Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, these press releases really express the petroleum industry's deep disappointment with the President's response to the Commerce Department's finding that oil imports threaten the national security. Mr. President, I also want to bring to the attention of the Senate a letter to the President dated February 10, 1995, sent by 70 Members of Congress, myself included. This bipartisan letter identifies a host of administrative, regulatory, and legislative actions that the President could have taken in response to the Department of Commerce report. But as I have stated before, the President instead decided to do nothing, and this is disappointing to me and to my colleagues who signed the letter. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to discuss President Clinton's ``do nothing--and I repeat ``do nothing''--response to the threat to our national security from the rising tide of oil imports. Mr. President, the threat posed by our growing dependence on foreign energy is once again in the spotlight because of last Thursday's release of the Commerce Department's report to the President titled ``The Effect of Imports of Crude Oil and Refined Petroleum Products on the National Security.'' The report found that: * * * the reduction in exploration, dwindling reserves, falling production, relatively high cost of U.S. production, and the resulting low rates of return on investments all point toward a contraction of the U.S. petroleum industry and increasing imports from OPEC sources. Growing import dependence, in turn, increases U.S. vulnerability to a supply disruption because non-OPEC sources lack surge production capacity; and there are at present no substitutes for oil- based transportation fuels which account for two-thirds of U.S. petroleum consumption. Based on these findings, the Secretary of Commerce formally advised the President that: The Department found that petroleum imports threaten to impair the national security. I recommend that you confirm this finding. Mr. President, it is reasonable to expect the President of the United States to take bold action--bold action--if the national security is at risk. President Clinton agreed that it is at risk, but he simply refuses to take action or propose anything. In his statement, President Clinton said: I am today concurring with the Department of Commerce's finding that the nation's growing reliance on imports of crude oil and refined petroleum products threaten the nation's security because they increase U.S. vulnerability to oil supply interruptions. So far, so good. But President Clinton went on to say: recommendation that the Administration continue its present efforts to improve U.S. energy security, rather than to adopt a specific import adjustment mechanism. So that is out. Further, Mr. President, translated into English, President Clinton will not do anything; the administration will simply continue its existing policies--the very policies that allowed the threat to our national security to occur in the first place. I would have hoped that he would come up with at least one new initiative. I know that I could have. But he did not. It is not that the report is trivial and can be ignored. It was put together by a high-level interagency task force led by the Department of Commerce, and included every major Federal agency; namely, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Labor, the Department of Energy, the Office of Management and Budget, the Council of Economic Advisers, and the U.S. Trade Representative. Public hearings were held throughout the country, and testimony was received from 69 witnesses. The report is well researched, thoughtful, and based on fact. It is not that the President does not have any authority to act. He certainly does. Under the Trade Expansion Act, once a determination is made that imports threaten the national security, the President obtains broad powers. These powers have been used in the past against other threats to the national security, just as they should have been put to use here. Moreover, even if the President did not want to make use of the Trade Expansion Act authority, there is a host of other regulatory and administrative changes the President could take under existing law. If the President found these powers too limited, he could have proposed legislative changes. But for reasons I cannot fathom, he has not done a single thing other than continue the administration's policy which makes us more dependent on imports. The President's don't worry, be happy attitude may be disturbing, but I guess it is not surprising. He is equally unwilling to promote hydroelectric power, nuclear power, or coal power. He strongly supports the use of natural gas, but not the domestic production of natural gas. Based on unfounded fears of the environmental community, he is unwilling to open up even the smallest amount of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for exploration and development, just as he does not want to see additional onshore and offshore Federal lands opened up. I find it ironic that at the very moment that the President of the United States is saying that the administration will do nothing new to promote energy production in the United States, the Secretary of Energy is in China promoting Chinese energy production. Perhaps we should invite the Chinese Secretary of Energy to the United States to help our industry. To this Senator, the President's decision to do absolutely nothing about a threat to our national security is nothing short of incredible. To agree with the Department of Commerce that the national security is at risk, but to take no action, is simply unconscionable. That is particularly mystifying because in 1992 candidate Bill Clinton made the following statement: Our reliance on foreign oil is a genuine threat to our national and economic security. When George Bush took office, foreign oil made up a third of our trade deficit, and since then the U.S. has not had an energy policy. Now we import nearly half our oil, which accounts for two-thirds of our trade deficit. Even James Watkins, the President's Secretary of Energy, has written that the U.S. imports much of its oil ``from potentially unreliable suppliers half a world away.'' That kind of dependence makes us vulnerable, and we must change that situation. That was President Clinton the candidate. Mr. President, there is an old saying that those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it. Does President Clinton remember the shortages, price increases, and long gasoline lines caused by the 1973 Arab oil embargo? Does he remember the energy shortages during the 1976-77 winter, which shut down schools and businesses throughout the Midwest? Does he remember the Khomeni revolution and the Iraq-Iran war which threatened international oil supplies? Does he remember our reflagging Kuwaiti oil tankers to allow the United States Navy to protect them from Iran? And, finally, does he remember Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, which threatened two-thirds of the world's oil reserves and resulted in one- half million United States troops laying their lives on the line? Mr. President, that was a war over oil, make no mistake about it. In refusing to take any action, however modest, President Clinton is putting hope over experience. He is also placing our energy and economic destiny into the hands of foreign producers--producing nations who have demonstrated time and time again, that they have their political and economic interests in mind, not ours. Mark my words: If we do not pay attention to the present, we will relive the past. We will look at the energy situation very briefly this morning. Mr. President, there is no question that each day our energy situation is increasingly perilous. That is obvious from the data which I would now like to provide for the benefit of the Senate. I will first describe the rapid decline in U.S. crude oil production, and the state of natural gas production. In 1970, U.S. crude oil production hit its all-time peak of 9.6 million barrels per day. In 1973, the year of the Arab oil embargo, U.S. production had fallen to 9.2 million barrels per day. Today, we produce only 6.6 million barrels per day, a 28-percent decline since 1973 and a 32-percent decline since 1970. Today, the United States produces less crude oil than we did back in 1955. Had environmentalists succeeded in preventing the development of the Prudhoe Bay in Alaska, the United States would now be producing less oil than before 1949, the first year for which we have data. I might add, that Prudhoe Bay has been contributing about 25 percent of the Nation's total crude oil for the last 17 years. That production is now in decline. We would like to open up new areas in Alaska to replace the decline of Prudhoe Bay, but clearly it is not the present policy at this time. I would hope the President would see fit to change his mind. He has been known to do that on occasion. As bad as that sounds, it is only going to get worse. According to the Department of Energy, in 5 years the United States will be producing only 5.4 million barrels per day of crude oil. In the year 2005--only 10 years from now--U.S. oil production will fall to 5.2 million barrels per day. Thus, unless we take action, and take it now, in the year 2005 we will be producing about the same amount of crude oil as we did back in 1949. To put this all in perspective, in 1949 there were only 36 million cars on the road; today there are 143 million on the road, four times as many. The good news, of course, is that energy efficiency has increased dramatically. Although natural gas production has increased over the past 2 years, it is still 13 percent below the 1973 production rate. Moreover, the Department of Energy forecasts that natural gas production will not keep pace with increased demand over the next decade. Let me now very briefly talk about our dwindling reserves of crude oil and natural gas. As worrisome as the decline in U.S. production may be, the decline in U.S. proven reserves of crude oil and natural gas is even more worrisome. From 1949 until 1968, the combined U.S. reserves of crude oil and natural gas increased every year. Beginning in 1968, however, production exceeded net additions to proved reserves, and net reserves began their current decline. Since 1968, except for the addition of Alaska's North Slope reserves in 1970, our combined proven reserves of oil and gas have consistently declined. Today, U.S. proven reserves of crude oil are 40 percent below their peak in 1979. They are even lower than they were back in 1949. Today, U.S. proven reserves of natural gas are 43 percent below their peak in 1967. They are also lower than they were back in 1949. In this connection, it is interesting to note that the Commerce Department's report cites the decisions the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf'' as key factors contributing to the decline of U.S. oil reserves. It should not come as any surprise that the combination of increasing demand and declining production results in growing foreign dependence on imported oil. In 1973, the year of the Arab oil embargo, we imported 6.3 million barrels per day of crude oil and refined petroleum products. We were 36 percent dependent on foreign oil. Today, we import 8.9 million barrels per day of oil, making us more than 50 percent foreign dependent. By the year 2005, the Department of Energy projects that we will import 12.5 million barrels per day of oil, making us 68 percent foreign dependent. Although we are less dependent on imports of natural gas than we are on imports of oil, our natural gas imports are also rising. In 1973, we imported 5 percent of the natural gas we consumed. Today, we are importing 12 percent, and the Department of Energy projects that by the year 2005 our foreign dependence will increase to 14 percent. As the Commerce Department's report notes, our growing dependence on foreign energy is very worrisome because: ``The United States and the OECD countries have limited prospects to offset a major oil supply disruption ***.'' and that ``(d)uring a major oil supply disruption, there could be substantial economic austerity as a result of the decreased availability of oil *** (which would) pose hardships for the U.S. economy.'' Our foreign oil dependency also has significant financial implications for the United States, particularly with respect to the trade deficit. Each and every day we spend $140 million on foreign energy--$55 billion last year alone. Altogether, over the past decade we have spent one-half trillion dollars on imported energy. Clearly, our economy would have been healthier and more of our workers employed if we had spent that money on domestically produced energy instead of on imports. Imports of foreign energy have cost oil workers thousands of jobs, according to IPAA and Department of Commerce statistics. In 1981, there were 15,000 independent oil and gas producers; today there are less than 8,000. Total employment in oil and gas production has fallen from 700,000 in 1982, to 350,000 today--a 50-percent decline. We can only expect this to get worse over the next decade as domestic production declines and imports increase. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what it all means. The Department of Commerce is right on target. Our economic and national security is threatened. Our growing dependence on foreign energy leaves the United States vulnerable to the whims of foreign producers. No matter how stable our energy supply now appears, the price and availability of energy from foreign nations has been, and will continue to be, a function of their political and economic priorities, not ours. The problem is largely self-made. For example, the entire east coast of the United States is under a leasing moratorium, just as is the west coast and the eastern Gulf of Mexico off Florida's coast. There is great oil and gas potential there which can be developed with due regard to the environment. Drill in ANWR? Not a chance, says the environmental community. We must not forget that the picture is no better for our other energy resources. For example, no new nuclear powerplant has been announced for two decades. It is difficult and costly for U.S. refineries to comply with environmental restrictions. Federal environmental laws and regulations likewise make it difficult and very costly to build a natural gas pipeline, a coal-fired powerplant, an electric transmission line, or a hydroelectric dam. There is much that can be done to promote the production of domestic energy from our abundance resources. It ranges from the mundane to the controversial. But if we do not take action, our children are going to be very critical of us as they sit in long gasoline lines or are cold at night or are unemployed. Mr. President, the Commerce Department's report is a clarion call to action, not a lullaby to put us to sleep. We have a choice: Produce more energy domestically, or suffer the consequences of our dependency. I choose the former; President Clinton chooses the latter. Finally, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the press release from the Independent Petroleum Association of America, the American Petroleum Institute, and the National Stripper Well Association be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Monday, March 6, 1995, at 2 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony regarding S. 333, the Department of Energy Risk Management Act of 1995. Those wishing to testify or who wish 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 Maureen Koetz at (202) 224-0765.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, last week, a somber time passed on this floor when some of our colleagues remembered the momentous battle of Iwo Jima in the Second World War. As Senator Bumpers so eloquently reminded us, nearly 6,000 of our marines were lost forever in that battle waged 50 years ago this week and were never to know the world they helped save from tyranny in that most dreadful struggle. There are many others who remember Iwo Jima, Mr. President, and each has his own story. One of my constituents, Herb Rhodes of Anchorage, AK, was at Iwo in February 1945. As a member of the 5th U.S. Marine Division dispatched to Red Beach II, Herb was severely wounded in the initial attack on February 19, 1945. There were a total of 6,821 American lives lost in those first 4 days following the landing on the beach at Iwo Jima, making this battle one of the costliest of the war. In a compilation of photos, stories, and historical information gathered by Lyn Crowley, an engineering officer with the 5th Marine Division, Herb and his former comrades in arms recount the events of that now famous day, 50 years ago, when a 40-man platoon made its way to the top of Mount Suribachi. Of these 40 men, 36 were wounded or killed in subsequent fighting on Iwo Jima. This compilation, titled ``The Flags of Iwo Jima,'' recounts the first U.S. flag on Suribachi-- the one it is said that ``nobody remembers.'' This is so because the first flag was very small and could not be seen down the mountain or across the island. The 5th Marine commander then ordered a larger flag be raised as a sign of encouragement to our troops, who were still in the throes of a great battle. This second raising of Old Glory was captured for all time by combat photographer Joe Rosenthal. His photograph on Mount Suribachi became the model for the Marine Memorial that we all know so well. The photograph itself--of the second flag raising, not the first--is said to be the most famous photograph of wartime history I promised Herb that I would speak here in order to remind us of the acts of all brave marines, the sacrifice and loss suffered by the Nation, and indeed, I speak to honor my friend Herb Rhodes and his marine brothers who climbed Suribachi in February 1945 and were the first to raise the flag. With humility and gratitude, I know that we live better lives because many of them gave their lives for us. My feelings are shared by many in Congress, and throughout our Nation and the world. I know that Herb Rhodes will agree that the marines who fought on Iwo Jima gave their all to earn victory. This is as true for the marines who were the first to reach the top of Mount Suribachi as it is for those captured in Joe Rosenthal's photograph. Indeed, glory and honor are due to all those who sacrificed their lives or who put themselves in harm's way on Iwo Jima. While some of our warriors were captured on film, and some are immortalized in bronze in Arlington Cemetery, these serve to symbolize the heroism of all who fought to save liberty. Herb Rhodes and his soldier brothers deserve our everlasting gratitude on On this 50th anniversary of the battle on Iwo Jima, we remember flags raised by marines all over the world. And we remember flags draped over marines, airmen, sailors, and soldiers, in honored glory, from Iwo Jima to Omaha Beach to Da Nang. Today and every day, we remember all our brave heroes. Do I have any remaining time, Mr. President?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I see my friend from Colorado is in the Chamber. The Senator from Texas had asked me to yield if I had any remaining time, but I do not see the Senator from Texas, so I obviously will yield to my good friend from Colorado. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wish you a good morning.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Act of 1971 at the request of Cook Inlet Region, Inc. [CIRI] to allow CIRI to purchase stock from their shareholders and retire the stock. Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [ANCSA] in 1971 to address claims to lands in Alaska by the Eskimo, Indian, and Aleut Native people. Lands and other benefits transferred to Alaska Natives under the act were conveyed to corporations formed under this act. CIRI is one of the corporations formed under ANCSA and has approximately 6,262 Alaska Natives enrolled, each of whom were issued 100 shares of stock in CIRI, as required under ANCSA. ANCSA stock, unlike most corporate stock, cannot be sold, transferred, or pledged by the owners of the shares. Rather, transfers can only happen through inheritance, or in limited case, by court decree. To date, no Native corporation has sought to lift the restriction. For the most part, this is because Native shareholders continue to value Native ownership of the corporations and Native control of the lands and other assets held by them. These shareholders, whose numbers consistently register at the 70- 80-percent level, see economic benefits in the continuation of Native ownership, and also value the important cultural goals, values, and activities of their ANCSA corporation. However, a minority of shareholders favor assessing some or all of the value of their CIRI stock through the sale of that stock. These shareholders include, but are not limited to, elderly shareholders who have real current need yet doubt that sale of stock will be available to them in their lifetime; holder of small, fractional shares received through one or more cycles of inheritance; non-Natives who have acquired stock through inheritance but without attendant voting privileges; and shareholders who have few ties to the corporation or to Alaska, 25 percent of CIRI shareholders live outside of Alaska. Under current law, these two legitimate but conflicting concerns cannot be addressed, because lifting restrictions on the sale of stock in an all or nothing proposition. In order to allow the minority of shareholders to exercise their desire to sell some or all of their stock, the majority of shareholders would have to sacrifice their important desire to maintain Native control and ownership of CIRI. CIRI believes this conflict will eventually leave the interests of the majority of its shareholders vulnerable to political instability. In addition, CIRI recognizes that responding to the desire of those shareholders who wish to sell CIRI stock is a legitimate corporate responsibility. CIRI believes there is a way to address the needs and desires of both groups of shareholders, those who wish to sell stock and those who desire to maintain their Native ownership. The method embodied in this legislation is one that other companies routinely use, buying back of its own stock. The acquired stock would then be retired. Mr. President, I have discussed this bill at length with CIRI and I am convinced this is the best solution. This bill is identical to one that passed the House, and was approved by the Senate Energy Committee last session, and I look forward to its passage.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for a reasonable period.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I just have been advised of the release by the White House of the Department of Commerce's findings concerning the question of our increased dependence on imported oil. Today in that report, our President reported to the Congress that, indeed, our growing dependence on imported oil is a threat to our national security. However, it is rather disturbing to note that the President failed to propose any new action, direct or indirect, to alleviate this threat. It is the opinion of this Senator from Alaska that such action is unprecedented and wholly unacceptable. I ask unanimous consent that the press release be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, if we look at the specifics of the recommendation, as indicated in the press release, the specific highlights include increased investment in energy efficiency, certainly a worthy and laudable goal; increased investment in alternative fuels, likewise; increased Government investment in technology to lower costs and improve production utilization of natural gas; increased Government investment in renewable energy sources; increased Government regulatory efficiency; increased emphasis on free trade and U.S. exports; maintenance of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve which, obviously, is there for emergencies; and coordination for emergency cooperation measures. Notable by its absence is any mention of efforts to stimulate domestic drilling and production in the United States. I find that extraordinary. I wonder just who is advising the President. I cannot believe that the President himself does not support domestic exploration, development, the creation of jobs. One of the bases of America's industrial might has been our ability to produce energy sources, specifically oil and gas. But there is no mention of exploration for oil. There is no mention of stimulating exploration in the Gulf of Mexico where a good portion of our current resources are coming from. As we go deeper out in the gulf and invest in new technology, it requires greater engineering, greater risk, but, obviously, the industry is willing to make those commitments and that investment. This is what we call deep-water drilling. It requires substantial capital and substantial incentives. Furthermore, we have frontier areas where onshore there are no pipelines, no infrastructure, and to encourage the industry to go in those areas and explore, again, may require some concessions, some type of moratorium relative to the application of taxation. None of these are mentioned, and I find that rather curious. We have the overthrust belt; no mention of opening up areas for oil and gas exploration. It is rather curious, and I guess it is appropriate, that I be a little sensitive on this because my State of Alaska has been supplying this country with about 24 percent of the total crude oil that is produced in the United States for the last 16 to 17 years. That area where most of that oil comes from is called Prudhoe Bay. It is a huge investment by three major international companies--Exxon, BP and ARCO. They operate the fields. They produce about 1.6 million barrels of oil per day. That is down from approximately 2 million barrels a few years ago. The field is declining. But the significance is, as it declines we are increasing our imports. Where do our oil imports come from? Why, it comes from the Mideast. It comes to our shores in foreign flag ships, manned by foreign crews. Many of the corporations that operate those ships are relatively alike in their corporate structure. Some suggest they are even shell corporations. It is interesting to look at our trade deficit, Madam President, of about $167 billion. A good portion of that is Japan, a portion of it is China, but almost half is the price of imported oil. So we are exporting our dollars, exporting our jobs and becoming more and more dependent on other parts of the world. I find this trend relatively unnerving; that we should have to depend to such an extent on imported petroleum products and then recognize that it is called to our attention by this special study done by the Department of Commerce that we have been waiting for an extended period of time to identify that, indeed, our national security interests are at stake. I look at my State of Alaska with the potential to supply more oil as Prudhoe Bay declines, and it is rather ironic, Madam President, that on this floor today was a bill to take the most promising area in North America, namely ANWR, and put it in a permanent wilderness. We have always had a difficult time trying to keep Alaska in perspective relative to its size and the type of development and the control that our State as well as the Federal agencies have in developing the resources from the North Slope and the Arctic. And as we reflect on that, the technology that developed Prudhoe Bay is now 20 to 25 years old, but some new technology came along about 10 years ago and resulted in the development of a field called Endicott. Endicott was an expansion of Prudhoe Bay in one sense, but the technology was entirely new. It came on as a production facility, the tenth largest producing field in the United States at about 107,000 barrels a day. Today it is the seventh largest at about 120,000 barrels a day. But that technology, Madam President, resulted in a footprint of 56 acres. That is a pretty small area. That is the size of the footprint. But the contribution to our energy security, our jobs, was significant. The last area that has been identified by geologists as potentially carrying the capability of a major discovery is ANWR, but what are the parameters of ANWR? First of all, there are about 19 million acres in the area. Over 17 million acres are basically set aside in wilderness in perpetuity. That is a pretty good-sized chunk of real estate. We are looking at an area the size of Oregon and Washington put together. Industry tells us that if they can find the oil necessary to develop the field--and they have to find a lot of oil because you do not develop small fields in the Arctic--the footprint would be about 12,500 acres. To put that in perspective, that is about the size of the Dulles International Airport complex in Virginia, assuming the rest of Virginia were a wilderness. The arguments against opening ANWR are the same arguments that prevailed nearly 20 years ago when we talked about opening Prudhoe Bay: What is going to happen to the caribou? What is going to happen to the moose? What is going to happen to the wildlife? Well, we have had some 17 or 18 years to observe the process. The caribou herds in Prudhoe Bay were 4,000 to 5,000; now they are 17,000 to 18,000. The growth of those herds is as a consequence of the realization that those areas are absolutely off limits to subsistence hunting of any kind. The Eskimo people in the region do not hunt in those areas, and caribou is a very adaptable animal. If chased down by a snow machine or hunter, obviously it runs away. The common sight of modest activity associated with exploration and development has absolutely no effect. A person can go up there today and observe this process. So as we reflect on what some of the alternatives are, I wonder if we are really not selling America short. As I said before, they are the same arguments of 17 years ago we are hearing today, that somehow this is the Serengeti of the Arctic--12,500 acres out of 19 million acres is what we are talking about--somehow the native people of the area will be affected. But I can tell you, Madam President, the native people of the area have been given an opportunity that they never had before, and many of them have chosen the opportunity to have gainful employment, have a tax base, have first-class schools. Schools in Barrow, AK, are the finest schools in the United States bar none. In areas where we have intense climates, we have indoor play areas. As a consequence of the contribution of oil and the fact that the native people have been able to tax the oil, have been able to tax the pipeline, they have been able to have an alternative to a subsistence lifestyle which jobs offer but never would have been prevalent in the area. I think we are shortchanging America's ingenuity to suggest we cannot open it safely. There is absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest that we cannot open it safely. The technology is advanced. The footprint is smaller. The environmental concerns, the restoration, are all set in place by the State and the Federal Government. So the risk is diminished dramatically. So why the hesitation? Well, to some degree, Madam President, it is associated with a cause, and that cause is that Alaska is far away. ANWR has been identified by many of the national environmental groups as an issue where they can challenge; people cannot go up there and see for themselves. It generates revenue. It generates a cause. And as a consequence, they would suggest to you that this area cannot be opened up safely. They do not address the opportunities for employment, the opportunities for new engineering technology and expertise but, rather, that Americans cannot meet a challenge. I find this very, very distressing, but it is something that perhaps Alaskans and others who come from energy States have become uncomfortably accustomed to. Now, where do we go from here, Madam President? Well, I happen to be chairman of the Energy and Natural of hearings on this matter as we look at our growing dependence on imported oil and the effect that it has on our national security and look to alternatives. But, Madam President, we are not going to look to the alternatives suggested by the White House, which are nothing but words. I can remember coming into this body in 1981 when we were running in the high 30's, low 40's percentile dependence on imported oil. There was concern then. There was an expression if it ever got to the area where it would be approaching 50 percent we would have to do something drastic, we would have to stimulate our industry somehow with incentives. But we went on and on and became more dependent and now 51 percent of our total consumption is imported oil. And now we are told that our national security is at stake. Out of these hearings I hope we get the experts--not the wordsmiths from the White House who are simply selling America short, relative to its capability to produce additional discoveries of oil and gas within the United States. It is truly distressing to read this report. We knew it was coming. We suspected what it said. And each time we made an inquiry we were advised that the report was still under review because the administration chose, for obvious reasons, to put it off as long as they could. I find it rather coincidental that it comes in at a time when we are almost out for the Presidents' Day extended weekend. But I think it is time for this body and the other House to reflect on the reality associated with a segment of America's traditional industrial might that the administration proposes to remove from the passing scene and become more dependent on imports and export more dollars and more jobs offshore. This is not unique to the oil industry. To some extent it follows with the administration's attitude towards domestic mining. But I will save that analysis for another day. I am pleased the Independent Petroleum Association of America has pursued this matter. I think their President, Mr. Dennis Bode, has made a very commendable and meaningful contribution to bring this report before us. I hope the Energy Coalition, that is made up of both Members of the House and Senate, will reflect upon this report in the very near future. I know they will. It is interesting to look at the attitude of other nations as they observe our increasing dependence on imports. My many friends in Japan cannot understand. They simply say how unfortunate it is that Japan has no natural resources and must import its entire resources, whether energy or mineral. They only have the human work ethic and the efficiencies associated with Japanese industry that have been perfected over an extended period of time, since the Second World War. We helped them basically during the reconstruction period. They simply cannot understand our mentality and lack of our commitment to use our resources wisely, for the benefit of our people and our economy. In summary, Madam President, I am disappointed. It is ironic that we should be confronted on the same day with a bill to close the most promising area in North America from exploration and put it into an additional permanent wilderness--and I might add, Madam President, we have 56 million acres of wilderness in our State. There are some who would like to put the whole State in a wilderness. There are others who would like to buy the State back from the United States and go it alone. But that is probably another story, for another day as well. To suggest this is the time to put it in wilderness when we get a report that says our national security interest is at stake is, indeed, ironic. I know Senator Stevens will be joining me in commenting on the significance of this report and the lack of responsible--and I stress responsible--analysis of the alternatives that we have available to us, alternatives that are practical, and certainly in the national security interest. I think that is enough for tonight, Madam President. I wish you a good holiday and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Thursday, March 2, 1995, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony regarding S. 443, the Electric Consumers and Environmental Protection Act of 1995, S. 167, the Nuclear Waste Police Act of 1995, and draft legislation being considered by the full Committee. Those wishing to testify or who wish 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 Karen Hunsicker at (202) 224-3543. on parks, historic preservation and recreation

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on S. 395, the Alaska Power Administration Sale Act, including title II, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Amendment Act of 1995. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, March 1, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Those wishing to testify or who wish 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 Andrew Lundquist at (202) 224-6170.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduced legislation to sell the Alaska Power Administration's two hydroelectric projects, as well as a trailing amendment which would lift the Alaska North Slope crude oil export ban. Mr. President, title 1 of this legislation will authorize the sale of the Alaska Power Administration. The Alaska Power Administration is really different from the other Federal power marketing agencies of the Department of Energy. It has only two hydroelectric projects, Eklutna, near Anchorage, and Snettisham, near Juneau. These were never intended by Congress to remain indefinitely under Federal control. The Eklutna Project Act, for example, states that: Upon completion of amortization of the capital investment allocated to power, the Secretary is authorized and directed to report to the Congress upon the feasibility and desirability of transferring the Eklutna project to public ownership and control in Alaska. Moreover, these two projects were created specifically to promote economic and industrial development in Alaska, and they are not the product of a water resource management plan. I have been a strong advocate of ensuring that Alaskans control their own destiny, which is really what this bill is about. It will put the management of these two hydroelectric projects into the hands of those who best know Alaska. One project would be sold to the State of Alaska and the other will be sold to a group of three Alaskan public electric utilities. Equally as important, this legislation will relieve the Federal Government of the expenses of operating and maintaining these two projects. It also provides for the termination of the Alaska Power Administration once the sale is complete, further saving money for taxpayers. necessary safeguards for the environment. It requires the State of Alaska and the Eklutna purchasers to abide by the memorandum of agreement they entered into regarding the protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife. This legislation makes this legally enforceable. Last year, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources reported Senate bill 2383, the Alaska Power Administration Sale Authorization Act. The administration testified in strong support of this legislation. Unfortunately, the committee acted too late in the year to allow for Senate action. With early introduction in this Congress, I am hopeful we will see this legislation enacted into law soon. There is one provision which needs to be included in the Alaska Power Administration legislation before it is sent to the President for signature. But I have not included it because it addresses the Internal Revenue Code. In order to indicate my strong desire that such a provision be included in the final bill, I have introduced it as a printed amendment. Title 2 of this bill will lift the Alaska North Slope crude oil export ban. Alaska is the only State that is subject to such an onerous plan. The 1.6 million barrels of oil transported through the TransAlaska pipeline is not forced into the lower 48 crude markets, creating artificially low crude oil prices on the west coast. The majority of this oil is tankered along our coast to Washington and California. Some of the oil is even shipped all the way down to Panama, pumped through the TransPanamanian pipeline, which is owned in large part by the Panamanian Government. The oil is then put back on smaller U.S.- flagged tankers that transport it into the gulf States at exorbitant prices. This process is no longer economic with the decline in the price of oil. Now what we have seen is we have seen an increase in the supply of oil on the west coast. It has depressed the cost of crude oil in California by as much as $3 a barrel, and that has discouraged the exploration of development of oilfields in California and Alaska. The Department of Energy completed a study of the Alaskan North Slope crude oil ban in June 1994 and the Department of Energy concluded that the lifting of this ban would add as much as $180 billion in tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury, create some 25,000 jobs by the year 2000, preserve some 3,300 maritime jobs, inasmuch as some of the oil will probably be moving to the Far East in U.S.-flagged vessels that are crewed by U.S. sailors, and would require additional ships because, obviously, the transit is longer than moving that oil down to the west coast. It would also increase American oil production by as much as 110,000 barrels a day, according to a DOE estimate. This study also found it would not significantly impact gas prices to consumers in California. Mr. President, this ban no longer makes any sense. Rather than decrease our dependence on foreign oil, it has decreased our domestic production, and made us more reliant on imported oil. Oil, like any other commodity, should find its own level and its own market. The exception of this has been the prohibition on allowing the export of Alaskan oil. Mr. President, all this legislation would so is to allow the market to determine the price and buyer of the crude oil. The TransAlaska pipeline would still supply the west coast with crude oil because it is simply the closest market for the oil. The excess crude that creates a glut in California and the oil that is forced through the TransPanamanian pipeline would probably be sold overseas and find a market there. But the market would primarily determine where it is sold. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and the associated amendment be printed in the Congressional Record and that my statement and the accompanying bill be addressed for referral as it appropriate. Mr. President, I neglected to announce that the senior Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] joins me as a cosponsor on the bill.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Murkowski pertaining to the introduction of S. 395 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe we are still in morning business.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to consider the nomination of Wilma Lewis to be inspector General of the Department of the Interior. The hearing will take place Monday, February 13, 1995, at 2 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call Camille Heninger at (202) 224- 5070. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to consider the President's 1996 proposed budget. The committee will hear testimony from the Department of the Interior on Thursday, February 16, 1995. The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m., and will take place in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call Betty Nevitt or Jim Beirne at (202) 224-0765.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in accordance with rule XXVI, section 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby submit for publication in the Congressional Record, the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The rules follow: Rules of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources general rules Rule 1. The Standing Rules of the Senate as supplemented by these rules, are adopted as the rules of the Committee and its Subcommittees. meetings of the committee Rule 2. (a) The Committee shall meet on the third Wednesday of each month while the Congress is in session for the purpose of conducting business, unless, for the convenience of Members, the Chairman shall set some other day for a meeting. Additional meetings may be called by the Chairman as he may deem necessary. (b) Business meetings of any Subcommittee may be called by the Chairman of such Subcommittee, Provided, That no Subcommittee meeting or hearing other than a field hearing, shall be scheduled or held concurrently with a full Committee meeting or hearing, unless a majority of the Committee concurs in such concurrent meeting or hearing. open hearings and meetings Rule 3. (a) Hearings and business meetings of the Committee or any Subcommittee shall be open to the public except when the Committee or such Subcommittee by majority vote orders a closed hearing or meeting. (b) A transcript shall be kept of each hearing of the Committee or any Subcommittee. (c) A transcript shall be kept of each business meeting of the Committee or any Subcommittee unless a majority of the Committee or the Subcommittee involved agrees that some other form of permanent record is preferable. hearing procedure Rule 4. (a) Public notice shall be given of the date, place, and subject matter of any hearing to be held by the Committee or any Subcommittee at least one week in advance of such hearing unless the Chairman of the full Committee or the Subcommittee involved determines that the hearing is non- controversial or that special circumstances require expedited procedures and a majority of the Committee or the Subcommittee involved concurs. In no case shall a hearing be conducted with less than twenty-four hours notice. (b) Each witness who is to appear before the Committee or any Subcommittee shall file with the Committee or Subcommittee, at least 24 hours in advance of the hearing, a written statement of his or her testimony in as many copies as the Chairman of the Committee or Subcommittee prescribes. (c) Each member shall be limited to five minutes in the questioning of any witness until such time as all Members who so desire have had an opportunity to question the witness. (d) The Chairman and ranking Minority Member or the ranking Majority and Minority Members present at the hearing may each appoint one Committee staff member to question each witness. Such staff member may question the witness only after all Members present have completed their questioning of the witness or at such other time as the Chairman and the ranking Majority and Minority Members present may agree. business meeting agenda Rule 5. (a) A legislative measure or subject shall be included on the agenda of the next following business meeting of the full Committee or any Subcommittee if a written request for such inclusion has been filed with the Chairman of the Committee or Subcommittee at least one week prior to such meeting. Nothing in this rule shall be construed to limit the authority of the Chairman of the Committee or Subcommittee to include legislative measures or subjects on the Committee or Subcommittee agenda in the absence of such request. (b) The agenda for any business meeting of the Committee or any Subcommittee shall be provided to each Member and made available to the public at least three days prior to such meeting, and no new items may be added after the agenda is so published except by the approval of a majority of the Members of the Committee or Subcommittee. The Members of any action taken by the Committee or an Subcommittee on matters not included on the published agenda. quorums Rule 6. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (d), six Members shall constitute a quorum for the conduct of business of the Committee. (b) No measure or matter shall be ordered reported from the Committee unless ten Members of the Committee are actually present at the time such action is taken. (c) Except as provided in subsection (d), one-third of the Subcommittee Members shall constitute a quorum for the conduct of business of any Subcommittee. (d) One Members hall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting a hearing or taking testimony on any measure or matter before the Committee or any Subcommittee. voting Rule 7. (a) A rollcall of the members shall be taken upon the request of any Member. Any member who does not vote on any rollcall at the time the roll is called, may vote (in person or by proxy) on that rollcall at any later time during the same business meeting. (b) Proxy voting shall be permitted on all matters, except that proxies may not be counted for the purpose of determining the presence of a quorum. Unless further limited, a proxy shall be exercised only upon the date for which it is given and upon the items published in the agenda for that date. (c) Each Committee report shall set forth the vote on the motion to report the measure or matter involved. Unless the Committee directs otherwise, the report will not set out any votes on amendments offered during Committee consideration. Any Member who did not vote on any rollcall shall have the opportunity to have his position recorded in the appropriate Committee record or Committee report. (d) The Committee vote to report a measure to the Senate shall also authorize the staff of the committee to make necessary technical and clerical corrections in the measure. subcommittees Rule 8. (a) The number of Members assigned to each Subcommittee and the division between Majority and Minority Members shall be fixed by the Chairman in consultation with the ranking Minority Member. (b) Assignment of Members to Subcommittees, shall, insofar as possible, reflect the preferences of the Members. No Member will receive assignment to a second Subcommittee until, in order of seniority, all Members of the Committee have chosen assignments to one Subcommittee, and no Member shall receive assignment to a third Subcommittee until, in order of seniority, all Members have chosen assignments to two Subcommittees. (c) Any Member of the Committee may sit with any Subcommittee during its hearings and business meetings but shall not have the authority to vote on any matters before the Subcommittee unless he is a Member of such Subcommittee. sworn testimony and financial statements Rule 9. Witnesses in Committee or Subcommittee hearings may be required to give testimony under oath whenever the Chairman or ranking Minority Member of the Committee or Subcommittee deems such to be necessary. At any hearing to confirm a Presidential nomination, the testimony of the nominee and at the request of any Member, any other witness shall be under oath. Every nominee shall submit a statement of his financial interests, including those of his spouse, his minor children, and other members of his immediate household, on a form approved by the Committee, which shall be sworn to by the nominee as to its completeness and accuracy. A statement of every nominee's financial interest shall be made public on a form approved by the Committee, unless the Committee in executive session determines that special circumstances require a full or partial exception to this rule. Members of the Committee are urged to make public a statement of their financial interests in the form require in the case of Presidential nominees under this rule. confidential testimony Rule 10. No confidential testimony taken by or confidential material presented to the Committee or any Subcommittee, or any report of the proceedings of a closed Committee or Subcommittee hearing or business meeting, shall be made public, in whole or in part or by way of summary, unless authorized by a majority of the Members of the Committee at a business meeting called for the purpose of making such a determination. defamatory statements Rule 11. Any person whose name is mentioned or who is specifically identified in, or who believes that testimony or other evidence presented at, an open Committee or Subcommittee hearing tends to defame him or otherwise adversely affect his reputation may file with the Committee for its consideration and action a sworn statement of facts relevant to such testimony or evidence. broadcasting of hearings or meetings Rule 12. Any meeting or hearing by the Committee or any Subcommittee which is open to the public may be covered in whole or in part by television broadcast, radio broadcast, or still photography. Photographers and reporters using mechanical recording, filming, or broadcasting devices shall position their equipment so as not to interfere with the seating, vision, and hearing of Members and staff on the dais or with the orderly process of the meeting or hearing. amending the rules Rule 13. These rules may be amended only by vote of a majority of all the Members of the Committee in a business meeting of the Committee: Provided, That no vote may be taken on any proposed amendment unless such amendment is reproduced in full in the Committee agenda for such meeting at least three days in advance of such meeting.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to consider the President's 1996 proposed budget. The committee will hear testimony from the Forest Service on Wednesday, February 15, 1995. The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m., and will take place in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call Betty Nevitt or Jim Beirne at (202) 224-0765.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield my remaining time, and I thank my colleague for the courtesy he extended to me. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment to S. 333, the Department of Energy Risk Management Act of 1995, and ask unanimous consent that it be printed as a Senate document.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for the purpose of submitting an amendment to legislation within the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.