Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

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. 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]]

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.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would like to continue to hold my time because several Senators are coming. So I will defer to the Democratic side.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield 5 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Four or five minutes. I ask the Chair, how much time do I have?

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. MURKOWSKI. How much time is remaining?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from North Carolina. Balanced Budget Lacks Presidential Commitment

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Is anyone seeking recognition? How much time would the Senator from North Carolina require?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the conference report was agreed to.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.

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.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I believe my senior colleague from Alaska would like time on this bill. I yield 15 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.

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.

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. 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. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that the time of the hearing scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the House Committee on Resources and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs has been changed. The hearing will take place Thursday, November 16, 1995, at 10:30 a.m., instead of 11 a.m., in room 1324 of the Longworth House Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the Alaska Natives Commission's report to Congress, transmitted in May 1994, on the status of Alaska's Natives. Those wishing to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510 . For further information, please call Brian Malnak at (202) 224- 8119 or Judy Brown at (202) 224-7556.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have been asked to make a statement on behalf of the leader. This morning the leader's time has been reserved. There will be a period for morning business until the hour of about 12 noon today. The majority leader has stated that following morning business, the Senate may begin consideration of the continuing resolution. The Senate may also consider the debt limit extension during today's session, and all Senators can, therefore, expect rollcall votes throughout the day and a late session may be necessary in order to complete action on any or all of these items. Definite announcements on the indefinite schedule will be forthcoming throughout the day.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to continue a series of presentations I have made in this body concerning the opening of the Arctic oil reserve in ANWR. Before I make a reference to the specifics, let me show you a map and share with you an observation relative to this huge landmass of Alaska, which is one-fifth the size of the United States. In the Arctic region, above the Arctic Circle facing the Arctic Ocean, we have a resident population of Eskimos. The primary area where they are concentrated is in Barrow. It moves down to Wainwright, Icy Cape, Point Lay, Kaktovik, over to the Canadian border. They are a nomadic people that to a large degree depend on subsistence for a lifestyle, but as a consequence of the oil discovery in Prudhoe Bay, they now have a tax base. They now have jobs. They are beginning to generate sewer and water facilities in the larger villages. This is brought about only because of the reality of having a tax base and activity in their area. If I may share with you, Mr. President, the issue of opening up the Arctic oil reserve of ANWR for a quick review, it involves Congress taking action on authorizing the lease-sale of 300,000 acres out of the 19 million acres of ANWR. That is a pretty small footprint. Most of ANWR, about 17 million acres, has been set aside in perpetuity by Congress in either wilderness or refuge. That is evidenced by the area in green. Congress set aside the yellow area in 1980 for a determination at a later time, whether to allow oil and gas leasing. The area in red is the small Eskimo village of Kaktovik. This is located on the map in this far corner of Alaska near the Canadian border. The reality is that Prudhoe Bay, which is the largest oil field in North America and has been producing about 25 percent of the total crude oil produced in the United States for the last 18 years, is now in decline. As a consequence, geologists tell us this is the most likely area for a major oil discovery to be found. [[Page S 16842]] This happens to be Federal land. As a consequence, only the Federal Government can authorize opening it. Both the House and Senate, in the reconciliation package, have included a proposal to allow the lease- sale. It is anticipated the lease-sale will bring about $2.6 billion, funded strictly by the oil companies who would bid on these Federal leases. This would provide the largest employment, the largest concentration of new jobs that we can identify in North America, some 250,000 to 700,000 jobs over the anticipated life of the field. Is it needed? Certainly it is needed, because the Prudhoe field is in decline, from about 2 million barrels a day to about 1.5 million barrels a day. When Prudhoe Bay was found and opened, we were about 34 percent dependent on imported oil. Today we are 51.4 percent dependent on imported oil. Much of that oil comes from the Mideast, so we are becoming more and more dependent on the Mideast. We are relying, obviously, on governments that have shown some instability--Iran, Iraq, Libya. It is still very much of a hot spot from the standpoint of stability. Yet, we are sending our dollars and sending our jobs overseas when we could be developing our own resources. The question is, can we do it safely? And the answer clearly is yes. The problems that we have associated with opening this are emotional arguments from America's environmental community. Let me show you an ad that appeared in the Washington Post. It appeared in the Roll Call. This is an ad by the Indian Gaming Association. It shows a little native girl whose future could be affected by an act of Congress. The headline is, ``Don't Tax Her Opportunity To Get Off Welfare.'' The same situation applies to the Alaska Natives and the exploration in this area. As we look at Alaska and the large area, the idea of oil exploration in this very, very small area is the only identified job opportunity for the Eskimo people in the Arctic. What about rural Alaska? It is an area that probably has about the highest unemployment of anywhere in the United States. Rural sanitation was virtually unknown until a few years ago. There are a few villages that have running water. Most of them still have honey buckets instead of indoor plumbing. What we have here is a case of wealthy environmental and preservation organizations that are opposed to opening up this area to create jobs for Alaska's Eskimo and Native people. The Eskimo people want jobs. They want to have a future. They want to have an opportunity to educate their children. They live in a harsh climate. Without exception, virtually the entire Eskimo population of Alaska supports opening this area. What does the issue consist of? Some have said, ``Well, it is big oil.'' I would suggest that we reflect for a moment and recognize that the big business associated with this issue is really the big business of America's environmental community. Where do these people live? Washington, DC; New York; Boston. They take indoor plumbing for granted. They oppose ANWR. Today a number of them are meeting down at the White House with the administration on this and a number of other environmental issues. It has been suggested that this is going to harm the Arctic and harm the Eskimo and native way of life. The Eskimo people would not do anything to harm their environment. They want safe oil development because they want better lives. And, clearly, as I have indicated, because of our increased imports of foreign oil, America needs the oil. Many of the professional environmentalists have never been up to the Arctic oil reserve of ANWR and have never been up to this part of Alaska. They do not really care about the Eskimos' or Natives' future. Some of them have been up and have shared some of the unique experiences in some of this area. It is a very expensive operation. It takes about a $5,000 bill to charter an aircraft and hire the comforts of life that are necessary to enjoy and experience the wilderness. But make no mistake, we are talking about a very small footprint-- authorizing 300,000 acres out of 19 million acres. And industry says, if the oil is there, they can develop it within 2,000 acres. Mr. President, if you have ever been out to Dulles International Airport, that complex is 12,500 acres. If you compare the huge area of ANWR, it is about the size of the State of South Carolina. We are only talking about 2,000 acres, if the oil is there. Who are these professional environmental groups? Why do they focus on an issue way up in North America that most Americans cannot see? It is far away. It is costly to get there. The answer is these organizations need a cause. A cause gives them dollars. A cause gives them membership. Mr. President, they are now big business. The environmental movement's income, salaries, contributions, and investment patterns are extraordinary. I would like to share a report from the Center for the Defense Free Enterprise that gives us all an opportunity to review some of the executive salaries, expense accounts, the huge incomes, the big investment portfolios, the big offices, and the staff. The report says that the environmental movement is arguably the richest and most powerful pressure center in America. So just what kind of people make up the professional environmental establishment? They are certainly better off than the Native people of Alaska. Let me share some of the executive compensations, just a few that are listed here. The Nature Conservancy, John Sawhill, president and chief executive, salary $185,000, benefits $17,118; National Wildlife Federation, Jay Hair, executive director, salary, benefits, expense account, roughly $300,000; World Wildlife Fund, Kathryn Fuller, executive director, salary, $185,000, total with benefits, $201,650; and on down the line. Over here is the Environmental Defense Fund, Fred Krupp, executive director, salary, $193,000, with benefits $210,000. That is big business. These 12 groups I have listed here have a net worth--not just in thousands, not hundreds of thousands, but $1.03 billion. Their combined revenue for 1 year was $633 million. Their 4-year lobbying expenses were $32 million. This is big business. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that tables entitled ``Executive Compensation'' and ``Environmental Organization Incomes'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. These environmental organizations obviously make a tremendous contribution to America in many regards. But, as far as their efforts against the Eskimo people in my State, it is not a fair fight. How does this $1 billion fund with account balances and assets stack up with the Eskimo and Native people, the 7,500 Eskimo people of the North Slope, and their opportunities for a job, a lifestyle, an education, and a future for their children? Mr. President, this list shows that the environmental community in America is bigger than many of our corporations. This group has indoor plumbing. This group has opportunities for their children and running water. They do not have to put up with honey buckets. It is not wrong to stand up for what you believe in, but it is wrong to have a double standard. The national environmental establishment operates under a double standard. Let us look at some of the practices. They block safe development of the Arctic oil reserve of ANWR. But many of them have gone ahead and developed their own resources. John Roush of the Wilderness Society cut massive timber; clearcut on his land in Montana next to some prime Forest Service land. That is his own business, and it is fine. But it is a double standard here, if they do not practice what they preach. Bill Arthur, Sierra Club, Northwest representative clearcut land in eastern Washington. That is fine. It is his business. He has a right to do it. George Atiyeh of the National Audubon Society's TV show ``Rage Over Trees'' cut trees on land in the Willamette National Forest drainage that he supposedly wanted to protect near Opal Creek. The National Audubon Society allowed 37 wells to pump gas from the Paul J. Rainey sanctuary in Louisiana, $25 million in revenues; allowed grazing, gas leases in the Bernard Baker Refuge in Michigan; timber cutting at Silver Bluff Plantation sanctuary. Well, Mr. President, I do not criticize that. But I do criticize their objections to allowing the Eskimo and Native people of Alaska to have an opportunity to participate in jobs in an area that they are going to protect. Environmental groups continue to generate funding to lobby these and other efforts that are certainly contrary to the interests of the individual people. So who are these environmental preservation groups? Many of them are Clinton administration officials who used to work or hold positions with these national pressure groups. Let us take a look at some of the people in the administration today, and where they came from. The budget director, Alice Rivlin, associated formerly with the Wilderness Society; Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, League of Conservation Voters; John Leshy, Solicitor at the Department of the Interior, National Resource Defense Council; Bonnie Cohen, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Sierra Club; Brooks Yeager, Director of the International Office of Political Analysis, Sierra Club; George Frampton, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife, Wilderness Society; Donald Barry, Deputy Assistant for Fish and Wildlife, World Wildlife Fund; Destry Jarvis, Assistant Director of National Park Service, formerly National Park and Conservation Association; Rafe Pomerance, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Environmental Action; Lois Schiffer, assistant Attorney General, League of Conservation Voters. I could go on and on and on, Mr. President. All I am suggesting to you is, obviously, these people in the administration are in policymaking positions, and they have their own point of view, which is prevailing certainly in the administration's attitude toward allowing development--not just in ANWR, in the Arctic oil reserve, but on grazing issues, on mining issues, on timber issues, and virtually every issue relative to development of resources on public lands--is opposed by the administration. And the rationale is clear. These people are in positions of making policy, and the environmental community is very supportive of most of their efforts and causes. As a consequence, when the people in the area like the Eskimo and Native people in my State of Alaska are not given the consideration relative to their obligation to protect their own land, to protect the resources, the caribou and others, it is clearly not a fair fight. Let me show you a picture, Mr. President, of the caribou wandering around the Prudhoe Bay oilfield. What you can see here are lots and lots of caribou. You can see the oil pipeline. You can see an oil rig under development. Once that well is drilled, that rig is gone, the caribou are still there, and the pipeline is still there. So there is a compatibility. The conclusion, Mr. President, is that this first ad that I showed you--this is the ad that says, ``Do not tax our opportunity to get off welfare.'' This focuses our attention on the plight of some of the poorest people in America. That includes many of the Eskimo people who live on the Arctic Ocean. Like the rest of us, they want jobs. They want education. They want a better way of life. In Alaska, my State, the Natives voted in favor of this development. What about the rest of America? All America would stand to benefit by this. It would be the largest concentration of jobs. Most of these would be union jobs. It would relieve our dependence on imported oil. There is no way that one can make a case that this would have any detrimental effect on the environment. We have proven this in opening up Prudhoe Bay. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that we cannot open up this area safely. The same arguments that prevailed in 1970 against opening up Prudhoe Bay are the arguments that are being used today to try to stop opening up the Arctic oil reserve. Today we have the advanced technology. We have a greater capability, and we can do it safely. So when you see the young girl in the advertisement, think of the natives in Alaska and tell Secretary Bruce Babbitt and some of the high-priced environmental army that he has to think twice before blocking ANWR. As I have indicated, this is not a case of big oil. The Eskimo people are in a survival fight, as are the other Native residents of Alaska, to try and offset the tremendous momentum that the environmental community has in objecting to the opening of this area. Do not sell American ingenuity short. We have heard the arguments before on Prudhoe Bay. We can open it up safely given the opportunity. I am going to read into the Record a short account from the North Slope [[Page S 16844]] Borough and the Arctic Slope Regional Corp. This is the concentration of the 7,500 Inupiat Eskimo people who live on the North Slope of Alaska. A few days ago they called Secretary Babbitt's participation in a press conference here in Washington where he proposed objecting to opening ANWR as a shameful disgrace to his office. Those are harsh words, Mr. President, but the Eskimo people attempted to remind the Secretary that he has a legal duty to serve as a trustee for all Native Americans, and the Eskimo people think he has violated that duty as a trustee and a fiduciary to the Eskimo people. He has done so by joining a small minority, which is 1 percent, I might add, of Alaska's native people who are opposed to opening up the Arctic oil reserve. It is rather interesting to note who funds the Gwich'ins. It is the Sierra Club and the environmental groups that put ads in the New York Times, and so forth, and inhibit, if you will, through fear tactics such as I observed when I was in one of the Gwich'in villages, an Arctic village this summer, a big, slick, Hollywood picture of the Buffalo in the tribal house. Underneath it, it said: ``Don't let happen to the Porcupine caribou herd what happened to the buffalo.'' Obviously, we were out to shoot the buffalo years and years ago when the buffalo became extinct on the ranges of the Western United States. That is not the case with oil exploration, and we can protect the Porcupine caribou herd without a doubt, just as we have seen the tremendous growth of the central Arctic herd. Before oil, that herd was about 4,000 animals. Today there are about 20,000 animals. Let me go on with that statement. Furthermore, the Eskimos indicate that Alaska's 90,000 Aleut, Indian and Eskimo people support opening the coastal plain to oil and gas leasing. In a vote of the Alaska Federation of Natives in their delegation meeting, they voted 2 to 1 in support of creating jobs through development. They further state that the Inupiat Eskimo people who reside on the Arctic Ocean of Alaska favor virtually unanimously opening the coastal plain. They indicate that they have lived with the oil industry for 25 years. The North Slope oil development is safe. It is compatible with the caribou and wildlife, and oil development has given them jobs, a tax base for essential public services and an economic opportunity for all Alaska's native people. They further state that, properly regulated, North Slope oil development is fully compatible with the caribou, the birds, the fish, and the wildlife on which the people depend. This is the Eskimo people speaking, Mr. President. They further state--and I think this is probably most significant as we reflect on the ad that I referred to earlier: ``Don't tax her opportunity to get off welfare''--the Eskimo people are trying desperately to work their way out of Federal dependency. And because of their success, they now find themselves opposed at nearly every turn by the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, Ada Deer, who spoke in Anchorage at the convention. She opposes successful native American corporations and organizations. One concludes she wants the Eskimo people to be dependent--not independent but dependent--on the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Eskimos indicate that dependence kills self-initiative; it breeds a welfare society. They want to follow the American way, the way of independence, self-help, individual responsibility, family values, sense of community. This is what the Eskimo people of the Arctic want. They want this opportunity. Yet, the environmental community suggests that it is the wrong thing to do because the environmental community is trying to scare America saying we cannot open it safely. The Eskimos indicate that it is a tragic day for the 7,500 Inupiat Eskimo people. It is the first time, they say, that the Secretary of the Interior has rejected his trust responsibilities to pursue the naked political objectives of those who are opposed to the interests of native Americans. They indicate that the Secretary of Interior and his administration penalize hard work, penalize success. They want to champion dependency, welfare and allegiance to an incompetent Bureau of Indian Affairs. They put the commercial fund-raising interests of environmental organizations over those of the 7,500 Eskimo people who need help. Secretary Babbitt, and, unfortunately, this administration, seem to oppose opening the coastal plain on the one hand, yet they are actively selling OCS oil and gas leases in the Arctic Ocean adjacent to the coastal plain. Well, they simply have it backwards. Oil development onshore is safe. Oil development in the isolated Arctic wind-driven waters of the ocean is risky. It is hazardous. So as a consequence the word of the Eskimo people is the word of the people who live in the area, who have a commitment to care for the animals of the area, and a realization based on their experience that this area can be opened safely if they are given the opportunity, and that is all they ask. So I would encourage my colleagues, do not sell American technology, ingenuity, or the people of the area short as we consider opening up the Arctic oil reserves in ANWR. We can do it safely. And it is in the national interest, as well as the interest of the Eskimo people, all the Native people of Alaska, and my State of Alaska as well.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I also want to add and take a brief moment to make a statement in regard to the peso, which continues to slide rather dramatically today. I would like to bring to the attention of this body that the economic crisis continues in Mexico. As we recalled yesterday, the Mexican peso fell to a record low against the dollar--7.8 pesos to the dollar. That peso evaluation is even lower than last January and February when the administration told us that the Mexican economy was in crisis and the American taxpayer had to bail out Mexico. There was a good deal of debate in this body at that time. One of the reasons that Mexico's economy is in such deep trouble is the Government's PACTO with labor, agriculture, and business leaders. The Bank of Mexico announced some 2 weeks ago it will raise its minimum wages 10 percent by December and another 10 percent in April 1996. It will raise the price of gasoline, diesel fuel, electricity by 7 percent in December and another 6 percent next April. And there will be increases of 1.2 percent in all other months. Think about that. These price increases follow the 35-percent oil price increase and 20 percent electricity price increase set last March. Investors Business Daily called the PACTO ``centralized economic planning at its worst--more reminiscent of Soviet style 5 year plans than of the free market.'' Still, Treasury Secretary Rubin said that ``structural reform continues to improve the long-term prospects for the--Mexican--economy, attracting both domestic and foreign investment.'' Well, I suggest, Mr. President, that the Secretary of the Treasury has it all wrong. The Mexican economy is in a free-fall. Just this Thursday interest rates on 28-day Treasury bills soared to 54 percent. Inflation is currently running at 40 percent. Mr. President, this administration earlier this year told the Congress that by the second half of 1995 Mexico's economy would stabilize, it would stabilize only if we bailed out the speculators with American taxpayer dollars. The only thing that has happened is that the speculators in tesobonos have all been paid off 100 cents on the dollar, courtesy of the United States taxpayer, and the Mexican economy today is in shambles. The $20 billion bailout and the economic conditions we forced on Mexico have produced, in the opinion of this Senator from Alaska, an economic disaster. I doubt that we will see Mexico pay back the American taxpayer. I fear that the economic austerity that we have forced on Mexico will lead to a political disaster south of the border. I hope that prediction is not true. But I think it is time to go back and reassess--reassess, Mr. President--what we did earlier this year in bailing out those investors in tesobonos, most [[Page S 16845]] of which were sophisticated U.S. investors. The American taxpayers bailed them out. Here today we are seeing that that effort to try to stabilize the Mexican Government apparently has failed. Mr. President, I have concluded my remarks. I wish the President a good day, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.