging domestic production and 
exploration of our natural resources, we should pass S. 395 and end 
this market-distorting ban on the export of Alaskan oil.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I noticed the other day that while it is 
still early November, Christmas decorations are already on the shelves 
at many stores. Each year, it seems, the holiday season begins earlier 
and earlier.
  And with this in mind, it is perhaps fitting that today we are 
considering a bill that will grant a multibillion dollar royalty 
holiday, courtesy of the Republican majority, to some of the largest 
corporate conglomerates in the world.
  As has already been explained, last July this body sent a bill over 
to the Senate that simply lifted the ban on exporting Alaskan oil.
  But we were not blind to what the other body was contemplating. We 
also passed a motion to instruct our conferees not to accede to the 
Senate's desire to impose the deep water royalty holiday on the House.
  The vote was taken on the motion to instruct, and is passed by a 
bipartisan 261 to 161. Yet, today we find that the majority will of 
this House has been ignored, in a very blatant fashion, and the royalty 
holiday crept its way into the pending legislation.
  Today, when it is still questionable whether the Federal Government 
will be able to continue to operate after next Monday, I ask: Is it 
appropriate to pass legislation that will cost the Treasury nearly a 
half billion dollars in revenues?
  Is it appropriate to grant a royalty holiday, at the taxpayer's 
expense, as an alleged incentive for these companies to do what they 
are already doing in the first place?
  I would submit the answer is no.
  We have copies of the vote taken last July on this issue here, and I 
would urge Members to be consistent. If you voted against the royalty 
holiday on July 25, there is no reason why you should not vote against 
it today.
  I urge the adoption of the Miller motion to recommit this bill to 
conference so that the royalty holiday provisions can be deleted.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McInnis). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.


         motion to recommit offered by mr. miller of california

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, yes; I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Miller of California moves to recommit the conference 
     report on the bill S. 395 to the committee of conference with 
     instructions to the managers on the part of the House to 
     insist on the provisions of the House amendment No. 5 which 
     strike title III of S. 395.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This motion is not debatable.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 160, 
nays 261, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 771]

                               YEAS--160

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Portman
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--261

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Burton
     Fields (LA)
     Meyers
     Peterson (FL)
     Ramstad
     Skelton
     Thornton
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Waldholtz
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1622

  The Clerk announced the following pair:

[[Page H 11881]]

  On this vote:

       Mr. Ramstad for, with Mr. Shelton against.

  Messrs. METCALF, de la GARZA, EVERETT, and GOODLATTE changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. BROWN of Florida and Mr. BUNN of Oregon changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McInnis). The question is on the 
conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 289, 
nays 134, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 772]

                               YEAS--289

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Studds
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--134

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tate
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     White
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Fields (LA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Ramstad
     Riggs
     Thornton
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Waldholtz
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1645

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Waldholtz for, with Mr. Ramstad against.

  Mr. EWING changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________