[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 188 (Tuesday, November 28, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S17601]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         GOOD NEWS FOR ALASKANS

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to say this is 
a good day for my State of Alaska. This afternoon President Clinton 
signed legislation which lifts the ban on the export of Alaskan North 
Slope crude oil and authorizes the sale of the Alaska Power 
Administration.
  Alaskans have been fighting for both of these provisions for more 
than 20 years. The ban on the export of our own oil was unjust and 
unconstitutional, as I have said here on the floor many times. Before 
today, Alaska was the only State prohibited from exporting its most 
valuable product. There is no ban on the sale of oil from Texas or the 
exporting of apples from Washington State. I see the distinguished 
occupant of the chair is from my southern neighboring State.
  Today's action by the President lifts years of discrimination against 
Alaska, and I think it proves that perseverance can overcome bad 
policy. Lifting this ban will promote domestic oil production, provide 
jobs, and make Alaska less dependent on foreign oil. The ban has had 
the unintended effect of actually threatening our energy security by 
discouraging further energy production in the south 48 and creating 
unfair hardships for a struggling oil industry in the United States.
  Fundamentally, the existing export restriction distorts the crude oil 
markets in Alaska and on the west coast. The inability to export 
Alaskan North Slope crude oil depresses the open market price of Alaska 
North Slope crude on the west coast, which is essentially the only 
market for our oil. Some people will tell us that it makes no sense to 
lift the export ban while Congress is pursuing an effort to authorize 
oil exploration on Alaska's arctic coastal plain. And nothing could be 
further from the truth.
  Lifting the export ban simply restores a true market price for 
Alaskan oil, and the west coast will still be the principle consumer of 
that product. What this new law does is allow an Alaskan product to be 
sold at a fair price, the same demand farmers in the Midwest make when 
they sell their crops or automakers in Detroit make when they sell 
their products.
  The Department of Energy noted in a 1994 study of the export ban that 
the result of the export ban means ``that the west coast generates the 
largest gross refiner margins in the world.''
  So what does this new law do? It puts fairness back into the economic 
system and removes an ugly vestige of protectionism.
  One of the main reasons I have come to the floor is to congratulate 
the chairman of the Energy Committee, my colleague and good friend, 
Senator Frank Murkowski. I also congratulate Congressman Don Young, 
chairman of the House Resources Committee. My two colleagues made great 
efforts to shepherd this bill through the legislative process.
  Actually, Mr. President, I think the President signed the bill 
principally to help California because most of the jobs to be restored 
will be in California. And I do thank him and Energy Secretary O'Leary 
for their support of this bill.
  The Department of Energy did issue a comprehensive report last year 
that proved once and for all that the ban on exporting Alaskan oil made 
no sense. Lifting that ban will create 25,000 jobs nationally, most of 
them in California, as I said, and could return substantial funds to 
the Nation and to the States of California and Alaska.
  The sale of the Alaska Power Administration is another item, an item 
that I have worked on for more than two decades. During the Nixon 
administration, I introduced in the Senate the first bill to authorize 
the sale of this entity.
  Today's actions restore some of the promise that was made when we 
obtained statehood for Alaskans. We always sought to be a full partner 
with other States. For too long, Alaska has been treated as a second-
class citizen, and I think the export ban was one example. The refusal 
to pass the law to sell the Alaska Power Administration, as was 
requested by our citizens 20 years ago, is also an example of just 
holding up something that was good for Alaska because one Senator in 
the Congress opposed it.
  I do believe that in a State where the Federal Government controls 
more than 70 percent of the land that we should have been able to 
export our oil as a marketable product. There would have been a great 
deal more demand for Alaska's oil exploration in the last period 
particularly since the discovery of oil on the North Slope. I think it 
was unfortunate that that was one of the provisions we had to agree to 
to obtain approval by Congress of the bill that gave us authority to 
grant the right-of-way for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline.
  In my judgment, this has been a long time coming. There is still a 
long line of actions, Mr. President. The Alaskans have requested us to 
give them full rights of statehood, and I intend to come to the Senate 
and ask for those rights as the time goes by.
  Thank you very much, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. PRESSLER. 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. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from South Dakota is recognized.

                          ____________________