[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 180 (Tuesday, November 14, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17019-S17035]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION ASSET SALE AND TERMINATION ACT--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Dole, I ask that 
the Chair lay before the Senate the conference report to accompany S. 
395, the Alaska Power Administration bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on 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 Marketing Administration, and for other 
     purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have 
     agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective 
     Houses this report, signed by a majority of the conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of November 6, 1995.)
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator 
from Washington, who is here, has agreed to 2 hours equally divided on 
this issue. 

[[Page S 17020]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the order.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to bring before the Senate the conference 
report on S. 395, historic legislation that our State has sought for 
over a decade. Our citizens will no longer be discriminated against and 
kept from selling the State's most valuable resource in the world 
market. Working with small and integrated oil producers, with 
independent tanker operators, and with maritime labor, we have 
demonstrated that it still is possible to get something good done for 
the country.
  Title I of the conference report provides for the sale of the Alaska 
Power Administration's assets and the termination of the Alaska Power 
Administration once the sale is completed.
  The Alaska Power Administration is unique among the Federal power 
marketing administrations. First, unlike the other Federal power 
marketing administrations, the Alaska Power Administration owns its 
power generating facilities, which consists of two hydroelectric 
projects. Second, these single-purpose hydroelectric projects were not 
built as the result of a water resource management plan, as is the case 
with most other Federal hydroelectric dams. Instead, they were built to 
promote economic development and the establishment of essential 
industries. Third, the Alaska Power Administration operates entirely in 
one State. Fourth, the Alaska Power Administration was never intended 
to remain indefinitely under Government control. That is specifically 
recognized in the Eklutna project authorizing legislation.
  The Alaska Power Administration owns two hydroelectric projects, 
Snettisham and Eklutna. Snettisham is a 78-megawatt project located 45 
miles south of Juneau. It has been Juneau's main power source since 
1975, accounting for 80 percent of its electric power supply. Eklutna 
is a 30-megawatt project located 34 miles northeast of Anchorage. It 
has served the Anchorage and Matanuska Valley areas since 1955, 
accounting for 5 percent of its electric power supply.
  The Alaska Power Administration's assets will be sold pursuant to the 
1989 purchase agreements between the Department of Energy and the 
purchasers. Snettisham will be sold to the State of Alaska, and Eklutna 
will be sold jointly to the municipality of Anchorage, the Chugach 
Electric Association, and the Matanuska Electric Association. For both, 
the sale price is determined under an agreed-upon formula. It is the 
net present value of the remaining debt service payments that the 
Treasury would receive if the Federal Government had retained ownership 
of the two projects. The proceeds from the sales are currently 
estimated to be about $85 million, however, the actual sales price will 
vary with the interest rate at the time of purchase.
  S. 395 and a separate formal agreement provide for the full 
protection of fish and wildlife. The purchasers, the State of Alaska, 
the U.S. Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service, and 
the U.S. Department of the Interior have jointly entered into a formal 
binding agreement providing for post-sale protection, mitigation, and 
enhancement of fish and wildlife resources affected by Eklutna and 
Snettisham. S. 395 makes that agreement legally enforceable.
  The Alaska Power Administration has 34 people located in Alaska. The 
purchasers of the two projects have pledged to hire as many of these as 
possible. For those who do not receive offers of employment, the 
Department of Energy has pledged that it will offer employment to any 
remaining Alaska Power Administration employees, although the DOE jobs 
are expected to be in the lower 48.
  Title II of the bill would at long last allow exports of Alaska's 
North Slope crude oil when carried in U.S.-flag vessels. This 
legislation will finally allow my State to market its most valuable 
product in the global marketplace, letting the market determine its 
ultimate usage.
  So that my colleagues will better understand the provisions of title 
II, let me expand on the description provided in the ``Statement of 
Managers.'' Section 201 of 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. The conference report negates, as well, any 
other existing law, regulation, or executive order that might otherwise 
be interpreted to block ANS exports.
  Before making his national interest determination, the President must 
consider an appropriate environmental review. Because questions were 
raised when the bill was first before the Senate, I want to assure my 
colleagues that the conferees have recommended a provision fully 
consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act. Under the 
conference report, the administration is directed to conduct an 
``appropriate environmental review.'' As my colleagues may know, 
``appropriate environmental review'' is not a term defined in NEPA. 
Because it is unique to this legislation and was not given a statutory 
definition, I think I should explain what the conferees meant through 
the selection of this term and how it will operate consistently with 
NEPA.
  In its comprehensive report on the costs and benefits of exporting 
ANS crude oil, 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 Department also 
found that the ``[i]mported oil that would substitute for ANS crude 
exports would have a lower sulfur content than ANS crude, thereby 
lowering the average sulfur content of the crude processed in 
California refineries.'' The weight of the testimony taken before my 
committee and the House Resources Committee affirmed the 
appropriateness of the Department's ultimate finding that enactment of 
this legislation would not have any direct negative effect on the 
environment.
  In light of the work already done and the conclusions reached by the 
Department of Energy, the conference report directs, as the 
``appropriate environmental review,'' an abbreviated 4-month study. The 
environmental review is intended to be thorough and comprehensive. 
Given the Department's findings and the compressed time frame, neither 
a full environmental impact statement nor a more limited environmental 
assessment is contemplated. NEPA is satisfied because the conference 
report directs that, if any potential adverse effects on the 
environment are found, the study is to recommend ``appropriate 
measures'' to mitigate or cure them. This procedure 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 may 
impose--with one significant exception--appropriate terms and 
conditions on ANS exports. As set forth in the original Senate bill and 
the House companion measure, the President may not impose a volume 
limitation of any kind. We want the market given a chance to work. 
Having been discriminated against for so long, we fought hard to ensure 
that our oil could be sold under free market conditions. The conference 
report is intended to permit ANS crude oil to compete with other crude 
oil in the world market under normal market conditions. 

[[Page S 17021]]

  To facilitate competition and in recognition that the conference 
report precludes imposition of a volume limitation, the conferees 
intend that the President direct exports to proceed under a general 
license. Although crude oil exports historically have been governed 
through the use of individual validated licenses, this type of before-
the-fact licensing procedure would not be appropriate here. Like the 
rule governing exports of refined petroleum products, which are 
permitted under a general license, the rule governing ANS exports 
should permit use of a general license for at least three reasons.
  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.
  We understand that some information is needed to monitor exports. We 
have looked at the model for exports of refined petroleum products as a 
guide. Refined petroleum product exporters submit export declarations 
to the U.S. Customs Service at the time or after they export. The 
Department of Commerce compiles this information for trade statistics 
purposes. Similarly, exporters of ANS crude under a general license 
would routinely file export declarations contemporaneously or after the 
time of export. These filings will provide any information needed for 
monitoring ANS crude exports.
  In view of the anticipated substantial benefits to the nation of ANS 
exports, the President should make his national interest determination 
as promptly as possible. Moreover, given the exhaustive DOE study and 
the long time that has been available since the bill cleared the Senate 
to study any potential adverse environmental effects, we believe the 
President should soon have at hand the necessary information to 
promptly make the necessary affirmative determination. Because any 
delay will only delay the benefits the Nation will reap through 
exports, we hope the President will act as quickly as may be 
practicable.
  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.
  Prior to our taking the underlying bill to the floor, the U.S. Trade 
Representative assured my committee that this provision would not 
violate our GATT obligations. As made clear in the statement of 
managers, the conferees 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 implementing legislation for the United 
States-Canada Free Trade Agreement.
  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 
overwhelming benefits to the Nation of ANS exports, the Secretary 
should promulgate any rules necessary contemporaneously with the 
President's national interest determination.
  Title III of the bill would provide royalty relief for leases on 
Outer Continental Shelf tracts in deep water in certain areas of the 
Gulf of Mexico. Deep water royalty is an issue I have been working on 
with the ranking member of the Energy Committee for some time.
  I support measures to stimulate oil and gas exploration and 
production on the Outer Continental Shelf [OCS] and the deep water 
royalty provisions in S. 395 would be an important step in stimulating 
energy exploration and development and reducing our reliance on foreign 
oil.
  A report released earlier this year by the Commerce Department 
suggests that our national security is at risk because we now import 
more than 50 percent of our domestic petroleum requirements. Department 
of Energy [DOE] figures predict that crude oil imports will hit 65 
percent in the year 2000, and by the year 2005 we will be importing 
over two-thirds--68 percent --of our crude oil.
  The OCS is an invaluable oil and natural gas resource and a prolific 
source of revenue to the U.S. Treasury, having generated more than $100 
billion in revenues over the years. The OCS could play a major role in 
reducing the amount of dollars we send overseas to import oil and 
natural gas. In 1993, our energy deficit was $46 billion--roughly 40 
percent of the total U.S. merchandise trade deficit of $116 billion.
  OCS production from deep water areas could help improve energy 
security, reduce our deficit in our balance of payments, create jobs, 
stimulate demand for related goods and services, and provide needed 
revenue through bonus bids, royalties, and ripple effect tax benefits.
  The basic need for this legislation is very easy to justify: oil and 
gas reserves nearest to shore or with easiest access are being 
depleted, and as this happens companies are forced to look in deeper 
water for more reserves. That is especially true in the Western and 
Central Gulf of Mexico, where oil and gas exploration and production 
activity has declined and it is now necessary for companies to move 
further and further offshore into water depths previously thought to be 
prohibitive, both economically and technologically.
  I believe the deep water royalty provisions are necessary to 
stimulate OCS oil and gas production and reduce our reliance on foreign 
imports. I support the deep water provisions and urge adoption of the 
conference report on these important provisions.
  Mr. President, let me give a brief outline of the legislation that is 
before us, S. 395, title I, called the Alaska Power Administration 
sale. Title I of S. 395 provides for the sale of the Alaska Power 
Administration's assets and the termination of the Alaska Power 
Administration once the sale occurs.
  The sale of the Alaska Power Administration has been a bipartisan 
effort on the part of both the House and the Senate and the culmination 
of the efforts of three administrations. It has been some time in the 
process. It was initiated during the Reagan administration, it was 
signed during the Bush administration, and the implementing legislation 
which is contained in this bill was proposed by the current 
administration.
  On September 29 of this year, the Department of Energy, Secretary 
O'Leary, wrote in support of this legislation, and on October 10 of 
this year, the Edison Electric Institute wrote in support of the 
legislation on behalf of the investor-owned electric utility industry.
  Mr. President, this organization, known as the Alaska Power 
Administration, is really unique among the Federal marketing 
administrations. First of all, unlike the other Federal power marketing 
administrations, the Alaska Power Administration owns its power 
generating facilities. These are two hydroelectric projects, one in 
Anchorage and another near Juneau. They are approximately 600 to 700 
miles apart.
  Second, the single-purpose hydroelectric projects were not built as a 
result of water resource management plans. Instead, they were built to 
promote economic development and the establishment of essential 
industries within the areas that they serve.
  Third, the Alaska Power Administration operates entirely within one 
State. These services do not cross State lines. And because of the 
distance between the two areas; namely, 

[[Page S 17022]]
Anchorage and Juneau, there is no opportunity for an intertie. These 
facilities are separate and distinct.
  Furthermore, the Alaska Power Administration was never intended to 
remain indefinitely under Government control. This is specifically 
recognized in the Eklutna project authorization legislation.
  Fifth, the sale terms of the Alaska Power Administration that were 
specifically negotiated between the Federal Government and the 
purchasers are memorialized in the purchase contract.
  So for those who might be concerned that this sets precedent, Mr. 
President, for PMA's, this is clearly not the case, as it is applied to 
the Alaska Power Administration.
  Now, as I have indicated, these two hydroelectric projects in 
Anchorage and Juneau are known as Snettisham in Juneau and Eklutna in 
Anchorage. Snettisham is a 78-megawatt project located about 45 miles 
south of Juneau. It has been in Juneau, which is the capital city's 
main power source, since 1975, accounting for approximately 80 percent 
of the electric supply utilization in that area. Eklutna is a smaller 
plant, a 30-megawatt project, located 34 miles northeast of Anchorage. 
It has served that area since 1955, accounting for about 5 percent of 
the electric supply in the Anchorage area.
  The Alaska Power Administration's assets will be sold pursuant to the 
1989 purchase agreement between the Department of Energy and the 
purchasers. Snettisham will be sold to the State of Alaska. Eklutna 
will be sold jointly to the municipality of Anchorage, the Chugach 
Electric Association, and the Matanuska Electric Association.
  The sales price is determined by calculating the net present value to 
the remaining debt service payments that the Treasury would receive if 
the Federal Government had retained ownership of the two projects. It 
is anticipated that the sale proceeds will be in the area of $85 
million. Actual sales price will vary with the interest rate at the 
time of purchase.
  I might add, the bill and separate formal agreements provide for the 
full protection of fish and wildlife on each of these hydroelectric 
projects. The purchaser, the State of Alaska, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, and U.S. Department of the 
Interior have jointly entered into a formal binding agreement providing 
for post-sale protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and 
wildlife resources affected by the Eklutna and Snettisham projects. S. 
395 makes that agreement legally enforceable.
  As a result of this formal agreement, the Department of Energy, 
Department of the Interior, and the Department of Commerce all agree 
that the two hydroelectric projects warrant exemption from FERC 
licensing under the Federal Power Act.
  The August 7, 1991, purchase agreement states in part,

       The National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and 
     Wildlife Services in the State agree that the following 
     mechanisms to protect and implement measures to protect and 
     mitigate damages to and enhance fish and wildlife, including 
     related spotting grounds and habitat, obviate the need for 
     Eklutna purchasers to obtain FERC licensing.

  Further, the Alaska Power Administration has some 34 people located 
currently in Alaska. The purchasers of the two projects have pledged to 
hire as many of these individuals as possible. For those who do not 
receive offers of employment, the Department of Energy has pledged that 
it will offer other employment.
  Let me return at this time briefly to title II, known as the Alaska 
North Slope crude oil exports. Title II of Senate bill 395 would allow 
the exports of Alaska North Slope crude oil, limited to U.S.-flag and 
U.S. crude vessels.
  The export restrictions were first enacted shortly after the 
commencement of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war and the first Arab oil 
boycott. Following the second major oil shock in 1979, Congress 
effectively imposed a ban on exports. Much has changed since then.
  Last year, for the first time, imports met more than half of our 
domestic consumption because domestic consumption production has 
drastically declined.
  By precluding the market from operating normally, the export ban has 
had the unintended effect of discouraging further energy production.
  With this market disorientation eliminated, producers will make 
substantial investments in California and other areas that would lead 
to additional production on shore.
  Every barrel of additional oil produced in California and on the 
North Slope is one less that would have to be imported from the Middle 
East or anywhere else in the world, where currently our imports are 
about 51 percent of our total consumption.
  Some Senators have expressed concern that lifting the ANS export oil 
ban would jeopardize the supply of U.S. crude on the west coast. It is 
important to recognize that Washington and California are the closest 
and are natural markets for ANS crude because of the transportation 
distance. Washington and California ports are the closest to Alaska, 
and the ANS crude will continue to be supplied to their refineries 
because of the cost and proximity.
  Furthermore, the only major refinery that previously opposed the 
lifting of the ban, Tosco, has a 5-year contract with one of the major 
oil companies to keep the refinery in Washington supplied. There is 
still nearly 4 years to run on that contract.
  Further, the lifting of the oil export ban would relieve the pressure 
that forces some of the ANS crude oil down to Panama where it is 
unloaded and transported across Panama via pipeline and then reloaded 
onto vessels to take it into the gulf coast.
  It no longer makes economic sense to handle the oil that many times 
and transport it the long distance. That is the oil that will be 
available for export.
  Let me elaborate a little more on this because there has been concern 
expressed in this body, and by others, as to the merits of why we would 
attempt to increase development of oil on the west coast of the United 
States and Alaska, from the standpoint of exploration, at the same time 
we are authorizing the export of Alaskan oil that previously has been 
precluded from export.
  Again, let me ask the Chair to visualize the circumstances. The oil 
that is produced from Alaska initially was 2 million barrels a day--now 
1\1/2\ million barrels a day--moves down the west coast and is dropped 
off at Puget Sound, or San Francisco Bay, or the Los Angeles area for 
their refineries to refine that oil. There is some excess. That excess, 
for the last 17 to 18 years, has been going down to Panama.
  In Panama, there is a pipeline across the isthmus, and that excess 
oil is unloaded off United States-flag vessels from Valdez, AK, moving 
through the pipeline across the Isthmus of Panama and then is required 
to be reloaded on a smaller United States tanker and taken into the 
gulf ports of Galveston and other areas, where the oil is refined.
  Because of the double handling, it is no longer economic to take that 
oil in that rather cumbersome process. This is the oil that we would 
anticipate that would be marketed into primarily the Pacific rim ports. 
And one has to consider the merits of taking oil that is excess to the 
west coast and transporting it over the Pacific, across the Pacific to 
Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, in United States-flag vessels with United 
States crews, when indeed that oil can be imported into those 
countries, the Mideast or whatever, in foreign-flag vessels.
  So I want to put to rest the thought that there would be any 
significant amount of oil moved that would be detrimental to the 
concentration of where the oil is currently consumed; namely, the West 
Coast of the United States. What we are really looking at is that oil 
that is excess to the west coast, currently moving through the Panama 
Canal at substantial costs, that it simply makes sense to move that oil 
to the markets where that oil can be consumed in a more economic, 
viable manner.
  So, Mr. President, the current prohibition just does not make 
economic sense. For too long it has hurt the citizens of my State of 
Alaska. It has certainly damaged the California oil and gas onshore 
industry and precluded many of the small stripper wells from producing 
in the market and from functioning normally and freely.
  I might add, a recently released Department of Energy report 
determined that lifting the Alaska crude oil export ban would 
specifically: First, add as 

[[Page S 17023]]
much as $180 million in tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury by the year 
2000; second, allow California to earn as much as $230 million during 
that same period; third, increase U.S. employment somewhere between 
11,000 and 16,000 jobs by 1995, and perhaps 25,000 jobs by the year 
2000.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I want to ask my colleague what the vote was in the 
energy committee on this bill, the Alaska North Slope bill, when it 
came out?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I can respond just very briefly, the energy 
committee, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, voted to support 
that. It would take me a moment to look at the exact vote, but it was 
overwhelming in support. I want to acknowledge that my good friend from 
Louisiana, who is the ranking member of that committee, perhaps he has 
the exact figure available to him.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. My recollection was that it came out without 
opposition. I do not recall precisely.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Louisiana is almost correct. Since 
this is government business, it is close enough for government work, 
but it was 17 to 4.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. What was the position of the administration on this 
bill?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. As I indicated in my remarks earlier, the 
administration does support the bill. The Secretary of Energy supports 
the bill, and I know of no opposition within the administration to the 
bill.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. When the bill came up on the floor here for a vote, 
does the Senator recall that was cleared on the hotline and passed on a 
voice vote? Am I correct on that?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If my memory serves me correct, it was voted on and it 
passed. I think we had about 70 votes, but I have to defer to the 
record.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I stand corrected. I am advised it was 74 yeas and 25 
nays.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. And if I may correct the record in response to the 
Senator from Louisiana, the vote in question in the Energy Committee 
was 14 to 4.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. It was 14 to 4. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I would like to offer my strong support and 
endorsement of the conference report on S. 395, the Alaska Power 
Administration sale and exports of Alaskan North Slope oil. This 
legislation is supported by the President, was passed with an 
overwhelming margin by the House last week and should be passed with a 
similar margin in the Senate.
  Title III of S. 395 is the Outer Continental Shelf [OCS] Deep Water 
Royalty Relief Act. This provision is straightforward. For the next 5 
years, deep water leases will be offered for sale under the following 
terms: First, payment of an upfront bonus bid, and second, waiver of 
the royalty on a fixed volume of oil and gas based on the water depth 
of the lease. In addition, this provision provides for royalty relief 
to encourage production on existing leases only if the Secretary of the 
Interior determines the leases would not be drilled but for the relief. 
It only affects leasing and development in oil and gas producing areas 
of the central and western Gulf of Mexico west of the Alabama-Florida 
border. This provision does not in any way affect leasing or 
development off the coast of Florida or any other region of the Outer 
Continental Shelf, nor does it affect any areas or leases subject to 
moratorium.
  The Treasury will gain in two ways from these leases that otherwise 
would never have been developed--from current tax revenues and from 
royalties once the waiver volume has been produced. This provision will 
generate substantial revenues over the next 5 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 system 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 [CBO] estimated the Outer Continental 
Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act, introduced in the Senate as S. 
158, would generate additional revenues of $100 million over 5 years. 
The Minerals Management Service [MMS] of the Department of Interior has 
estimated that bonus bids would increase by $485 million over 5 years 
as a direct result of enactment of this legislation. In particular, MMS 
stated that the leases sold over the next 5 years ``could be expected 
to rise by 150 percent, with higher percentage increases at greater 
water depths.''
  It is essential that the United States remedy this inane policy of 
chronic reliance on oil imports when we can more effectively develop 
our domestic resources in areas such as the central and western gulf. 
The United States is currently importing 50 percent of its oil at a 
cost of over $50 billion per year. By the year 2010, the Department of 
Energy predicts imports will have risen to 60 percent of consumption. 
In February of this year, the President announced that the current 
level of oil imports ``threaten[s] the Nation's security because they 
increase U.S. vulnerability to oil supply disruptions.'' Some 4.2 
million of the 8 million barrels per day of oil imports are from OPEC 
countries.
  Major deep water development projects are funded with international 
capital. Failure to invest in the Gulf of Mexico is a lost opportunity 
for the United States. Those dollars will not move into other domestic 
development; they will move to Asia, South America, the Middle East, or 
the former Soviet Union. In 1985, the domestic producers capable of 
developing projects of this magnitude were investing two-thirds of 
their exploration and production capital in the United States. This 
figure has been on a steady downward trend, currently only one-third of 
those dollars are being invested in the United States. Due to the high 
cost of development in deep waters, currently only 6 percent of the 
leases sold are ever developed. The Department of the Interior projects 
this provision will more than double production otherwise expected to 
be brought on line. One deep water platform costs upward of $1 
billion--this translates directly into jobs. According to the Bureau of 
Labor statistics each $1 billion invested in the oil and gas extraction 
industry generates 20,000 new jobs.
  This provision will improve our energy security situation, create 
jobs, and benefit the Treasury.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I add, from the standpoint of the ranking member, 
Senator Johnston, his position has always been in support of this 
legislation covering all aspects of title I, title II, and I have not 
mentioned title III, but that is the deep-water royalty, which I know 
the Senator from Louisiana supports as well.
  May I take this opportunity to thank him and his colleagues on the 
Energy Committee for their continued support.
  Let me just very briefly conclude a couple points on title II and a 
few remarks very briefly on title III.
  I was recounting the Department of Energy report determining that the 
lifting of the Alaska crude oil ban would accomplish some specific 
objectives and inject an economic impact of substance. First was to add 
as much as $180 million in tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury by the year 
2000; second, to allow California to earn as much as $230 million in 
the same period; third, increase U.S. employment by 11,000 to 16,000 
jobs by 1995, and up to 25,000 by the year 2000; preserve as many as 
3,300 maritime jobs; increase American oil production by as much as 
110,000 barrels a day by the year 2000; add 200 to 400 million barrels 
of Alaska oil reserves.
  Another point I think deserves mentioning is some Members have 
expressed concern that gas prices might go up on the west coast if 
export of ANS oil is authorized. That is a legitimate concern, but it 
is simply not the case. The Department of Energy studied this issue and 
concluded that customers and consumers would not see a discernible 
increase at the gas pump.
  Another concern you might hear today is that the crude oil exports 
will 

[[Page S 17024]]
create some increased hazards, including increased chances of oil 
spills. I think that needs some definitive identification. The 
Department of Energy carefully studied this issue and found that 
exports of Alaskan oil will actually decrease--decrease, Mr. 
President--tanker traffic in the U.S. waters.
  Furthermore, any tankers exporting ANS oil exported from Alaska will 
proceed over 200 miles off the coast of Alaska--over 200 miles 
offshore--while proceeding overseas. In other words, the oil has all 
been moving off the coast of Alaska, off the coast of British Columbia 
and the Queen Charlotte Islands, off the coast of Washington, Oregon, 
and California.
  That will not be the case with that portion of the oil that will be 
exported. It will move in larger vessels, hence reducing the number of 
vessels, and it will move across the ocean as compared to moving 
parallel to our west coast of the United States and Canada.
  There are other concerns that exporting oil will decrease work for 
U.S. shipyards. However, I think it will have the reverse effect. Most 
tankers in the trade will stay in the U.S. trade and therefore be 
repaired in U.S. yards.
  If Alaska crude oil production continues to decline in part because 
of the depressed prices caused by the export ban, why, then, there 
would be less tankers in service to put in and available for repair.
  One should remember that any U.S.-flagged tanker that is repaired in 
a foreign yard is subject to a 50-percent fee that is paid to the 
Federal Government as a penalty for repair in those foreign yards. 
Clearly, there is enough opposition and enough economic detraction to 
ensure that those tankers will not be repaired in U.S. yards.
  Finally, of course, what we are doing is ensuring that more vessels 
will be employed in the trade because what we are doing is moving some 
of this oil--not very much, but some of it--further. If you move it 
further, it takes more time. It takes more time, you need more ships.
  So it is anticipated more steps would be taken on a lay up with U.S. 
crews. So we are putting U.S. sailors to work in the international 
trade.
  Finally, title III, which is part of the Senate bill, is entitled 
``deep-water OCS royalty relief.'' I know my good friend from Louisiana 
has worked very hard, and his colleagues, to ensure that we had 
adequate support in both the Senate and the House on this portion. It 
is in the energy security interests of our Nation to do so.
  It would encourage oil and gas exploration and production in the deep 
waters of the western and central Gulf of Mexico. It would offer the 
incentive to drill in deep-water areas defined as those being in water 
depths greater than roughly 200 meters, or 600 feet, by exempting 
increasingly larger amounts of new production as water depths increase. 
With modern technology, we will be able to allow oil and gas extraction 
in deep-water areas in excess of this 2,000 to 3,000 feet, but the cost 
would be tremendous, Mr. President.
  Stimulus is needed to recover oil resources believed to lie in the 
deep-water areas of the central and western Gulf of Mexico. It would 
not cost the American taxpayer a cent, but would cause oil to be 
produced that otherwise would remain in the ground without this relief.
  This legislation is necessary as a consequence of the recent Commerce 
Department report indicating the United States is importing now more 
than half of its domestic crude oil needs, and this presents a 
potential threat to our national security.
  Further, the Department of Energy figures predict the crude oil 
imports will hit some 65 percent by the year 2000, and by the year 2005 
we could be exporting more than two-thirds or 68 percent of our crude 
oil. Two-thirds of our crude oil would be imported in less than 10 
years.
  The OCS is an invaluable oil and natural gas resource and prolific 
source of revenue to the U.S. Treasury which has generated historically 
more than $100 billion in revenues. The OCS could play a major role in 
reducing the amount of dollars spent overseas to import oil and natural 
gas. We import dollars and export our jobs, Mr. President. In 1993, it 
was important to note the energy deficit ran as high as $46 billion, 
roughly 40 percent of the total U.S. merchandise trade deficit of $116 
billion.
  If we look at our trade deficit, Mr. President, half of it primarily 
with our trade inequity with Japan and the other half is imported oil. 
OCS production for deep-water areas could help improve energy security, 
reduce the deficit and balance of payments, create jobs, stimulate 
demand for related goods and services, and provide needed revenue 
through bonus bids, royalty, ripple effects, and so forth.
  Mr. President, I might add again that President Clinton has indicated 
that he will sign this legislation, and I know there are concerns that 
were concerns expressed by my good friend, the junior Senator from 
Washington, relative to ensuring adequate safeguards be implemented in 
regard to tankers in Puget Sound. I am sure she is prepared to speak on 
that.
  I know my colleague, the senior Senator from Oregon, is concerned 
about the effect that this activity would have on his shipyard on the 
Columbia River.
  So I am sure that we will have some debate on the Senate bill, and I 
look forward to that.
  At this time, Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
conference report, and ask how much time I have taken on my hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 36 minutes 40 seconds 
remaining.
  The yeas and nays have been requested.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I stand here today concerned, anxious, 
and worried. Along with all Americans, we have nervously waited as this 
budget impasse puts every citizen in a precarious situation.
  It seems incredible to me on a day where the Government is shut down 
and the budget is in crisis we are on the floor of the Senate debating 
a major giveaway to foreign oil companies. I must say that I am deeply 
concerned that in the midst of a national catastrophe we may pass 
legislation that begins another national crisis.
  I know that not all of my colleagues understand the ramifications of 
S. 395. I realize that many feel this is an Alaskan issue and, because 
of that, some have questioned my intense interest in this issue. For 
nearly 2 days this past spring I held the Senate floor expressing my 
dissatisfaction with this bill. I often stood alone. But in the end 
several of my colleagues came forward to express concerns of their own. 
All of the arguments raised on each side of this issue are, 
unfortunately, based on assumptions, and that remains the crux of our 
problem in this debate. Those in favor of exporting Alaskan North Slope 
oil say it will increase production, promote jobs, and raise revenues 
for the State of Alaska. These are positive possibilities that 
certainly help my neighboring State of Alaska, and if the impact of 
exporting that oil stops within Alaska's boundaries, I would have 
wholeheartedly accepted this legislation and would have wished my 
neighbor success. However, that additional income for a few of our 
citizens must be weighed by a body charged with addressing the concerns 
of an entire nation.

  After 8 months of intense scrutiny of this issue, I am still 
convinced that the exporting of American oil can only lead to job 
losses, price increases, a dependence on foreign oil, and great 
environmental risks.
  I know that my colleagues from Alaska can show stunning charts that 
predict differently. However, these are merely predictions. We do not 
know that tankers heading to Asia with Alaskan oil will not stay in 
Asia for ship repair. This means 5,000 jobs within our region and $160 
million in annual employment income--more than half of the marine 
industry's west coast employment.
  We do not know that Alaskan oil, once bound for independent 
refineries within Puget Sound will now steer for Far-Eastern markets 
throwing 2,000 refinery workers out on the streets. We do not know that 
exports of our oil will not lead to price increases at the pump for our 
citizens.
  And perhaps most importantly to me and the millions of residents of 
Washington State that live, play, and work 

[[Page S 17025]]
along the beautiful waters of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de 
Fuca, we have no guarantee that exporting U.S. oil will not lead to 
increased oil imports on environmentally risky, foreign ships. The 
Coast Guard rates as high risk one half of the current foreign tanker 
fleet that carries crude through Puget Sound.
  This is why I have stood for so long. I have remained stubborn and 
angered some of my colleagues for concerns that I truly believe 
outweigh the benefits garnered by a single State.
  I was able to include several amendments that I thought would attempt 
to address these concerns. Knowing that a Senate cloture vote was 
impossible, I relented on this legislation with the assurance that my 
amendments would be included. These amendments included a thorough GAO 
study that examines job, price, and environmental changes before oil 
exports may begin. I was also able to include language that mandated an 
escort vessel, dedicated at the entry to Washington State waters and 
available 24 hours a day to assist tankers that have run adrift.
  For the first time, we had created legislation that proactively 
fought oilspills. This amendment would have prevented the spill before 
it occurred rather than focusing on the millions spent on cleanup of 
these spills once the damage is done.
  Unfortunately, even this was too much for House conferees concerned 
more with overmanagement of the Coast Guard rather than the protection 
of our fragile coast. The current language adopted by the House 
mandates a 15-month plan that would implement a private-sector tug-of-
opportunity system. This system utilizes current vessels already in 
operation, coordinated to provide timely emergency response to vessels 
in distress. It also directs the Coast Guard commandant to work with 
the Canadian Government in implementing this plan and making available 
Coast Guard equipment for purposes of response.
  I am pleased that this language incorporates the private industry. I 
applaud the proactive segments of this community who came forward to 
seek a compromised solution. Our intent was never to tax cargo and 
grain shippers, but to impose a fee on those who stand to gain millions 
from these oil exports--the oil companies themselves. This new 
amendment does clarify that U.S. shippers will not be taxed and their 
continued desire to meet these environmental concerns is commendable.
  I still feel this language does not go far enough, though. I am 
concerned that without a dedicated vessel at one location, the 
availability of an operating tug may put them out of reach of the 
distressed vessel. I am also concerned that once that tug reaches the 
distressed tanker, it may not have the capability to tow that large 
vessel, or in the least hold it from running aground.
  Sadly, we may not know the answers to all of these questions until 
oil is exported, foreign tankers are moving through our waters and we 
experience a major oilspill. None of us, particularly my colleagues 
from Alaska, ever want to relive the Valdez situation. None of us want 
oil on our hands under our watch. When and where it will happen remains 
the paramount question. I only hope that all in this body can head home 
at night knowing that we did all within our power to decrease that 
risk. The White House has committed to me that they will proactively 
seek out these risks, even before the 15-month study expires. They are 
prepared to conduct hearings in the State that address these issues and 
will enter into the Record a letter from the White House stating these 
actions. I appreciate that commitment and hope I can count on the 
Alaskan leadership to do all that they can to meet these environmental 
concerns before exports begin.
  I realize that I can stand again for 2 days or 2 weeks and try to 
delay this legislation. However, I am a realist who knows that this 
legislation could be attached to reconciliation without amendments, and 
I understand that the votes to stop these exports that were there for 
decades have now been reversed. I only ask my colleagues to try to 
understand some of the logic that has motivated the debate to export 
oil. It is truly in our national interest to produce our own oil, and 
if we agree that the North Slope of Alaska has a finite amount of oil 
left, why must we send our oil overseas and more quickly dry up our own 
wells? There are certainly projected increases, but to whose benefit?--
executives of British Petroleum and car owners in Tokyo.
  Further, it will only lead us closer and much more quickly to the 
opening of ANWR. More U.S. oil can be expected to be exported, and will 
again pit profits of international interests against environmental 
concerns.
  I ask everyone to consider the implications of exporting our oil: the 
policy implications, job risks, price concerns, and environmental 
risks. If you truly believe that these questions pale in comparison to 
the profits of a very few, then support 395. Otherwise, vote with a 
clear conscience that errs on the side of people and the world we are 
entrusted to protect. I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
conference report.
  Again, Mr. President, I must say that it does seem very disconcerting 
to me when my office phones are ringing off the hook with my 
constituents who are saying this Government is shut down, it is hurting 
me, and it is hurting our country. It is not the right direction that 
we are standing in front of this body debating a bill that will benefit 
an oil company, a special interest.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I believe my senior colleague from 
Alaska would like time on this bill. I yield 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, let me ask the Senator from 
Massachusetts. Is he going to make a statement on this? Does the 
Senator from Massachusetts seek time on this bill, or another matter?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Senator sought time on the bill but not 
speaking specifically to the subject matter.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, in February, Senator Murkowski and I introduced this 
bill, the Alaska Power Administration Sale Act. There are several bills 
put together here. I am very pleased to be here today to congratulate 
Senator Murkowski and to speak in support of this conference report. 
The House has agreed to this bill, and the President said that he would 
sign it. I urge the Members of the Senate to support the conference 
report.
  For Senators not familiar with the Alaska Power Administration, I 
would like to point out that Congress authorized the Eklutna and 
Snettisham hydroelectric projects in 1950 and in 1962, respectively. 
Those were to encourage and promote economic development and to foster 
establishment of essential industry in Alaska. The projects have 
provided, at moderate prices, substantial amounts of hydroelectric 
energy for marketing in our area. There are no other proposed Federal 
projects in Alaska.
  As Alaska's economy has grown, the relative importance of the Federal 
power program in Alaska has decreased. This is a bill that is long 
overdue. The idea to privatize the Alaska Power Administration is not 
new. During the Nixon administration, I introduced the bill that 
proposed to sell the Federal energy project in Alaska, and in the last 
20 years, during three administrations, there have been 14 different 
studies of whether or not this APA, as we call it, should be 
privatized.
  Today, more than 90 percent of the State's electric power needs are 
provided by non-Federal power plants. Federal operations such as the 
Alaska Power Administration can be managed more efficiently by non-
Federal public or private entities. The State of Alaska and the local 
electric utilities which have entered into formal agreements to 
purchase these projects are capable of planning, building, and managing 
our State's power facilities in a manner that is consistent with our 
future energy needs.
  We are concerned about the people who work for the Alaska Power 
Administration, and we should be. Today, 

[[Page S 17026]]
there are 34 people who still work in the Federal Government for the 
APA. The project purchasers have pledged to hire as many of these 
employees as possible, and the Department of Energy has pledged that it 
will offer employment to any Alaska Power Administration employee who 
does not receive offers, although the Department jobs are probably 
going to be in what we call the lower 48 States.
  The sales of Eklutna and Snettisham are expected to generate Federal 
proceeds now of about $73 million. That is nearly a total recovery of 
the original investment in these projects, and there have been payments 
made over the period of their use.
  The sale and termination of the Alaska Power Administration now is 
supported by each of the Alaska Power Administration's utility 
customers, the municipalities of Juneau and Anchorage, Alaska's 
Governor, and the administration here in Washington.
  I do support that portion of this conference report and urge the 
Senate to approve the report that recommends the privatization of the 
APA.
  Let me now just mention briefly title II, which is the Trans-Alaska 
Pipeline Authorization Act amendment, which will permit the export of 
Alaska's North Slope crude oil carried in U.S.-flag vessels.
  This legislation will create jobs and economic wealth around the 
Nation and increase oil production in Alaska and in California. It will 
ensure the survival of an independent U.S. tanker fleet manned by U.S. 
crews, a critical component I believe of our national security.
  This legislation eliminates the discrimination that has persisted 
exclusively against our State of Alaska for over 20 years, and the 
citizens of Alaska have waited for this day. They have waited too long.
  For those who may have forgotten, who were not around then, the first 
export restrictions of Alaska North Slope crude oil were enacted after 
commencement of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War and the first Arab boycott. 
Many believed that enactment of these restrictions would enhance our 
national security. Congress effectively banned export of Alaska crude 
oil in 1979, following a second major oil shock. But times have 
changed, and I have argued for a long time that the ban itself was and 
is unconstitutional.
  We have discovered that the ban has had the unintended effect of 
actually threatening our energy security by discouraging further energy 
production and creating unfair hardships for the struggling oil 
industry, particularly in the Southwest. Fundamentally, the existing 
export restriction distorts the crude oil markets in Alaska and the 
west coast. The ban has created a glut of oil on the west coast, and 
faced with glut-induced prices small independent producers have been 
forced to abandon wells, the so-called stripper wells, particularly in 
California.
  In 1994, for the first time in history, more than half of the oil 
used in the United States was imported at a cost of over $50 billion a 
year. By the year 2010, we will be importing over 60 percent of our oil 
needs but part of the reason is the reason for this legislation itself. 
We have in our increased reliance on foreign oil brought about the 
situation where it is not profitable to drill and produce new 
discoveries in our own country. We are importing over half of our 
Nation's oil not because consumption is rising but because domestic 
production is declining so significantly and this legislation will 
provide the incentive to domestic producers to correct that situation.
  Currently, most North Slope crude oil is delivered to the west coast, 
especially California, on U.S.-flag vessels. The existence of a single 
market for Alaskan oil drastically reduces the value of the oil and 
creates an artificial surplus on the west coast. This depresses the 
production and development of both North Slope crude and the heavy 
crude produced by small independent producers in California.
  As existing oil fields become depleted, the domestic oil industry 
must find new sources of oil and new technologies of production if they 
are going to stay in business. But they don't have the incentive.
  In June 1994, the Department of Energy issued a comprehensive report 
as part of the administration's ``Domestic Natural Gas and Oil 
Initiative.'' The Department concluded in this report that the export 
ban is an artificial subsidy that has depressed the price that west 
coast refiners pay for crude oil. A key conclusion of the report is 
that the national economic and energy benefits of permitting export of 
Alaska North Slipe crude oil would be significant. It would create new 
jobs, stimulate onshore production, and increase State and Federal 
revenues.
  Oil production-related employment would increase by up to 25,000 jobs 
nationally by the end of the decade; many would be in California oil 
production.
  The export of Alaskan oil would boost production in Alaska and 
California by 100,000 to 110,000 barrels per day by the end of the 
century.
  Federal receipts would total between $99 and $180 million in 1992 
dollars.
  Alaska and California would also gain. Alaska would gain $700 million 
to $1.6 billion in taxes and royalties, while California's return would 
be as much as $230 million. These are net gains.
  The Department of Energy also found that there would be no 
significant environmental implications from the export of Alaskan oil.
  Mr. President, in addition to creating jobs and economic wealth for 
the Nation at little cost to the environment, this legislation will go 
a long way toward helping to preserve our U.S. tanker fleet. Congress 
has a compelling interest in preserving a fleet essential to the 
Nation's military security, especially one which transports such a 
valuable commodity as oil. This bill requires that Alaskan oil 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.
  Finally, as I have said before, the prohibition on the export of 
Alaskan North Slope crude oil is unfair. Alaska is the only State 
prohibited from exporting its most marketable product.
  Mr. President, thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of 
this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I do again congratulate the chairman of the Energy Committee, my good 
friend and colleague, Senator Murkowski, for his persistence, and I 
thank him for the opportunity to speak in support of this conference 
report. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  If I have any further time, I yield it back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I did want to enter into the Record a statement from the 
White House at this point stating their plans to evaluate the 
environmental problems including holding field hearings in my State. 
Ironically, due to the Government shutdown, the Council of Economic 
Advisers and other White House staff working on that letter had to go 
home at noon today, so I will have to submit it when I get it. I guess 
irony goes to show it is extremely incredible to me that we are 
continuing to talk about this bill at a time when our budget is in 
crisis.
  I yield to my colleague from Massachusetts 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Washington.


                       Shutdown of the Government

  Mr. President, I had hoped to have time later today to talk about the 
situation we find ourselves in with respect to the budget and the so-
called shutdown of Government. Regrettably, we hear that the majority 
leader is going to, at least it appears, put the Senate into recess 
after the discussion on this bill. I think it would be unfortunate to 
deprive the Senate of the debate it is supposed to have on issues of 
great concern, and I hope it is not true that the majority leader 
intends to recess the Senate as a way of silencing voices that want to 
talk about what is happening to this country.
  Mr. President, what we find ourselves in is a moment of entirely 
predictable, crass, brazen, craven, basic political trickery.
  What we are living out at this moment is a simple choice by the 
Speaker of the House to confront America, and to confront the Senate, 
with either 

[[Page S 17027]]
bowing to the will of one group of people, without the legislative 
process duly working its will, or suffering the consequences of a 
shutdown. That is what has happened. It is fundamentally a form of 
blackmail. It is a hard term. It is a tough term. But that is exactly 
what is happening. It is either, you accept our way or everybody is 
going to pay a big price. Either you buy on to those things, which we 
are not able to pass through the normal legislative process, or we're 
willing to shut the Government down.
  Now, our colleague from North Dakota shared with us earlier this 
morning some very important statements that simply document what I have 
just said. If you do not want to believe the partisan words of a 
Democrat, fine. But listen to what Newt Gingrich himself said. On April 
3, in the Washington Times, Newt Gingrich vowed to ``create a titanic 
legislative standoff with President Clinton by adding vetoed bills to 
must-pass legislation, increasing the national debt ceiling.''
  On April 3, again the Washington Times, Speaker Gingrich boasted that 
the President ``will veto a number of things, and we'll then put them 
all on the debt ceiling. And then he'll decide how big a crisis he 
wants.''
  On June 3, Speaker Gingrich, in the Rocky Mountain News, said, :

       We're going to go over the liberal Democratic part of the 
     government and then say to them: `We could last 60 days, 90 
     days, 120 days, five years, a century. There's a lot of stuff 
     we don't care if it's ever funded.

  What is the ``stuff'' they do not care if it is ever funded? Well, 
evidently it is money for veterans because $15 billion is going to be 
cut right after we just marched around and celebrated Veterans Day. 
Perhaps as many as 35 out of 172 hospitals will be shut over the next 7 
years; 5 in the next year. I have veterans all over my State saying to 
me, ``What are you guys doing? Don't you remember the contract, the 
real contract with America?''
  Evidently, what they are willing to shut down is education, making it 
more expensive for kids to go to school, at the same time as they give 
people earning more than $300,000 a tax break; a fundamental breach of 
fairness.
  Now, I am not the only one who feels that fundamental breach of 
fairness. Let me read what one of their own, David Gergen, wrote just 
yesterday in the U.S. News & World Report. The headline: ``The GOP's 
`Fairness Doctrine'.'' And what he says is:

       U.S. News reported last week that internal studies by the 
     executive branch estimate that the lowest 20 percent of the 
     population would lose more income under these spending cuts 
     than the rest of the population combined. At the other end, 
     the highest 20 percent would gain more from the tax cuts than 
     everyone else combined.

  It goes on to say:

       Ronald Reagan is often invoked as the patron saint of this 
     revolution. How soon we forget that as president, Reagan 
     insisted that seven key programs in the safety net--Head 
     Start, Medicare, Social Security, veterans, Supplemental 
     Security Income, school lunches, and summer jobs for youth--
     would not be touched; now, six of those seven are under the 
     knife.

  So, Mr. President, what we have here is a fundamental confrontation 
with fairness, a fundamental confrontation with how we should do our 
legislative business.
  We Democrats are prepared to vote for a temporary extension 
immediately and are prepared to negotiate a fair budget. But Newt 
Gingrich and his soul mates want to come down here and say, ``Oh, no, 
no, no, no, that is not good enough. You're going to have to accept 
programs that we want to pass that we're not able to pass through the 
normal process. And if you don't do that, we're willing to continue to 
keep the Government shut down.''
  So, they have huge Medicare cuts included in here.
  Mr. President, I ask for 2 additional minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 2 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). The Senator is recognized for 2 
additional minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, here are these massive Medicare cuts, the 
largest ever in recent--I think ever in American history, $270 billion, 
so you can have a $245 billion tax cut. We have had 1 day of hearings 
on the impact of those cuts, and yet we have had in the House 42 days 
of hearings on Whitewater, Waco, and Ruby Ridge, and in the Senate we 
have had about 48 days of hearings on Whitewater and Ruby Ridge. One 
day of hearings on Medicare, which will affect millions of citizens, 
and day after day after day of hearings on Whitewater and Ruby Ridge. 
And now they are trying to ram that through with increases in Medicare 
payments on senior citizens by holding the entire Government hostage.
  Mr. President, it just violates most Americans' sense of fairness. It 
violates the tradition in this institution of legislating and of 
letting the votes fall where they may in trying to decide something. It 
really violates, I think, everybody's sense of how we ought to do 
business here. I tell you, as you look around the country, this is a 
very different revolution from what most Americans wanted.

  Most Americans voted for common sense. We are prepared to balance the 
budget. We are prepared to try to do it in 7 years or whatever. We are 
prepared to do that, Mr. President. But we are not prepared to succumb 
to a kind of political blackmail that forces people to do things that 
are against the Constitution of this country. And I hope that in the 
hours ahead, we will get back to a levelheadedness, a reasonableness 
that is the higher standard of how we should do business in the U.S. 
Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KERRY. I yield back, if there is any time.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from 
North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it is my hope that later today we will 
have an opportunity to have a discussion with our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle about the issues that have brought us to this 
point. I must say that I think today describes for all the American 
people why it is important, even in the Contract With America, to 
understand what the fine print in the contract really means.
  We are starting now to discover that something that is high sounding 
and was put together through polls and focus groups that looked 
attractive to the American people has some fine print that causes some 
dilemma.
  My colleague just read an analysis of this by David Gergen. David 
Gergen has worked in two Republican administrations: President Reagan 
and President Bush. He also worked in the Clinton administration. He 
described our circumstances this way: He said, ``The Republicans should 
get some credit for wanting to balance the budget.'' I agree. So should 
Democrats. In 1993, when we had a bill on the floor of the Senate that 
cut $500 billion from the deficit and led us to a position from having 
a $270 billion yearly deficit down to a $160 billion yearly deficit, I 
voted for that. That was heavy lifting because a lot of it was not very 
popular.
  We did not get one Republican vote, not even by accident. You would 
think occasionally someone would make a mistake here and vote for 
something good. But we did not even get one Republican vote for that. 
We passed it with all Democratic votes. The fact is, the deficit 
substantially reduced from $270 billion down to $160 billion.

  There is a lot of work left to do. I agree with that. And I think 
both parties ought to roll up their sleeves and get it done. But David 
Gergen is absolutely correct when he describes the problem with the 
Contract With America and the imposition of this so-called solution on 
the country at this point.
  What he describes is this: He says that a study that was developed 
last week shows the lowest 20 percent of the population would lose more 
income from these spending cuts. The lowest 20 percent would 
essentially lose more income than the top 80 percent. And he says the 
tax cuts--the top 20 percent will gain more from those tax cuts than 
the entire bottom 80 percent.
  Let me frame it a little differently. The priorities here are what is 
at odds. It is the disagreement; it is not the goal. All of us think we 
ought to balance the budget. The question is how? My hometown has about 
400 people. Let us assume we had a town meeting in my hometown in North 
Dakota and said, ``All of you take chairs.'' So we sat them all down. 
We sat them down. 

[[Page S 17028]]

  We say, ``All right, those in here with the least income, the 20 
percent of you with the least income, we would like you to stand up.'' 
So 20 percent of the population with the lowest income in my town 
stands up. And we say, ``All right, we've got a deal for you. We have 
all these spending cuts. You 20 percent with the lowest income in our 
town, you get 80 percent of the spending cuts. You are going to lose 80 
percent of the income from these spending cuts.'' Then we say, ``All 
right, you sit down.''
  Now, how about the 20 percent with the highest incomes in my 
hometown? ``Why don't you all stand up?'' And so the 20 percent with 
the highest incomes in my hometown stand up, and we say, ``We've got a 
deal for you. We're going to give you 80 percent. You 20 percent with 
the highest incomes, we're going to give you 80 percent of the tax 
cut.''
  Does anybody think there is any reasonable standard of fairness by 
which you could suggest that makes sense; the bottom 20 percent of the 
income earners take 80 percent of the spending cuts and the top 20 
percent of the income earners take 80 percent of the tax breaks? Well, 
that is what the Contract With America gives us.
  We come to a debate about priorities. It is a worthy debate to have. 
Some say, ``Let's build star wars. Let's buy B-2 bombers. Let's have 
more F-15's and F-16's than the Pentagon ordered and, by the way, even 
though we can afford all that, let's kick 55,000 kids off Head Start. 
Let's decide not to provide the kind of resources necessary to help 
low-income people stay warm in the winter. Let's decide we have low-
income veterans with disabilities that are not going to get all they 
should get. Let's decide to make it harder for middle-income families 
to send their kids to college.''
  Those are enormous differences in priorities. The debate is about 
priorities, not the goal, and the priorities are important. We do not 
come to this point by accident, the point of a shutdown.
  Last April, Speaker Gingrich started to boast about this. On April 3, 
he vowed ``to create a titanic legislative standoff with President 
Clinton by adding vetoed bills to must-pass legislation increasing the 
national debt ceiling.''
  I ask for 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 1 minute.
  Mr. DORGAN. He boasted that the President ``will veto a number of 
things, and we'll then put them all on the debt ceiling. And then he'll 
decide how big a crisis he wants.''
  Speaker Gingrich says: ``I don't care what the price is. I don't care 
if we have no executive offices and no bonds for 30 days--not this 
time.''
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. HARKIN. What was the date of those remarks?
  Mr. DORGAN. Some were April. The last one was September 22.
  Mr. HARKIN. The early one you quoted was April?
  Mr. DORGAN. April 3.
  Mr. HARKIN. So this is not a recent thing Speaker Gingrich said.
  Mr. DORGAN. No. The point of all this is, this is not a train wreck 
that ought to surprise everybody. This is the engineer of a locomotive 
who predicted in April he is going to cause a train wreck, boasted 
about it. I do not think anybody ought to take great credit for 
shutting down the Federal Government, all because the priorities are to 
say we would like to give the poorest people in town all the spending 
cuts and the richest people in town all the tax breaks.
  Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield, the Senator has made a very 
important point here. This is something that has been planned for some 
months.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Who yields 
time?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield my colleague from North Dakota 3 additional 
minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I think the Senator from North Dakota is making a very 
important point. I think a lot of people are confused who think this 
has happened over the last couple of days and it just sort of happened 
because things did not work out right.
  If I understand what the Senator from North Dakota is saying, and 
reading the quotes of Speaker Gingrich as long ago as April, this has 
sort of been a plan to create this kind of train wreck, and the Senator 
quoted Speaker Gingrich saying this back in April.
  I think the American people ought to understand that this is not 
something that just happened; that because the Speaker and his allies 
have not been able to get their work done in time--I will ask the 
Senator, is it not true that we did not filibuster, we did not stop 
these bills from going through?
  Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from Iowa is correct. In fact, only three 
appropriations bills have been signed by the President because he has 
not gotten the rest of them. The work was not done on time. In fact, 
the reconciliation bill is due on June 15. It is now 5 months later. It 
is scheduled to come to the floor later this week, but it is 5 months 
late.
  Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield further. Watching and observing 
the flow of legislation through here during the spring and summer and 
how it was slowed down, we did not filibuster. Things just did not 
happen. Like in the Agriculture Committee, we could not get our ag bill 
through. We still do not have an ag bill this late in the year. Now it 
occurs to me perhaps this was a design all along to create this 
impasse; to create an impasse so that we would have the kind of train 
wreck that we are looking at here with the shutting down of the 
Government. Just too many of these things fit together. It indicates to 
me that this has been part of an overall plan for some time.
  Mr. DORGAN. If I might say, this is not a search for villains, it is 
a search for solutions. This country has vexing problems, and we have 
to address the problems, but we do not solve problems by deciding to 
create train wrecks.
  I will say again, Speaker Gingrich on November 8 said ``he would 
force the Government to miss interest and principal payments for the 
first time ever to force Democrat Clinton's administration to agree to 
his'' deficit reduction plan. That is November 8, Investor's Business 
Daily. The point is, this is not an accident.

  In the Chaplain's prayer this morning at the start of the Senate 
session, he talked about the need for people to come together and to 
reason together. That is the basis of 200 years of democratic 
Government.
  We must find a compromise. We have people of vastly different views 
in a representative democracy. How do you resolve those? Over 200 
years, you resolve them by coming together and reasoning and reaching a 
reasonable compromise.
  The American people have a good sense of what is fair, a good sense 
of what a good compromise ought to be. What the American people have 
said clearly in the last couple of months is they are worried about the 
extremes here. People who never cared much about Medicare now pretend 
they want to save it. They do not want to save it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Who yields 
time?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from 
Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Washington, 
and I join my colleagues in regretting that it has been the decision of 
the majority leader not to permit those of us who want to be able to 
speak to the Senate and to talk with our colleagues about the current 
crisis that is affecting so many families, not only here in Washington 
but all across this Nation with all of the uncertainty it brings, to 
try to at least address that issue and to try and find some common 
ground in terms of how to avoid this current situation.
  I am grateful to the Senator from Washington for letting me speak 
briefly on the issue of where we are at this time and what we must look 
at.
  Madam President, the fundamental issue that divides the Democrats and 
Republicans is how to balance the budget. Only a few moments ago, the 
President of the United States, in an excellent address, restated his 
strong commitment to a balanced budget and challenged our Republican 
friends to work with him to try and achieve that in a way that is going 
to be fair and 

[[Page S 17029]]
where the issues of equity are going to be addressed.
  It is reckless and wrong for the Republicans to effectively shut down 
the Federal Government because they cannot get their way in balancing 
the budget. The Democrats categorically reject the Republican 
priorities that balance the budget on the backs of senior citizens, 
students, working families, and the environment.

  I, too, was a candidate in 1994. When I traveled around 
Massachusetts, my Republican opponents were not saying we are treating 
our elderly too well; we think that their copays and deductibles and 
premiums ought to go up; we think that we ought to tighten the belt on 
those who have contributed so much to making this a great country, who 
worked their way through the Great Depression and fought in the wars, 
that was never mentioned by my Republican opponent.
  We have to tighten the belt on education. Under this proposal, they 
are cutting 40 percent of all the education programs--all the education 
programs--$36 billion in cuts over the next 7 years under the 
Republican opposition, and about $30 billion in higher education. I did 
not travel around Massachusetts and hear we are doing too much in the 
education of handicapped children, or we are doing too much in terms of 
feeding children, or we are doing too much in taking down the dollar 
sign for the schools and colleges.
  We do not want signs on the schools and colleges of Massachusetts 
saying: ``Wealthy only need apply.''
  In the course of that campaign, I did not hear Republicans use the 
argument that working families of this country that are making up to 
$28,000, $29,000 and have several children and are able to have the 
EITC, have too much disposable income. We always hear on the floor of 
the U.S. Senate, ``Well, let's give the money back to the individuals 
who spend it. They can make a better judgment about how to spend their 
money than the Federal Government.''
  That seems to be a good enough rule for the wealthy individuals in 
this country but not for the working families, those that are making up 
to $30,000 a year. This Republican budget is saying that they are going 
to have their taxes increased. No one was talking about that in 1994 
and no one was talking about putting additional kinds of pressures on 
the needy, particularly the children. The belt is going to be tightened 
on the children of this country perhaps more severely than anyone else.
  No one was talking about our air was too clean, our water was too 
pure, that what we have to do is make way to limit the kinds of 
regulations and protections on legislation that, by and large, were 
signed by Republican Presidents and worked through this Congress in 
bipartisan ways.
  No one was talking about those particular issues in 1994, but I can 
tell you something, they will be talking about it in 1996, because 
those are the issues that are being addressed. And on each and every 
one of those issues, the Republican budget flunks every responsible 
test. The current Republican strategy is a serious mistake. If they 
want to enact priorities like this, they are going to have to elect a 
Republican President in 1996, and that is not going to happen.

  In sum, the current shutdown of the Federal Government is taking 
place, just as Speaker Gingrich has been planning and boasting about 
all year. My colleague from Massachusetts and my colleague from North 
Dakota have made that case here this afternoon. The shutdown is 
entirely unnecessary. We are at this point because the Republicans, who 
control the Congress, have passed only 4 of the 13 annual bills 
necessary to appropriate the funds to keep the Federal Government open 
for the coming year--only 4 of the 13 annual bills. They have failed to 
meet their responsibilities in this whole appropriations process.
  Those bills should have been passed by October 1, 6 weeks ago. We are 
6 weeks into the new fiscal year, and the Republicans in Congress have 
not done their job.
  The Government shutdown is part of a long-term strategy by the 
Speaker and the radical Republicans in Congress to force President 
Clinton to approve their extreme measures to destroy Medicare. Let it 
wither on the vine, as Gingrich said, cut education, limit the health 
and safety protections that have been built up over 30 years.
  The Democratic plan is based on genuine American values and 
priorities. It is a plan to balance the budget fairly, not at the 
expense of families and the environment, and it deserves to be passed 
by the Congress.
  Mrs. MURRAY. How much time is left on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 29 minutes, 45 seconds, and 
the Senator from Alaska has 27 minutes, 51 seconds.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Does the Senator from Alaska wish to take some time?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would like to continue to hold my time because 
several Senators are coming. So I will defer to the Democratic side.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator. To follow up on my colloquy with the 
Senator from North Dakota, let me just state that today the Republican 
leadership has put our country into an artificial crisis--an artificial 
crisis--which is a very cynical act, and I think a very shameful act.
  Let us make no mistake about what is going on. The Republican 
leadership is holding a gun to the head of the President and the whole 
Government, saying that if they are not able to get their way by 
cutting Medicare, by putting an additional $130-a-year burden on our 
seniors, on their part B premiums, they are going to shut the 
Government down.
  Let me repeat that. The Republican leadership is saying that unless 
you let us put an additional tax on seniors of $130 per senior, per 
year for Medicare part B, we are going to shut the Government down.
  I do not know what they could possibly be thinking about. The 
American people have said, very loudly and clearly, that they do not 
want to cut Medicare. Our elderly are saying, look, we have enough 
bills to pay, and now you want us to pay more? It is $132 a year--what 
a ransom; holding the elderly ransom to get their way, and shutting 
down the Government.
  Madam President, 50 percent of the elderly in the State of Iowa have 
an annual income of less than $12,000 a year. Eighty percent of the 
elderly have an income of less than $25,000 a year. Now they are being 
told they have to pay an additional $130 a year for Medicare part B 
premiums. That is the rider that is on the continuing resolution.
  The President of the United States has said, ``You take that off and 
we will negotiate.'' He is right. That is nonnegotiable, especially on 
a continuing resolution. If the Republicans want to put it on 
legislation and pass it, as they try to do through the reconciliation 
process, that is fine. But to use a short-term resolution to keep the 
Government operating is really a cynical and a shameful act.
  It also really amazes me that Republicans are willing to go after the 
seniors to raise the money for Medicare before they go after waste, 
fraud and abuse. This Senator offered an amendment on the 
reconciliation bill that would have saved billions of dollars by 
cutting out waste, fraud, and abuse. It would have provided, for the 
first time, competitive bidding for durable medical equipment and 
medical supplies in Medicare.
  Madam President, I had one of my staff people go to several 
drugstores in Iowa to get the price of a bandage. The average price, 
retail, was 17 cents. The same bandage cost the Veterans' 
Administration 4 cents. That same bandage costs Medicare 86 cents. Why 
Medicare 86 cents, and the Veterans' Administration 4 cents for the 
same bandage? Because the Veterans' Administration uses competitive 
bidding; Medicare does not.
  My amendment was simply to do what I thought most of my fellow 
Senators on the other side of the aisle speak so loudly about--``free 
enterprise, capitalism, competitive bidding, that is the way to go.'' 
Yet, every single Republican voted against my amendment to provide for 
competitive bidding. I do not know why because we have it in the 
Veterans Administration, and it works well. But, for some reason, we 
cannot apply it to Medicare.
  My amendment would have provided for better computers and software to 
catch more fraud. But, no, we could not do that. But we can tell the 
seniors to 

[[Page S 17030]]
pay $130 more a month. But, no, we cannot have competitive bidding, you 
see.
  Why is this so important, Madam President? Last year, I asked the GAO 
to do an investigation on medical supplies, and here is what they 
found. They took a sample of high dollar claims that Medicare had paid, 
and they went behind the bills to get an itemized statement. This is 
going to shock you. I have stated it many times on the floor, so maybe 
you know the figures already. GAO found that 89 percent of the claims 
should have been totally or partially denied; 61 percent of the dollars 
spent by Medicare should never have been spent; 61 percent paid out 
wasted.
  What does that amount to? Well, last year, Medicare was billed $6.8 
billion for medical supplies--$6.8 billion. If you take 61 percent and 
say it should have been paid out, you are talking about $4 billion a 
year. Just take 50 percent and you are talking about $3 billion a year. 
But, no, no, we cannot go after that, you see. There are a lot of big, 
powerful medical supply companies in this country making a lot of money 
on that. We cannot go after that. But we can go after the seniors in my 
State who make $10,000 a year.
  So what the Republicans are doing, I think, is a very shameful act in 
trying to force onto the continuing resolution the $130 more.
  Last, Madam President, here is another quote. The Senator from North 
Dakota read some quotes. Here is a quote by Representative Kasich:

       I do not see the Government shutdown as a negative; I see 
     it as a positive, if things get righted.

  Congressman Christensen said:

       If we have to temporarily shut down the Government to get 
     people's attention to show that we are going to balance the 
     budget, then so be it.

  What are we talking about? Madam President, 800,000--I am told--
Government workers went home today because the Government shut down. 
Who are these people? Madam President, they are people like you and 
me. These are mothers and fathers. These are people with children. 
These are people that have illnesses at home. These are people that 
have mortgages to pay and car payments to pay, maybe have one or two 
kids in college that are trying to get through college.

  These are not some kind of people that are not part of our American 
family of workers. Yet somehow we are being told they are worthless--
send them home, we do not care.
  What a hard-hearted, cruel approach to take, that somehow these 
Government workers who are outstanding upright taxpaying God-fearing 
Americans who do their job for the American people, that somehow they 
are not worth anything and they can go home.
  It is cruel and it is heartless. I think the American people 
understand that. That is why I hope that we can reason together, get 
the Medicare off the table, have a short-term CR. We can get together.
  I add one thing. I happen to sit on the Agriculture Committee. I 
picked up the paper this morning and I found out the chairman of the 
Senate Agriculture Committee has announced that the conferees have 
reached an agreement on an agriculture bill, and this Senator has never 
even been invited to one meeting. What does that say for trying to work 
together?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 22 minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Is anyone seeking recognition? How much time would the 
Senator from North Carolina require?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I request 10 minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from North Carolina.


             Balanced Budget Lacks Presidential Commitment

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Just a few minutes ago the President spoke to the 
Nation in a press conference. I watched his speech and was amazed at 
the sincerity, that he appears to really believe what he was saying. 
Certainly what he has been doing does not match what he was saying.
  Madam President, last night the Federal Government ran out of money 
and thousands of Federal workers were sent home. The question on 
everyone's mind is, why will Bill Clinton not agree to a balanced 
budget? Why will Bill Clinton not agree to a balanced budget?
  He has flipped and flopped so many times on the budget that it is 
hard to know where he stands on the issue. It should be perfectly clear 
that the blame for this shutdown can be traced directly to the White 
House and not anywhere else, and to the President's new imagemakers at 
the House. They are determined that he appear strong, regardless of the 
consequences to the Nation.

  As a candidate for the Presidency, Bill Clinton promised to balance a 
budget in 5 years. However, once in office, he flipped on the campaign 
promise. In fact, Bill Clinton has never submitted to Congress a plan 
for balancing the budget. The first budget which he submitted this year 
never reached balance, and he knew it when he submitted it.
  After consulting with pollsters and realizing that Congress was 
serious about reaching a balanced budget in 7 years, Bill Clinton 
flipped again and submitted a second budget which he claimed would 
balance the budget in 10 years. However, that was not true and he knew 
it when it was submitted.
  For all the flipping and flopping, Bill Clinton is not making any 
headway on the budget. In fact, in this very body, not a single Member 
of the Senate--Democrat or Republican--voted for his budget--not one. 
Realizing the American people knew that he was not serious about a 10-
year budget plan, he flipped again and accepted a congressional 
timeframe of 7 years.
  We are now hours away from having a conference report on a balanced 
budget. Congressional leaders have invited the President to begin 
working with us. For 26 hours last week he was on the same plane with 
Speaker Newt Gingrich and Majority Leader Dole. A captive audience--no 
negotiation. Madam President, 26 hours of prime time and he did not use 
it.
  Last Friday he told Congress to remain in session as he got into a 
Government limousine and rode off to the golf course. No negotiation.
  The fact of the matter is that Bill Clinton just is not serious about 
balancing the budget. However, he is very serious about improving his 
image. His campaign advisers tell him a balanced budget is popular with 
America's voters and therefore he is trying desperately to get on 
board. So he gives press conferences and issues press releases 
proclaiming his support for a balanced budget. But there simply is not 
any commitment or substance to back up what he is saying.
  Bill Clinton pretends that he vetoed a temporary spending measure 
because he wanted to protect Medicare. Just as the President has no 
credibility on the budget, he has no credibility on Medicare. His own 
Medicare trustees informed him earlier this year that Medicare 
bankruptcy is imminent. Bill Clinton's response was to do nothing.
  The Republican continuing resolution maintains secure Medicare 
premium percentage that recipients pay. It maintains the current 
premium, that Medicare premium percentage, that recipients pay. It says 
that we need to hold off on decreasing premiums until we implement a 
comprehensive plan to save Medicare. It does not cut the premium. It 
does not raise the premium 1 percentage. It simply keeps it the same. 
Very simply, no change.

  Dick Morris, the President's new top adviser, calls the President's 
plan triangulation. In Washington language, this is supposed to mean 
that Bill Clinton is a moderate. In North Carolina we speak more 
directly. This triangle of Bill Clinton's consist of no leadership, no 
principle, and no negotiation. That is the triangulation.
  Medicare is going broke. The Government is trillions of dollars in 
debt. The Government is shutting down and the President is concerned 
about triangulation. Deficits and the national debt are a tax on future 
generations. That has been said many times in this Chamber but the fact 
that it has been repeated does not lessen its truth or its value or its 
impact upon the American people.
  In 1975 the debt ceiling was $595 billion. Today, it is right at $5 
trillion. Every child born today faces $187,000 interest bill on the 
debt incurred by past Congresses.
  The issue before the country is a balanced budget. That is what the 
bill is 

[[Page S 17031]]
about. That is what we are talking about. The current stalemate will 
not end until Bill Clinton stops being a candidate for President and 
starts being President. He needs to work with the Congress for the good 
of this country.
  I end this short speech where it began, with the simple question: Why 
will Bill Clinton not agree to a real balanced budget as he pledged to 
do when he was running for President? When he was running for President 
he pledged to the voters and the people of this country a balanced 
budget within 5 years. Why will he not come forth and agree to a 
balanced budget now in 7 years?
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Arkansas.


                        The Government Shutdown

  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I thank the Senator for yielding. 
People across America are looking at this Government shutdown and 
saying, what on Earth are those people thinking? What is this all 
about? And why is it necessary to furlough 800,000 workers?

  The Baltimore Sun said today that people are no longer mad as hell. 
They are scared to death. I can tell you there are people around here 
who are getting anxious. Why are we doing this? I have been in the 
Senate 21 years. This is the most bizarre time I have ever witnessed. I 
assumed, just as in the past, that reasonable heads would prevail, the 
thing would be worked out last night, everybody would come to work 
today, and we would get on with our legitimate business. But that has 
not happened.
  One group of people say, ``Why doesn't the President sign that 
bill?'' What is wrong with that? And other people say, ``I am with the 
President. I hope he will hang tough.'' That is where I come down. It 
is not that big a deal in some ways. But it is essentially an intrusion 
on the President's authority. It is an intrusion on our turf, too, to 
attach something like regulatory reform to the debt extension bill. Not 
our version of regulatory reform, the House version, which could not 
see the light of day in the U.S. Senate. It would never pass the U.S. 
Senate. And where is it? On the debt ceiling bill. Why on Earth do we 
put regulatory reform and habeas corpus reform on the debt ceiling?
  The debt ceiling is designed to provide the full faith and credit of 
the United States to people who buy our bonds. Twenty-five percent of 
our national debt, Madam President, is owned by the Western Europeans 
and the Japanese, and they do not think this is fun and games. I heard 
a young Congressman on the ``Jim Lehrer Show'' say last night that this 
is ``where the rubber hits the road. This is fun.'' It is a lot of 
things, but fun is not one of them.
  What if the Japanese and Western Europeans decide to start pulling 
out of American securities, our bonds and our T bills. Where are we 
going to pick up 25 percent, or over $1 trillion of new investment? Are 
we going to get it from the American people? We do not have that kind 
of savings in this country. So what happens? Interest rates start 
skyrocketing. What happens then? It costs us billions and billions to 
finance the national debt at a time when we say our whole raison d'etre 
is to balance the budget.
  What else? To provide for a $245 billion tax cut. Do you want to 
balance the budget in 7 years? I do not know whether it should be 7 
years or 8 years or some other period, nor does anybody in America. But 
I can tell you one thing. A $245 billion tax cut is not consistent with 
balancing the budget. Any tax cut--any tax cut--should be postponed 
until the budget is balanced. And who gets it? You know the rest of 
that story.
  The $500 per child tax credit would not be for everybody; not for the 
people who make less than $30,000 a year with two or three children. 
They get no part of the child tax credit. Instead, they get a cut in 
the earned income tax credit. That is a tax increase. Some 49.5 percent 
of the people in this country get nothing but a tax increase out of 
this budget bill. But if you happen to be wealthy and have three or 
four kids, you get $500 for each one.
  So this morning I read where the Republicans are trying to make this 
$500 per child credit retroactive to the year just gone by. They cannot 
pay for the full $500 per child for 1995, but they want to come up with 
$125 per child. Of course, the 1995 tax returns have already been 
printed, and there is no place for $125 credit on the return. So guess 
what? It will be payable with a green check from the U.S. Treasury next 
October 1, 30 days before the election. How cynical can you get to take 
$125 for all these children out of the Treasury 30 days before the 
election? Talk about buying an election. It is one of the most 
hypocritical things I have ever read in my life.
  Colleagues, why did you run for this office? Do you have any values? 
Do you care about the fact that children are not going to be educated? 
Do you care about the fact that my State is going to lose 40 percent of 
its Medicaid funds? We will not have a Medicaid program. Do you care 
about elderly people? Seventy-five percent of the people over 65 live 
on less than $25,000 a year. So what do you do? You savage them to pay 
for a tax cut for the wealthy.
  I am sorry I do not have more time. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island has 5 minutes.


                          A Plea for Civility

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, like most of my colleagues, I am deeply 
distressed and, indeed, saddened that the legislative and executive 
branches of our Federal Government have reached an impasse over the 
future funding of Federal activity, as embodied in the continuing 
resolution for the current fiscal year and in the temporary debt limit 
extension bill, with the debate over the long-term budget 
reconciliation bill still to come.
  While it is not surprising that we should arrive at this point--
considering the differences in philosophy which are at stake--it does 
seem to me that deadlock could have been avoided, and still can be, if 
only more respect can be granted to the traditional norms of behavior 
that are the underpinning of our democratic system.
  Comity and civility, transcending differences of party and ideology, 
have always been crucial elements in making government an effective and 
constructive instrument of public will. In times such as these, when 
the pendulum of history seems to be reversing its swing and when there 
is so much fundamental disagreement about the role of government, it is 
all the more essential that we preserve the spirit of civil discourse.
  Last year, before retiring from the Senate to become president of the 
University of Oklahoma, David Boren sent a letter to his colleagues 
lamenting the fact that ``we have become so partisan and so personal in 
our attacks upon each other that we can no longer effectively work 
together in the national interest.'' It was a thoughtful warning that 
has meaning far beyond the U.S. Senate.
  The fact is that the democratic process depends on respectful 
disagreement. As soon as we confuse civil debate with reckless 
disparagement, we have crippled the process. A breakdown of civility 
reinforces extremism and discourages the hard process of negotiating 
across party lines to reach a broad-based consensus.
  The Founding Fathers who prescribed the ground rules for debate in 
Congress certainly had all these considerations in mind. We address 
each other in the third person with what seems like elaborate courtesy. 
The purpose, of course, is to remind us constantly that whatever the 
depth of our disagreements, we are all common instruments of the 
democratic process. That process is not well served by spin doctors and 
sound bytes. Nor is it well served by blustering assertions of no 
compromise.
  This certainly should be kept in mind with respect to the current 
dispute over the continuing resolution. This legislation is 
necessitated by the failure of this Congress to enact appropriation 
bills in a timely fashion, and President Clinton has every right to 
insist that a temporary continuation of spending authority come to him 
unencumbered by an extraneous policy matter. Whatever the level of 
future Medicare premiums is to be, it should be determined by reasoned 
debate and 

[[Page S 17032]]
not be set by the forced process of a take-it-or-leave-it add-on to a 
continuing resolution.
  Similarly, with respect to the debt limit extension, no amount of 
partisan oneupmanship is worth the cost of bringing the credit rating 
of the U.S. Government to the brink of world-wide doubt and disrepute. 
The way to curb future borrowing is through reduction of deficits, 
which we are all committed to accomplishing. But in the meantime, the 
United States must honor its commitments, and it seems to me highly 
irresponsible to attach any conditions to an extension that would limit 
the Government's ability to do so.
  It does seem to me, Mr. President, that there are the makings of 
negotiated agreement on these issues, and on the larger issues that 
face us in the reconciliation bill, if only we can return to the basic 
ground-rules of civil discourse and reasoned deliberation. President 
Clinton for his part has long since indicated his commitment to the 
goal of a balanced budget. So the differences between the two sides are 
differences of degree--quantitative questions of how many dollars will 
be cut over what span of years--which certainly are susceptible to 
compromise.
  Edmund Burke, the eloquent British statesman whose 18th century 
comments are so often relevant to democratic government today, once 
said that ``All government is founded on compromise and barter.'' Those 
words have meaning for us all today, including those who feel they have 
a mandate for radical change.
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Wisconsin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has 5 minutes.


                        A Realistic Budget Plan

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I thank the Chair and I thank the 
Senator from Washington.
  I join my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in deploring the 
circumstances that have brought us to this situation where the Federal 
Government is basically shut down because of the failure of the 
Congress and the White House to reach agreements over the Nation's 
fiscal needs.
  Each side of this abysmal impasse has a somewhat different 
perspective on where the fault lies. Ultimately, neither side can win 
that debate because the American public sees this kind of problem as a 
failure of both sides. This kind of gamesmanship simply serves to 
undermine public confidence in public officials, and that does not 
benefit the Nation either in the long term or the short term.
  Shutting down the Federal Government and jeopardizing the credit of 
the United States by allowing us to move to the brink of a default in 
our obligations is irresponsible.
  According to OMB and GAO, shutting down the Federal Government will 
cost the Federal Treasury millions and millions of dollars. At a time 
when we are working to bring down the Federal deficit, we can certainly 
not afford that. There is no need for this shutdown to have occurred.
  I must say there is no justification for trying to use emergency 
legislation to continue Government functions as a vehicle for 
extraneous policy issues, issues like weakening environmental 
protection laws, undermining the writ of habeas corpus, or ramming 
through increases in Medicare premiums.
  I note today some of the leadership on the other side is saying, 
well, this is really about a 7-year balanced budget. But the fact is 
the reason we are here now is not the 7-year balanced budget issue; it 
is inclusion of these extraneous matters that have nothing to do with 
balancing the budget.
  Congress ought to get serious and pass a clean continuing resolution 
and debt ceiling extension so that we can move on with the pressing 
business of reaching agreement on long-term deficit reduction 
legislation and actually achieve a balanced budget. I think the 
President is correct that these negotiations should take place without 
the threat of budget blackmail hanging over the negotiating table. We 
ought to be able to reach the agreements needed without this needless 
disruption of Government services and the undermining of public 
confidence.

  Let me also focus for a moment on what I mean by the threat of budget 
blackmail hanging over the negotiating table.
  At the heart of this impasse is an effort driven primarily by the 
House backers of the Republican contract to force through a budget 
reconciliation bill that is predicated in large part on delivering what 
the Speaker of the House has called the crown jewel of the Republican 
Contract With America, and that crown jewel is this massive tax cut.
  In other words, it is not just an issue of whether we should balance 
the budget in 7 years or earlier, with which I do agree. It is a goal 
on the part of those pushing that Contract With America that we balance 
the budget but also find enough money in there to provide a $245 
billion tax cut, particularly for those in the upper income brackets. 
So there is no legitimacy to the claim that the dispute today is only 
about whether we do this in 7 years. It is about doing it in 7 years 
and letting these cuts occur to human service programs and safety net 
programs and delivering a significant tax cut to upper income folks in 
this society. That is what is really at stake here today.
  The deep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and education and 
environmental protection programs and other vital domestic programs are 
driven by the need to provide offsets for the $245 billion tax cut 
which the Republican leadership seems absolutely determined to protect.
  I have opposed this tax cut from the beginning. It is bad economic 
policy, bad public policy, and bad judgment by the political leadership 
in Congress.
  There is a simple solution to this crisis. Drop the $245 billion tax 
cut. Use it to cut back on some of the significant cuts in Medicare and 
Medicaid and other programs and still balance the budget by the year 
2002.
  That is the true answer to this dilemma, and I believe, if both 
parties are serious about this matter at this point, we would realize 
that that is the crux of the issue. A $245 billion tax cut skewed 
toward those in upper income brackets is not the same as saying we have 
to balance the budget in 7 years. That is the problem. That is what is 
holding this up, and that is what would solve the problem.
  Madam President, I will conclude by simply saying that I hope we can 
get a clean resolution and stop this shutdown at this point.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 20 minutes and 9 
seconds, and the Senator from Washington has 6 minutes and 11 seconds.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I am going to yield myself a few 
moments because I think it is appropriate to recognize that we have 
been talking about S. 395, which is the pending business before the 
body. That is the bill that passed including sale of the Alaska Power 
Authority, moving some of our excess oil off the west coast.
  Instead, we have been hearing the spin doctors of the Senate, spin 
doctors criticizing the Republican plan to balance the budget. They 
suggest that we are putting this on the backs of the seniors, the 
working families, the children, reducing our educational commitments. 
Come on. We are trying to save a program, save a system.
  To suggest that the Republicans have no compassion in this area is 
absolutely ludicrous. What are we doing on Medicare? We are responding 
to the Democratic alarm that Medicare is going to be broke by the year 
2002. So what we are doing is not cutting it. We are reducing the rate 
of growth from 10 to 6 percent.
  Is that irresponsible? I suggest it is responsible. Shut down 
Government? That is not our objective. Our objective is to balance the 
budget. This is not a continuing resolution. This is a commitment, a 
commitment to balance the budget, the 1995 balanced budget amendment. 
That is the issue before this body, and that is the issue down at the 
White House, to balance the budget.
  Why do we need to balance the budget? Because we have a $4.9 trillion 
accumulated debt. And the American people have said that that is 
enough.
  What are we spending for interest on the debt? What is the interest 
cost of 

[[Page S 17033]]
that? About 14 percent of our total Federal budget. Canada is nearly at 
20 percent. What happens when you have to spend 14 percent of your 
budget on interest on a $4.9 trillion accumulated debt? That means less 
money for our social responsibilities, less money for our seniors, less 
money for education.
  You have not heard one Democratic Member of this body say how you are 
going to balance the budget. They simply criticize our plan. You have 
to cut. You have to cut Government or you have to increase revenues.
  There is no magic to it. We have heard the Democrats say that the 
Medicare Program would be broke by the year 2002, and they are right. 
We are doing something about it. They are criticizing us for what we 
are doing about it, but they do not say what they would do about it. We 
have heard today that, yes, they want to balance the budget. The 
President said 10 years. Now he says maybe 9 years. One Senator in the 
Chamber today said 7 years. But that Senator did not say how we were 
going to do it.
  The reason Government is shut down is because the President of the 
United States will not agree on a plan to balance the budget. He will 
not come before this body or the House or the leadership and tell us 
what his plan is to balance the budget.

  Madam President, this is important. This is the most important thing 
we could be doing because we are talking about the survival of our 
Government, the survival of our fiscal system. Make no mistake about 
it, Madam President, this is historic. This is a historic attempt to 
turn around Government so that we can survive under our Democratic 
system as we know it today, because, Madam President, this is the first 
time in 35 years, since 1969, that we have imparted on a path to 
balance the budget. The last budget balance we had was back in 1969. It 
has been 35 years. We have accumulated $4.9 trillion in accumulated 
debt. That is the legacy we are passing on.
  So it is historic, Madam President, you bet. And we propose a 
commitment and a plan and a responsible roadmap to get it done. We have 
a pledge to the American people to do it. The American people expect 
the Republican-controlled Congress to get the job done and stay the 
course. And this is indeed a very historic moment, Madam President.
  I am going to give some time to my colleague from the State of 
Louisiana. How much time might he like?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Four minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Four or five minutes.
  I ask the Chair, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator has 14 minutes 7 
seconds.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. President, I congratulate my colleagues on this side of the aisle 
for using this opportunity to debate this question of a shutdown of the 
Government which, in my view, is unnecessary. In my view, this debate 
really is not about a balanced budget in 7 years; the question is 
whether you want a deep tax cut which costs a great deal of money and, 
in the process, socks it to the seniors through the Medicare trust 
fund.
  But, Mr. President, as strongly as I believe that our colleagues on 
this side of the aisle are making the correct statement, correct 
arguments, to which I subscribe and to which I heartily agree, I just 
want to put in context what the measure is that we are debating just so 
we do not lose sight of the fact that this is the conference report on 
the Alaskan North Slope oil and to tell my colleagues what is involved.
  Initially, Mr. President, we required that Alaskan North Slope oil 
destined for the gulf coast go all the way, by tanker, to the Panama 
Canal where it was offloaded, pipelined across the isthmus and then 
reloaded and then transported to the gulf coast. Why did we do that? 
Because of seamen's jobs, because of the Jones Act which required that 
American seamen pilot those ships.
  Of course, it was economically not feasible to do that. It did not 
make economic sense except in the context of American seamen and the 
Jones Act. And the reason that the law so said that all those years 
really had nothing to do with energy security; it had to do with 
American seamen's jobs. It has taken all this time, all these years, to 
get it worked out for American seamen and the Jones Act to make our 
grand compromise on this question of seamen's jobs.
  That now having been done, virtually all sides support this 
legislation in this conference report. There is, of course, some 
opposition. I think when it originally came up, the conference report 
passed by a vote of 74 to 20 something. The deport of royalty part of 
this legislation was part of that conference report at that time or 
part of the Senate bill at that time, which got 74 votes. The deport of 
royalty came up again and passed by 71 to 28.

  The administration supports this legislation. It is economically 
efficient, saves the country money, is good for the economy of America. 
And for those reasons, there is virtually no opposition. I simply say 
that, Mr. President, not because there has been any argument here today 
to speak of on this conference report, but just so that my colleagues 
will know that this conference report has nothing to do with the 
balanced budget or tax cuts for the rich or any of those grand and 
wonderful subjects. This has to do only with the Alaskan North Slope 
oil and whether it can be exported in the most efficient way. And it 
also has to do with deport of royalty. Both parts of that have been 
overwhelmingly approved here on the floor of the Senate. The deport of 
royalty was approved here twice, and the Alaskan North Slope was 
approved by a margin of 74 to 25.
  So, I simply say that, Mr. President, so that my colleagues will know 
that the conference report ought to be approved however you feel about 
tax cuts for the rich, Medicare cuts and all the rest of the subjects 
that are so much on everyone's mind. I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, the events in the past few days are disheartening. 
Congress passed two bills that should provide stopgap measures for the 
Government to operate, both the debt extension and the continuing 
resolution. These bills are necessary to buy time to work out 
differences that we have on the budget. But both were loaded down with 
political baggage, and the President has been forced to veto both.
  Now here, amazingly, today we are talking about exporting Alaskan 
oil. The Government is shut down, the budget is in crisis, and we are 
debating a major giveaway to foreign oil companies at the expense of 
Washington State refinery workers.
  Mr. President, it does not have to be this way. We have a job to do. 
We passed a budget resolution months ago. We passed a budget 
reconciliation 3 weeks ago. And we literally have been sitting here 
since then. We have a responsibility to problem solve, to work out our 
differences and send a package to the President. Yet here we are 
drawing lines in the sand and wasting time. I think everyone looks bad 
if we do not keep the budget process moving.
  Mr. President, when I came to Washington in 1993, I was excited, 
motivated, and ready to make a change. I was ready to make Congress 
work for average people. I was driven to restore common sense to this 
institution. And in large part I acted on that impulse by becoming a 
member of the Budget Committee, which put together the Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1993. We all remember the 1993 budget debate. It 
was intense, but yet it was productive. Not everyone liked it, but we 
got the job done. We had no debates about continuing resolutions or 
debt limits. There were no discussions of Government shutdowns and work 
furloughs. Instead, we simply worked hard and we beat every deadline 
with room to spare.
  I understand the new majority's enthusiasm and in many ways I share 
their interest in changing the way this place works. And, believe me, I 
understand how difficult it is to put together a comprehensive budget 
package.

  But, Mr. President, what I do not understand is the new majority's 
inability to do so. Here we are, November 14, and there is no light at 
the end of the tunnel. This body passed a budget way back on October 
27, but we still have not seen a House-Senate compromise 

[[Page S 17034]]
package. More importantly, this Congress still has not passed 8 of its 
13 appropriations bills. That astounds me.
  Our constituents expect us to pass appropriations by September 30. In 
fact, we passed the Senate budget plan 3 weeks ago and literally have 
done nothing since. People do not want to hear about Government 
shutdowns. And they certainly do not like it when Congress plays 
political games with their lives. How do we explain the pending 
Government shutdown without admitting our inability to do what is asked 
of us? We cannot; it is impossible. We cannot explain this stalemate 
without telling the public that the last 2 weeks have seen nothing but 
arguing, posturing, and finger pointing from one end of Pennsylvania 
Avenue to the other. I do not like to say it, but this behavior reminds 
me of the preschool classes I used to teach.
  Mr. President, we have to be responsible. We should not risk our 
Nation's creditworthiness and its ability to borrow. We should not 
shock the bond market, raise long-term interest rates and hurt American 
investors and consumers. We must understand the ramifications of our 
actions and our inactions. I urge my colleagues to consider my words. 
The American people do not care about who wins and who loses in this 
budget battle, let alone the continuing resolution battle. They simply 
care about results. They want to feel secure, and they want to know 
this Congress is up to its job.
  Mr. President, our goal should be to restore faith in Government, to 
demonstrate progress, action, and change. People want to see us working 
and working hard just like they do. But if the Government shuts down, 
all they are going to know is the politicians in Washington, DC, 
dropped the ball again. It is time to put aside the brinkmanship and 
give people what they want. I hope we can move quickly to enact a 
reasonable continuing resolution that has no strings attached.
  Budget negotiations will come soon enough once we resume work on the 
budget bill. In the meantime, let us be responsible legislators. Let us 
live up to our responsibilities and the expectations of our 
constituents.
  As far as the pending legislation is concerned, again I am amazed 
that we are debating this bill when this Government has come to a 
standstill. But I want my colleagues to know, I think that this bill is 
not a good one. It does not favor my constituents or the Nation. It 
gives away precious oil resources when our own country is 50 percent 
dependent on foreign oil. It threatens the healthy water of Puget Sound 
with unsafe, single-hull oil tankers. And most importantly, if this 
body actually takes a step to opening ANWR to drilling, it is possible 
that that oil also will be exported. This makes no sense at all to me, 
Mr. President, and I urge my colleagues to vote no on the conference 
report.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I inquire how much time is remaining on 
both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 10 minutes, 25 
seconds, and the other side has 38 seconds.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this has been an extraordinary debate. 
We started out debating the Alaska Power Authority moving excess oil 
from the west coast of the United States and deep-water royalty relief 
under S. 395. A good part of the conversation has involved a spin on 
the balanced budget amendment and the continuing resolution.
  I think that has been identified by both sides relative to the 
merits. But, again, I remind my colleagues that the reason the 
Government is shut down today is because the President and the White 
House cannot come to grips with a Republican plan for a balanced 
budget, and it is just that simple.
  I have listened intently to my good friend from the State of 
Washington relative to her concerns about the Alaska oil export portion 
in title II. I can assure you that, indeed, we do not contemplate a 
giveaway of American oil. We are talking about selling that portion of 
oil that is excess to the west coast and, in so doing, that will 
stimulate jobs in California and stimulate jobs in my State of Alaska. 
As the Senators from Washington know, anything that is good for Alaska 
is good for the State of Washington, because most of our supplies go 
through their State.
  Furthermore, to suggest that somehow this is going to be detrimental 
to Puget Sound, I remind those who are somewhat familiar that we are 
not talking about oil being exported from the State of Washington. What 
we are talking about ultimately is the State of Washington having to 
depend more on imported oil coming into that State if, indeed, it 
cannot rely on a continuing supply of oil from Alaska.
  But in concluding remarks, I wish to reflect for a moment on the 
great relationship which we have had over the years with the State of 
Washington, her citizens and the congressional delegation. Since the 
very first days of our statehood upon entering the Union, we in Alaska 
have had vibrant economic, cultural, and close political ties to 
Washington. I guess that began some three decades ago. Perhaps Senator 
Stevens, the senior Senator, could comment a bit more precisely on the 
history, but our two congressional delegations have worked together.
  We have created new economic opportunities for citizens of both our 
States. Indeed, we look back with fondness to the efforts of Scoop and 
Maggie, as they were fondly known, to nurture the development of both 
our States economically. We have accomplished much since statehood, in 
large part because our delegations have worked together to promote 
common interests.
  We have differences of opinion, as evidenced by this, but as a result 
of our State's geographic location, we always depended heavily on two-
way commerce with the State of Washington. Ships carrying the produce 
and consumer goods of Washington State regularly enter our ports. In 
return, we continue to share our great mineral wealth, including much 
of the crude oil that fuels Washington State's transportation system 
and supports her economy, and we want to do that in the future.
  In fact, development of our natural resources have been of immense 
benefit to Washington State. Between 1980 and 1991, North Slope oil 
production generated approximately $1.35 billion in revenues for the 
State of Washington. Only my State, California, Texas, and Pennsylvania 
generated greater revenues in providing supplies needed to sustain oil 
production on the North Slope.
  So we look forward to the future. We see vast economic benefits 
through development of our State's bountiful resources. Opening the 
Coastal Plain of ANWR to prudent, environmentally sound oil production, 
for example, would create up to 12,000 new jobs in the State of 
Washington, ensure the continuity of her refineries, and, as a 
consequence, we feel we can do it safely.
  So, this is, indeed, an important relationship. I have worked hard, 
along with Senator Stevens and others, in the conference to ensure that 
Senator Murray's safety and environmental concerns would be addressed. 
When some of our House colleagues suggested deleting section 206 in its 
entirety, Congressman Young, from Alaska, and I insisted that efforts 
be undertaken to find a meaningful compromise. Although I understand my 
colleague wishes the original language could have been maintained, I 
believe we did develop a sound alternative.
  Let me tell you what that is, because under title IV of the 
conference report, we have mandated that the Coast Guard examine the 
most cost-effective methods of using existing towing vessel resources 
to respond to any vessel in distress. We adopted this alternative 
because in part we believe that, on the best information available and 
evidence, that the marine environment of Puget Sound is adequately 
protected under existing response plan requirements mandated by the Oil 
Pollution Act of 1990 and other statutory provisions.
  OPA is applicable to major oil ports. Puget Sound is one. It requires 
double-hull tankers over a period of time, inspections, higher 
liability, response plan and escort vessels and mandates that the Coast 
Guard be given the discretion relative to escort vessels.
  We believe the Coast Guard's existing authority to prevent and 
respond to oilspills, as well as to impose vessel operating 
requirements, is fully sufficient to address the needs of all Pacific 

[[Page S 17035]]
Northwest waterways. It is an obligation of the Coast Guard to address 
that.
  Nonetheless, in recognition of the interest among the citizens of 
Washington State in a so-called tug-of-opportunity system and given our 
strong desire to ensure that cost-effective measures are adopted to 
enhance the safety in these waters, the committee of conference 
included title IV.
  With respect to Senator Murray's general concerns about the impact of 
ANS exports on her State, let me offer a few thoughts. We firmly 
believe, as the weight of the testimony before my committee 
demonstrated, that the Pacific Northwest will continue to be the most 
natural market for ANS crude.
  Given its geographic proximity and relatively low cost of 
transporting crude to refiners in Puget Sound, there is no sound 
economic reason why any oil now coming to Washington would be exported. 
In fact, the largest independent refiner in the area has a long-term 
supply contract with the largest North Slope producer. Moreover, some 
of the owners of the largest refineries in Washington State, in fact, 
support this legislation. There is, thus, no reason to fear oil 
shortages or higher prices.
  Nor, might I add, is there any basis for the concern expressed that 
enactment of the legislation will lead to a sudden influx of 
substandard or environmentally unsound foreign-flag tankers in the 
waters of Puget Sound. Under OPA 1990, all tankers--American flag and 
foreign flag--are subjected to the same rigorous safety standards by 
the U.S. Coast Guard. Environmentally safe foreign-flag tankers today 
deliver imports to refineries in Puget Sound, as a matter of fact. 
Finally, along with the American-flag tankers, with some of the best 
safety records in the world, these tankers will continue to deliver the 
crude that helps fuel the State's economy.
  We have carefully considered all the potential negative implications 
of the ANS export.
  We have given the President all the authority he needs to ensure the 
exports do not pose negative environmental risks for anybody in the 
Pacific Northwest. Having done so, we want to share the benefits of 
export. Like Washington State, which for so long has thrived because of 
free trade--you can imagine what would happen if the State of 
Washington was precluded by this body from, say, exporting their 
apples. We feel that way about our oil, Mr. President. We in Alaska 
want the chance to sell our most precious resource into the world 
markets. We in the Alaska delegation have fought so hard for so long to 
maintain free and open trade opportunities for others, and we now ask 
that our colleagues help us end the discrimination that has kept our 
most valuable resource from being freely traded in a competitive 
market. It has been unfair to the State of Alaska. I thank Senator 
Stevens, Representative Young, Senator Bennett Johnston, and other 
members of the Energy Committee, who worked so hard to bring this 
legislation together, S. 395, covering the sale of the Alaska Power 
Authority, and the export of excess oil from the west coast of the 
United States in U.S.-flag vessels with U.S. crews. This means more 
U.S. ships and more jobs.
  Finally, on the benefits of deep water royalty, I had the pleasure of 
working with Senator Bennett Johnston to bring together, with my 
colleagues in the House, this legislation before us. I believe the time 
has about expired. The yeas and nays have been ordered. I do not know 
if there is further time.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield back our time.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference 
report.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is absent because of illness in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 29, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 574 Leg.]

                                YEAS--69

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--29

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Dodd
     Exon
     Feingold
     Gorton
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Bradley
       
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.

                          ____________________