Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. May I respond, Mr. President?

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment on behalf of Senator Hatfield and respectfully urge its adoption.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this is an amendment with regard to technical language associated with title I. Amendment No. 1103 to Amendment No. 1102 (Purpose: To make clear that the authorization of sale of hydroelectric projects under section 102 has no relevance to any proposal to sell any other hydroelectric project or the power marketing administrations)

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if I may, I have an amendment which I send to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my good friend from Louisiana, and he is my friend. I have had the pleasure of working with him for some 15 years. A significant portion of that time he was chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I work with him now, and I think the amendment just adopted is going to be a significant stimulus to ensuring that we are less dependent on imported oil by enhancing exploration and, hopefully, development in areas that otherwise might prove economically prohibitive to the industry. With the amendment just adopted by the Senator from Louisiana, why, we have enhanced our industry's ability to be competitive in the production of oil. I commend him for his effort and that of his staff, and I am very pleased that we adopted the amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, unless there is no other Senator seeking recognition, I ask that the amendment pending by the Senator from Louisiana be agreed to.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment No. 1078 at this time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, what is the pending business, if I may inquire of the Chair?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate the Chair calling up the pending legislation. I have been in conversations with the Senator from Washington with regard to concerns that she has expressed, and I am told that there are some amendments that the Senator from Washington is interested in pursuing. I have not had an opportunity to review the amendments, but I intend to take this opportunity as soon as possible and have our staffs attempt to resolve the concerns of the Senator from Washington, and it would be my intent to attempt to do this with dispatch. Mr. President, currently the staffs are pursuing an evaluation. I want to ask the Chair the pending business before the Senate.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I wonder if the Senator from Washington would entertain, for a moment, an opportunity, so that we may try to accommodate the amendments, and if there is any objection if I suggest the absence of a quorum, and after we have had a chance to talk, ask that the quorum call be rescinded so that we may move into the bill. I think there is one other Senator who is coming who wishes to speak with regard to an amendment that is pending on our side. I do not see that Senator here at this time. So rather than to take up this time that could be used in negotiating the amendments of the Senator from Washington, if there is no objection, I will suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. No. I respectfully ask my friend from Washington if it is anticipated that the Senator from Washington would require the Senate to invoke cloture on this measure. Might that be her intention?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may respond? I am quite aware there are at least two Senators who are on the floor now. I am most willing and anxious to hear from them, as well as to hear from the Senator from Washington. So the Senator is not indicating one way or another whether there are amendments which she may be offering that we could review during the time under which she and others may speak. I wondered if she has amendments, if the Senator from Washington has amendments?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to try to reach a conclusion, as I know my colleagues would, relative to this matter. We have had an opportunity coming in at 9:30 this morning whereby we were in a quorum call until 12 noon, and the Senator from Washington had asked that we be placed in that quorum until such time and she was graciously kind to advise me that we could go on the bill at 12 noon. Since the quorum call was placed by the Senator from Washington, I anticipated she would have an opportunity to speak at that time on the merits of the bill or the motion to proceed. I did not attempt to call off the quorum and she did not choose to speak. In all fairness, since that time I have held the floor, along with my senior Senator, Senator Stevens. In order to try and resolve this, I had hoped we could get a vote on the question--get the vote today and resolve this matter. It is of great interest to my State, and I know it is of great interest to the State of Alaska, to my colleague, Senator Johnston, as well as Senator Stevens, because we anticipate attaching as part of this Senator Johnston's interest in deep water drilling. Last week, the majority tried to accommodate Members by offering to bring this bill up at 1 p.m. today, but it is my understanding, and I would be happy to be corrected, that there was an objection from the Senator from Washington. So we had to come in at 9:30 a.m. to work out a motion to proceed. As I indicated initially, the Senator from Washington would not allow any agreement on getting to the bill. Then the Senator from Washington agreed to letting the bill come up at 12 noon. Then again at noon, unfortunately, the Senator from Washington objected to the first committee amendment being adopted. The Senator also let it be known that if we put in a quorum call she would object to dispensing with it, and as a consequence, she did. And that, I believe, was when Senator Grams wished to make a statement as if in morning business. We were then forced to hold the floor--I was somewhat reluctant, and I am sure somewhat repetitious in doing so--so we could get a vote at 2:30. Now we still have objections and it is my understanding now that the objection has been dropped on the second committee amendment. I would like to--perhaps we would find it expedient--without losing my right to the floor, to ask the Chair whether the Senator from Washington would inform the Senate what her intentions might be on the legislation that is pending? Specifically, I ask, does the Senator plan to offer any amendments? If so, could she inform us what those amendments might be so we can review them?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, responding to my colleague from California, with regard to Tosco, I am referring to the 1993 PADD IV refinery slate, which is the latest one I have indicating the origin of oil from the Tosco refinery at Martinez, CA, which is, I think, the question posed by the Senator from California. The capacity of that refinery is 148,000 barrels a day. That 148,000 comes from the following origins: 56,000 barrels a day comes down from my State of Alaska; 75,000 barrels a day of that refinery's capacity comes from California, that is produced locally in California; 18,000 barrels a day of that refinery's utilization is imported oil. So a little more, 75,000 California, 56,000 from Alaska, 18,000 are imported, and there is another Tosco refinery, Ferndale, which is, I think, of interest to the Senator from Washington. The Ferndale refinery capacity is about 89,000, currently operating at 71,000; 64,000 come down from Alaska, 7,000 are imported--none comes from California, which I am sure is not a surprise. The point of the question of my friends from California, Washington and California, are certainly the natural markets for ANS crude. Washington and California ports are closest to Alaska as the origin of crude oil, and the ANS will continue to supply those refineries simply because of the proximity and the lower transportation costs.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in reply to the Senator, it is my understanding that the Department of Energy has done an exhaustive analysis and agrees that significant job creation would be initiated primarily as a consequence of small, independent stripper producers that currently are having a difficult time maintaining production because of the excess oil on the west coast that would be removed if indeed this legislation becomes law, and that would stimulate production, investment and, of course, initiate numerous new jobs. And the proximity of that oil to the California refiners is such that it would reduce transportation costs as opposed to bringing the oil down-- I am not suggesting that California production would increase to the point where it would replace Alaska oil, but it would stimulate that margin of production and cannot compete with the excess oil that is on the west coast today. I am very pleased that my friend from California recognizes that the mix of utilization of oil in the California refineries is both Alaskan as well as Californian, as well as some imported oil. But there is no question about the merits of the job creation and margin and operations coming back on line. I think that is why this legislation was so unanimously supported by the California independent [[Page S6666]] oil producers, who have worked very hard on this legislation.