Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. That is correct.

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

Mrs. MURRAY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I will not object. I want it to be noted that there are several Senators I need to check with, but we can go ahead and go into a quorum call and discuss this.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I do know Senator Hatfield from Oregon is going to return to the floor and wants to make a statement, and I will speak until he does get here. Mr. President, I do rise today to oppose S. 395, which is a bill that, in part, allows the export of Alaskan North Slope crude oil. This issue, at first glance, may appear very simple. Lifting the ban on North Slope oil exports would increase sales and enhance revenues for many Alaskans. However, that additional income for a few of our citizens must be weighed against the concerns of the rest of the Nation. Job loss, price increases, dependence on foreign oil, and increased environmental risks are all issues that Congress must review--must review--before placing the needs of one State above the concerns of many. When Congress agreed to develop Alaska's North Slope--ANS--crude oil resources 20 years ago, it prohibited exports of this oil unless the President and Congress find that exports serve national economic and energy security, and other interests. Those conditions were a direct response to the economic chaos and long gas lines created by the Arab oil embargoes of the 1970's. Since then, our reliance on foreign oil has not diminished. The arguments for retaining the restrictions remain strong. Over the years, Alaska North Slope crude oil has fueled the west coast. Mr. President, 90 percent--90 percent--of Washington State's crude oil comes from the North Slope, and our refineries are operating at 90 percent capacity. The existence of export restrictions has created an extensive transportation, refining, and shipyard infrastructure in our region. The North Slope has given us a reliable oil supply, carried aboard U.S.-flag vessels. Ships employ Washingtonians in crew and support positions, as well as in ports and ship repair yards. Today, this secure supply of oil faces a very serious threat. The State of Alaska and British Petroleum, the principal producer of ANS crude, are mounting a major effort to permit ANS exports. They want to remove the statutory restrictions. Removal of these restrictions will enrich both the State of Alaska's coffers and BP's pockets. But it would seriously hurt consumers, jobs, and the environment in this region. The tankers that transport Alaska oil are repaired on the west coast. If export restrictions are lifted, this work will go overseas. We could lose 5,000 jobs within our own region, and $160 million in annual employment income. This is more than half of the marine industry's total west coast employment. For shipyards, Alaska's crude oil exports would result in the loss of $270 million a year. More than 2,000 jobs at refineries in my State would be lost. In addition, the Pacific Northwest would forego most of the $93 million in annual Federal, State, and local tax payments made by these works and facilities. Mr. President, 90 percent of Alaskan oil is consumed by west coast refineries owned by Atlantic Richfield, Texaco, and Shell, plus independents such as Tosco and U.S. Oil. Six of these refineries are in my home State of Washington. Competing against foreign buyers willing to pay premium prices, industry experts predict our refineries either will shut down or be forced to pay a premium price to keep their Alaskan supply, or to purchase substitute foreign crude. Major oil companies may be able to absorb much of the price increase. But the independents, that own 25 percent of the processing capacity in the Pacific Northwest, will not. They cannot compete with the majors by selling their petroleum products at higher prices. As many as 2,500 people could lose their jobs along with the losses of $100 million in annual payroll income and $500 million in annual tax payments. My concern for our environment makes the case for export restrictions even more compelling. Congress opened Alaska's North Slope for development only after it imposed strict conditions to protect that region's fragile environment. Moreover, Washington State and other west coast States also enacted laws and regulations to assure the transportation and processing of this oil is done in a manner that will not injure our environment. With 99 percent of Alaska crude coming through Puget Sound and 94 percent of this carried on U.S. tankers, foreign replacement oil would not only be more costly but would be carried on more environmentally risky tankers. The U.S. Coast Guard rates as high-risk one-half of the current foreign tanker fleet that carries crude through Puget Sound. Our coastal waters would face an added threat: Increased pollution risks from offshore transfers of crude oil from large foreign tankers to smaller ships that can actually deliver the oil to our six refineries. Exporting ANS crude on less expensive foreign vessels would lower transportation costs for British Petroleum and raise their profits. It would also raise revenue for the State of Alaska because the State's ANS royalty payment is based on the wellhead price, minus transportation costs. BP would also save money by having its tankers built and repaired in foreign countries. In short, North Slope's oil exports would benefit British Petroleum and increase the Treasury of the State of Alaska, but they are clearly not in the interest of the people I represent. Moreover, I do not believe exports would meet the statutory tests designed to protect broader national interests. When I weigh the benefits to Alaska and BP against these very serious risks, exports make little sense to me. For the sake of our workers and their families, our environment and our energy security, I urge my colleagues to listen and oppose this bill and any other efforts to lift the export restrictions. Mr. President, I want to read into the Record some of the editorials that have been written in the last several months regarding this bill and the lifting of the Alaska oil ban. The first one comes in the Seattle Times, and it is dated March 3 of this year, 1995. Keep Alaska Oil Ban The export ban on Alaskan crude oil has served this country well as a domestic source of valuable petroleum. Contrary to the Clinton administration's desires, this is not the time to overturn the ban, nor the time to imply that over-dependence on foreign oil supplies is over. Oil from the North Slope of Alaska was drilled, pumped and shipped south as part of a massive enterprise intended to tap into a huge domestic reserve. The 800-mile Alyeska pipeline delivers oil to the port of Valdez, Alaska, but it came at enormous cost and large environmental and cultural questions. The most immediate beneficiaries are the residents of Alaska, who receive yearly Permanent Fund checks for the treasure they are sharing with the rest of the country. Alaska's representatives are all in favor of ending the ban--probably because higher prices could give their state $1.6 billion more in royalties in just four more years. But while Alaskans rightly share in the profits from oil, those North Slope holes have since the beginning been considered a national resource. Although nothing in the Alaskan oil equation has changed, the political requirements of Southern California have apparently been heard in the Clinton White House. California refineries are full of Alaskan oil; exporting the oil to its likely buyer, Japan, would stimulate California's own oil fields. Although Department of Energy officials testified motorists would see very little price change at the pump, the very premise of stimulating one region's fields by exporting oil from another region has inherent price risks. There is something smelly about a plan that sends Alaskan oil abroad when the resource should be carefully used at home. The only reason the U.S. imports foreign oil is to meet domestic consumption. Depleting our own resources because some refineries have too much oil goes against the original argument for opening the fields. [[Page S6669]] Shipping Alaska's oil abroad carries a new set of environmental questions for the Pacific Northwest as new maritime routes would be opened. That's not the most serious question about dropping the oil ban, but simply another in the long list of unnecessary actions that would result from a misguided White House political strategy. In addition, the Portland Oregonian, on February 26, 1995, printed this editorial: [From the Portland Oregonian, Feb. 26, 1995] Keep Alaska's Oil Here--Lifting Ban on Oil Exports Would Raise Prices Here, Hurt Port's Ship Business, Increase U.S. Dependency on Foreign Oil Congress should sink a bill to remove the 21-year-old ban on exporting Alaskan North Slope crude oil. Instead of lifting the ban, Congress should support legislation introduced by Northwest Sons, Patty Murray, D- Wash., and Mark O. Hatfield, R-Ore., to extend the export restrictions in the Export Administration Act. Removing the restrictions that limit the sale of Alaska's oil to domestic markets is being promoted with wildly optimistic promises. Proponents include BP America, Alaska's largest oil producer, independent West Coast oil producers, five maritime unions, the U.S. Department of Energy and the states of Alaska and California. They say lifting the ban on Alaskan oil exports would stimulate production of at least 100,000 barrels of oil per day and create up to 25,000 jobs, primarily in Alaska and California, while not causing an increase in the cost of motor fuel prices on the West Coast. Those projections are very questionable. An Energy Department study completed last summer suggested that lifting the ban would create 11,000 to 16,000 jobs (not 25,000). That study also ignored potential job losses in the West Coast ship-supply industry. And it didn't address the potential threat to the economic vitality of the nation's domestic tanker fleet. Here's a more realistic appraisal of the likely outcome of lifting the ban on exports of Alaskan oil: West coast gasoline prices would rise. The ban has depressed West Coast crude oil prices by an estimated $2 a barrel because Alaska oil is forced onto a surplus market here. West Coast oil refiners have enjoyed the world's largest gross margins because of the Alaskan crude's low price. If that oil is withdrawn and exported, don't expect the refiners to swallow their increased costs for replacement crude. They'll surely pass it on to motorists. If the total cost were passed through, it could result in a 7-cent-a-gallon increase at the pump. Ship repair and maintenance work at the Port of Portland will all but disappear. Proponents of lifting the oil-export ban say it would stimulate shipyard work on the West Coast. Not so, say Port of Portland officials. They say their contractors believe the lifting the ban would kill the shipyard business. Alaska tankers account for about 70 percent of the work now, but Port of Portland officials believe that tanker operators would do most of their maintenance work in Japan and Korea once the ban was lifted. U.S. dependency on foreign oil would increase markedly, because replacement of much of the Alaskan North Slope crude oil would come from overseas producers. This comes at a time when U.S. dependency on foreign sources of oil is at an all-time high. About half of the U.S. daily consumption of 17.7 million barrels of oil comes from foreign sources. That's substantially greater dependency than this nation endured before the 1973 oil embargo or during the Persian Gulf War. And government officials predict that imports will represent 59 percent of consumption by 2010. Lifting the ban on exporting Alaskan crude would add to this dependency and make the nation even more vulnerable to international disruptions. The gain in maritime jobs is not worth the cost to this nation's security and the adverse effect that foreign-oil dependency has had on foreign policy. Hatfield and Murray need other Northwest members of Congress to rally behind their leadership on Alaskan oil policy. Finally, I will read an editorial from The Bellingham Herald called: ``Our View.'' [From the Bellingham Herald, Mar. 19, 1995] Our View--Don't Export North Slope Crude Oil Energy: Using the domestic oil ourselves reduces dependency on foreign supplies, protects jobs. U.S. Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, has introduced a bill to lift the export ban on crude oil from Alaska's North Slope oil fields, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash, has introduced a rival bill that would continue the ban. Murray's bill better protects the best interests, not only of Whatcom County and other regions on the Pacific Northwest where North Slope oil creates thousands of jobs, but of the nation. It makes little sense to propose exporting more domestic oil when we already depend so heavily on imported oil to meet needs and demands at home. Murkowski maintains that lifting the ban would net Alaska an additional $700 million from increased oil sales and create as many as 25,000 new jobs there by 2000. Murray claims that it would cost about 2,000 refinery and ship-repair jobs in Washington, Oregon and California. Competing regional interests aside, Congress should look at what's in the nation's best interest. If the export ban were lifted, foreign vessels could be used to transport the crude oil to other nations. That might pose additional environmental risks as well as eliminate American jobs. Nations such as China are developing industrial and technological-based economies and need more oil. The pressure to cash in on supplying it is intense. Just last week, the Clinton administration had to pressure Conoco to abandon a plan to help Iran develop two large offshore oil fields. Best that we stay focused on what's in our nation's best interest regarding North Slope crude oil and use it ourselves. Mr. President, I think all three of those editorials very clearly point out that it is in the Nation's best interests to defeat the proposal that is before the Senate now. It is in the Nation's best interest to do so. I am going to respond to some of the points that were made by my colleague, Senator Murkowski, earlier particularly because he mentioned some with which I have to disagree. He mentioned that the unions support the bill as he has presented it. I would like to read for the Senate who opposes the bill the Senator from Alaska has presented to us: Communication Workers of America; Industrial Union Department, AFL- CIO; Inland Boatmen's International Union; Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, International; National Farmers Organization; National Farmers Union; Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers; Steelworkers of America, United; Sailors' Union of the Pacific; United Auto Workers; Citizen Action; Consumer Energy Council of America; American Independent Refiners Association; Huntway Refining Co.; Indian Powerine LP; Kern Oil & Refining; Pacific Refining Co.; Tosco Refining Co.; U.S. Oil & Refining; Western Independent Refiners Association; WITCO Refining Corp.; Atlantic Marine; CBI Industries, Inc., Celeron Corp.; COSCOL Marine Co.; Pacific-Texas Pipeline Co.; Penn-Attransco. The list goes on opposing this bill: Avondale Industries; Dillingham Ship Repair; National Steel & Shipbuilding Co.; Northville Industries; Port of Astoria, OR; Port of Portland, OR; Shipbuilders Council of America. Mr. President, these are just a few of the people, including labor unions, who stand strong in opposition to lifting the ban on Alaskan oil. I think some of the unions that have written to me have very clearly defined why they oppose this bill. I again do this because I heard my colleague from Alaska say that unions support this legislation. Let me read one from the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers written to Mr. Robert Georgine, president of AFL-CIO. Dear Mr. Georgine: I understand that an amendment may be offered * * * to the maritime reform bill that would eliminate restrictions on the export of Alaska oil. We are told Senator Stevens is planning to offer the change when the Senate Commerce Committee takes up the measure. Our organization strongly opposes this amendment. Exporting Alaska crude oil across the Pacific would place 500 to 800 jobs at the Portland Ship Yard at extreme risk because the ships used to export the oil would be repaired in foreign ship yards, rather than here at home as they are today. The jobs of more local subcontractors also would be threatened as well as several thousand refinery jobs on the West Coast. The proponents of exporting Alaskan oil are the State of Alaska, which stands to gain increased severance tax revenues from these exports, and British Petroleum, the major producer of Alaskan North Slope oil. The losers in this proposal are U.S. workers, U.S. energy security, and U.S. business. As you know, the restrictions on the export of this oil have enjoyed strong bipartisan support over the past 20 years. The last time an effort was made to remove the export ban, the effort lost on a 70 to 20 vote. We strongly oppose this amendment and urge you to do whatever you can to assure that it is not added to the maritime reform bill. Mr. President, I have a number of letters from other unions: Sailors Union of the Pacific, Boydoco Oil & Atomic Workers, Metal Trade Union, and their message is one and the same, that union members stand strongly in opposition to the legislation that is in front of us. Another point that my colleague from Alaska made was that the Department of Energy study supported his language in this bill. I want all of my [[Page S6670]] colleagues to understand that the Department of Energy study addressed the concerns of Alaska and California. I, too, read that report in its entirety, and it does not address the issues that are important to Washington State, to Oregon, and indeed to the rest of the Nation. It is written in perspective as to what will be good for Alaska and California. I think it is very important to point out that the Clinton administration is not in support as was earlier indicated by my colleague from Alaska. The Clinton administration is not in support as the language stands in front of us right now. They believe that several important concerns need to be addressed, including job protection and environmental issues, before they are willing to endorse it, despite the DOE study. So I remind my colleagues this is not supported by the Clinton administration at this time. They have said that they have very serious concerns and are not supporting it as it is presently drafted. I also would like to point out the environmental concerns because I can speak for the jobs in my State, and certainly the Senator from Oregon, Senator Hatfield, will speak in terms of jobs from Portland. But the issue that has not been spoken to here is the issue of environmental concern. I heard my colleague from Alaska say earlier this morning that this bill in front of us is the first step in increasing domestic oil production. I fear, and I feel many of my colleagues fear, that the second step will be lifting the ban on oil drilling off the coast of Alaska, in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. ANWR has been a debate on this floor for many years. Allowing oil drilling there has been debated and defeated many times. Many of us fear that this is, as my colleague from Alaska said, the first step, and the second step will be drilling off the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And I know most of my colleagues do not want to see that occur. I think that is a real concern particularly since the budget that was passed out of the Budget Committee last week has an assumption in it that in order to get to the balanced budget one of the things we are going to do is allow oil drilling off Alaska. That is how we are going to balance the budget. So it is a very real concern. We do not need to pass the first step here in this legislation and pass the second step in the Budget Committee, and I will oppose that as adamantly as I oppose the bill in front of us. I do want to read to this body a letter from the Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, Alaska Wilderness League, and the American Oceans Campaign, because I think it very clearly states for all of us what our environmental concerns should be. This was written last year, June 23, 1994. Dear Senator: The Senate will soon be asked to consider an amendment to the Export Administration Act to end the ban on the export of North Slope Alaskan crude oil. We urge you to oppose lifting the export ban for the following environmental reasons: Ending the oil export ban would increase development pressure for sensitive areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It is also likely to increase pressure for oil development in fragile areas off the shores of Alaska and California. The expanded development pressure would result from expanded markets, increases in the wellhead price of oil per barrel, and faster depletion of North Slope fields. It is a serious concern that lifting the ban could give nations like Japan a vested interest in our natural resource decisions in Alaska. As long as sensitive areas like the Arctic Refuge and sensitive areas offshore California and Alaska are still not permanently protected from oil and gas development, lifting the export ban is a dangerous idea. Ending the ban is nonsense energy policy. It would be a dramatic reversal of a national policy we thought Congress had long ago resolved. Lifting the oil export ban is inconsistent with any attempt at conservation of domestic oil for domestic use. No environmental analysis has been done on ending the ban. Lifting the ban would open the door to tankers nearly twice as large. More traffic in Prince William Sound would pose greater risks from spills. Changed tanker routes would make Kodiak Island and the fisheries of the Bering Sea more vulnerable to chronic and disastrous spills. Ending the oil export ban could increase the flow through the aging and poorly-maintained Trans-Alaska Pipeline. A major audit recently conducted by the Bureau of Land Management said that the pipeline system poses imminent threats to public and worker safety and the environment. Until the government ensures that the more than 10,000 safety problems with the pipeline are repaired, and that the ballast water treatment and air pollution problems at the Valdez marine terminal are resolved, the Congress should not take actions that could increase the environmental and safety risks. Lifting the oil export ban would increase oil imports into the United States. Because refineries aren't set up to refine the heavier oil produced in California, the Alaska shortfall would be made up by imports which more closely match the Alaska oil density. This means that more foreign-flagged tankers, with less stringent manning standards than U.S. flagged tankers, would be calling on West Coast ports. Because increased imports would be necessary to replace the oil that could now be exported to the Far East, our trade balance would not improve and at the same time we would have less control over our U.S. domestic oil supplies. Ending the oil export ban breaks the promise Congress made to the American People over 20 years ago. At that time, Congress sacrificed Arctic wilderness and put Prince William Sound at risk of tanker spills, but said that the North Slope oil was only to go to U.S. markets. In 1973, Vice President Spiro Agnew went to the Senate floor to cast the tie-breaking vote which ended the intense debate over approval of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. The oil export ban was a crucial part of the deal Congress brokered. Congress chose to override pending legal challenges to the pipeline, proclaiming the environmental impact statement to be adequate even though the major issue of risks to the marine environment from tankers was poorly considered. If Congress breaks the deal now and lifts the oil export ban, foreign oil companies like British Petroleum would reap the largest benefits, and the American consumers would be the biggest losers. It would be ironic for Congress to unravel this deal at the same time as Alaskan jurors found Exxon reckless and as 10,000 fishermen and Native residents finally have their day in court. We urge you to oppose lifting the ban on exports of North Slope crude oil. Again, that is signed by the Wilderness Society, National Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club, Alaska Wilderness League, and American Oceans Campaign. I think this letter very clearly points out to all of us that this is a major step and can put a lot of us at risk and our environment at risk that many of us care about. It is not a step that should be taken willy-nilly on a Monday, when people are not prepared to think about the long-term, serious consequences. That is why I came to the floor this morning at 9:30 to protest moving to this bill, because it has not gone through the Banking Committee where the Export Administration Act has had jurisdiction over this for a long time. I do believe we have to look much more carefully at all of the conditions that are put forth in this and all of the consequences that many of us will have to suffer for a long time to come if the Senate, in its haste to get legislation passed, does so without considering the consequences to many of us. Mr. President, I would also like to read into the Record a statement by the Wilderness Society and the Alaska Wilderness League that I think points to what the environmental impacts of ending the ban on Alaska North Slope crude oil exports will cause. ``The Department of Energy's claims about environmental impacts are misleading,'' which refers back to the DOE study. DOE hastily included 2 pages of ``environmental implications'' in its report on the economics of ending the oil export ban which were not supported by any analysis or factual substantiation. The Administration has failed to carry out comprehensive environmental analysis required by the National Environmental Policy Act. Ending the oil export ban would increase development pressure for sensitive areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It is also likely to increase pressure for oil development in fragile areas off the shores of Alaska and California. If the 20-year export ban is lifted, its effects will be long lasting. Expanded development pressure as projected by DOE would result in faster depletion of domestic oil resources. It is naive at best to believe that the oil industry won't battle to gain access to these ``off-limits'' areas when economic and political factors are right. As long as these sensitive areas are still not permanently protected from oil and gas development, lifting the export ban is a dangerous idea. Environmental and safety problems plaguing the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) should be fixed before considering lifting the ban. It is true that the same old TAPS infrastructure will continue to be used for exported oil, and increased flow due to the new markets would increase the risks. According to a major audit recently done for the Bureau of Land Management, ``the pipeline system poses imminent threats to public and worker safety and the environment.'' More than 10,000 problems were identified, Electrical Code.'' The ballast water treatment plant at the Valdez terminal is currently inadequate to handle large volumes of the ballast water which must be removed from cargo tanks before they are filled with oil, and bigger tankers may call at the port if the ban is lifted. The oil industry should not be rewarded with higher profits from shipping North Slope oil at the same time it is requesting exemptions from environmental laws. Alyeska, which runs the pipeline for British Petroleum and the other oil company owners, has for years avoided limiting air pollution caused by fumes that are released during tanker loading and recently requested a 12-year delay in meeting air pollution standards for the nation's largest tanker terminal at Valdez. Already, air emissions account annually for over 45,000 tons of pollutants such as cancer-causing benzene, and the terminal is the largest source of volatile organic compounds in the nation. Exports will expose new areas of U.S. coastlines in Alaska to increased risk of oil spills. Changed tanker routes would put Kodiak Island, the Aleutian chain, and the rich fisheries of the Bering Sea at greatly increased risk of chronic and disastrous oil spills. Tankers would still travel through Prince William Sound, placing it at high risk from new spills even as this area still suffers from the effects of the Exxon Valdez. Dumping of the segregated ballast water picked up from foreign ports could introduce exotic organisms that have serious environmental consequences. Lifting the ban would open the door to tankers twice as large. Serious risks to California's coastal environment have been ignored. Increased imports to California replacing North Slope crude shipments would involve much larger foreign tankers. Because of port and draft restrictions at the refineries, there would be increased risks of oil spills because there would need to be lightering, the transfer of oil from the larger tankers to smaller vessels which bring it into port, and therefore an increased number of times cargo is offloaded. The lightering would be conducted by foreign vessels which are less fully exposed to liability claims under OPA-90 than U.S. companies. Increased refining of California heavy crude would result in increased foreign tanker traffic in California waters to export the byproducts such as residual oil which would be produced in excess of California demand. Lifting the ban will not help the U.S. meet its commitments to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions. DOE states thermal enhanced oil recovery in California would increase such emissions, but dismisses the amounts as trivial. However, DOE energy policy should be to achieve further reductions, not to justify increases, in order to fulfill U.S. obligations under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and to achieve President Clinton's goals in the Climate Action Plan to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. Mr. President, these are just some of the environmental concerns that we have before us, but they seriously point out the questions that all of us should be asking and have answers to before this ban on oil is lifted from Alaska's North Slope. Certainly I heard my colleague from Alaska speak this morning about a DOE report and referred to it a number of times as what the basis should be that we vote on, the current amendment before us. As I indicated earlier, the administration is not supportive of the language as we currently see it before us on the floor because they do have concerns still about jobs and environmental impact. But I want to read to this body a letter from someone who agrees with me on the DOE report. He happens to be a former adviser to the Governor of Alaska. So he is from that region; he is a former adviser to the Governor. His name is Richard Fineberg, and he lives in Alaska. He says: Re Exporting Alaska North Slope Crude Oil. Dear Secretary O'Leary: I read with great interest and disappointment your department's report, ``Exporting Alaska North Slope Crude Oil.'' As a former advisor to the Governor of Alaska on oil and gas issues who subsequently prepared several reports for the Alaska State Legislature on North Slope economic issues, I had hoped that your report would answer many important questions about Alaskan oil development. I was disappointed because the report's conclusions appear to be critically dependent on buried, dubious or false assumptions that undercut the validity of the report's conclusions. Again, I remind the body I am reading from a letter of Richard Fineberg, who is former adviser to the Governor of Alaska. These are his words, not mine: . . . dubious or false assumptions that undercut the validity of the report's conclusions. For example: The report asserts that Alaska would gain $700 million to $1.6 billion in revenues between 1994 and 2000 if the ban were lifted, and that under low-price scenarios most of that gain would come in 1994-96. Having prepared numerous reports on North Slope profits, production prospects and Alaska revenues since leaving my position in the governor's office in 1989, I must say that these poorly explained estimates appear to be highly implausible. Moreover, 1994 is nearly two-thirds over and if the ban were lifted, ANS sellers and refiners would then require some time to revise contracts, arrange shipments and reconfigure their refinery outputs. With most of 1994 gone, how much of this theoretical amount remains to be captured and how much is already lost to history? I cannot make that calculation because I read the report from cover to cover but could never discover the bases for the $700 to $1.6 billion estimate. Again, this is someone who is an expert on Alaskan export of oil. He goes on to say: Although there is a known, fixed relationship between federal income taxes and state revenues on ANS production at the DOE study prices, the DOE report inexplicably estimates federal gains to be well outside that predictable range, at $99 to $188 million. This leads me to believe the DOE report either omitted federal income taxes or did not account for them correctly. In either event, it would appear that producer gains (and, consequently, jobs) may have been over- stated because federal tax effects were not considered, and that federal gains may have been understated. This is precisely the kind of ambiguity that would lead a careful reader to view with great skepticism the conclusions of the DOE report. Regarding incremental North Slope production that might result from lifting the ban, your authors note that ``If exports of ANS crude oil raise crude oil prices or save on costs of shipping and handling, the resulting revenues may be invested in oil production-related projects in the geographical areas where the new profits are made. This is particularly true for small companies, but less so for the major integrated companies.'' (Report, page E-1.) In a footnote, the report states that ``The large ANS producers made it clear in our interviews that they . . . would not necessarily reinvest in Alaska the incremental revenues made as a result of exporting ANS oil.'' The same section presents increased production rates resulting from the ``reasonable'' assumption ``that all incremental revenues for the remaining producers' share is invested in ANS crude production activities that add to reserves'' (major producers Arco and Exxon--45% of ANS production--are factored out because their oil is transferred rather than sold, leaving BP as the remaining major producer). Because major producer BP owns 91% of the remaining production, by its own terms the report's key assumption on reinvestment is clearly not reasonable. The report notes that data ``imply that reserve additions in the range of 200 to 400 million barrels could be produced by the investment resulting from exports of . . . ANS crude. Buy comparison, [c]urrent reserves at Endicott and Point McIntyre, major secondary fields on the North Slope, are 262 and 356 million barrels respectively.'' (Report, at p. 12 and p. 50). For some reason, the report makes no reference to the largest major secondary field on the North Slope, Kuparuk, whose remaining reserves are three times that of the two fields named in the report. Is there a reason for this? The report's second Kuparuk omission referred the reader again to Appendix E--the same place at which the dubious assumptions noted above are supposed to be demonstrated; nothing in that appendix told me whether Kuparuk was included or excluded from your analysis, or why it was omitted from the text. I am limiting myself here to clearly demonstrable examples because time is short; some in your department seem to be rushing toward a decision on BP's behalf. I write, therefore, to make sure that you are aware that the DOE report released June 30 appears to be laced with significant technical defects. These shortcomings make it difficult for me to accept the conclusions one must adopt to assume the economic benefits your report claims the United States will realize from lifting the ban. The reader is asked to believe that California refinery acquisition costs can go up without affecting consumer gasoline prices, and that ANS will realize a premium in Japan because its product slate matches Japan's needs. While I am not prepared to state that such heroic assumptions are invalid, it is my opinion that this report fails to demonstrate them. These assumptions are contradicted by the Coalition to Keep Alaska Oil's June 1994 report, ``Consequences of Exporting Alaska North Slope Crude Oil.'' I do not presume to know who is correct. But I must tell you that the latter report is strikingly accurate in those areas with which I am familiar. More important, the challenging report is much less dependent on the kind of Herculean and undocumented assumptions required to reach the conclusions in the DOE report. I will continue reading and remind my colleagues that I am reading from a letter directly about the DOE's study that has been referenced throughout speech of the Senator from Alaska and kept referring to it. I wanted someone who is an expert from Alaska to respond to that. I will read the last of this letter: The latter report also sets up the background of raising environmental concerns [[Page S6672]] that are casually dismissed by the DOE report: In particular, California supply ports, pipelines, refinery storage facilities and refinery operations appear to be at risk. And, as my colleague Dr. Riki Ott of Cordova, Alaska, has previously advised you, the DOE report also dismisses serious environmental concerns in Alaska concerning the integrity of the Alaska pipeline and marine transportation delivery system. As a long-time Alaskan, I share Dr. Ott's interests in the environmental issues the DOE report fails to address. But it is the manifest shortcomings in the DOE economic analysis that lead me to ask you to base your decision on better data than the report you released June 30. In sum, I do not believe your department's report provides sound bases for its fundamental conclusions and recommendations. In view of the undiscussed problems associated with lifting the export ban and the absence of convincing support for taking this action, I oppose lifting the ban at this time and request that you address the implications of the DOE report's serious defects before making your decision. It is signed Richard Fineberg. Again, I would like my colleagues to know that the arguments in favor of lifting the ban have referenced a report from DOE that I have just read a letter from, an expert from Alaska who says that a lot of the assumptions are incorrect. In addition, the Clinton administration itself does not support the language that is in front of us because it still does not address many of their environmental and job issues. I also heard my colleague from Alaska speak about the jobs that would be brought if this legislation is passed. I believe he referenced the number 25,000. From the perspective of the State of Washington, we have many people employed in our independent refineries. I know Senator Hatfield from Oregon will be out here in a few minutes to talk about jobs in his State of Oregon. But while he is on his way, I want to share with my colleagues an article called ``Alaskan Oil Exports Will Eliminate U.S. Shipyard Jobs.'' There has been some question on whether or not jobs would be eliminated in the United States if this oil ban is lifted. I want to read this study to you by the Portland shipyard Port of Portland: The recommendation of the Department of Energy study on Alaskan--to lift the twenty-year-old restriction on the exports of that would a eliminate hundreds of shipyard jobs. First, it will cause a severe reduction in the U.S. flag tanker fleet. DOE-- This refers back to the report. assumes that exported oil will be carried on Jones Act ships, but Senators proposing that the ban be lifted would only require that the oil be carried on U.S. flagships, not on Jones Act ships. This means they need not be repaired in U.S. yards. This means lost of jobs in our shipyards here in the United States. Mr. President, I note the presence of my colleague, Senator Hatfield, on the floor. He is a cosponsor of legislation I introduced earlier. I will yield the floor at this time for him to make his remarks.

Mrs. MURRAY. I object.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Does that take a unanimous-consent?

Mrs. MURRAY. I object.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I will be happy to respond to the questions of the Senator from Alaska. I did come to the floor this morning at 9:30 and did object to the motion to proceed. We then did work out an agreement that the bill would begin to be debated at noon. At that time, I was here on the floor and ready to debate and was not able to say anything until the 2:30 rollcall vote. Since that time, obviously, there has been an exchange among several Senators. I do have a statement I want to make. I do have a great deal of information I want to submit for the Record, and I want to be able to bring my side out on this argument. I know there are a number of other Senators who also wish to present their points of view on this. The Senator from California, Senator Boxer, does, and I know the Senator from Oregon, Senator Hatfield, has a statement. Several other Senators have indicated to me that they would like the opportunity to debate this bill. I also have been told there are a number of amendments that people wish to bring forward on this bill.

Mrs. MURRAY. Is the Senator from Alaska asking me that question?

Mrs. MURRAY. Let me just respond. Again, I was here at 9:30 this morning to object to proceeding to the bill because of the jurisdictional questions I had about whether the bill should have gone to Banking, which I sit on, which does oversee the Export Administration Act. It did not go through that committee, and that is why I voiced those objections. [[Page S6668]] I then later agreed to go at noon. But I have not had an opportunity to speak to the bill. I intend to do that. I know other Senators do. I also know there are amendments out there. I cannot give a specific number, or any time, and it will be up to the Senator from Alaska what he determines to do in terms of cloture.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I do object to moving to this bill at this time, although I understand the underlying bill has much in it that is important. I do not want to keep us from moving toward that. Section 2 of this bill is extremely important, critical. It has been under the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee for the last several years that I know of that I have been here. It has not been debated in that committee and I believe it should go back to that committee to be looked at. It is an extremely important section that allows the lifting of the ban on oil for Alaska exports. It has tremendous impact to the west coast, and particularly to my State of Washington, as well as Oregon and California, and is a measure that should see much more light of day, particularly in the Banking Committee, before it is debated on this floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY. I object.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY. I object.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have serious concerns about S. 565 and cannot support passage of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to think long and hard about consumer health and safety, their individual State's autonomy in determining its own tort laws, as well as the potential impact of this bill on women. I believe this bill tilts the scales of justice far too dramatically in favor of corporate profits. It is our job to do all we can to assure the families we represent that the products they use are safe, and that they will have recourse if they are harmed. Mr. President, this bill hurts the little guy. Is it not time we all stepped back, and remembered the adage--there but for the grace of God go I. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to S. 565. The bill before the Senate claims to promote fairness, but I believe it is actually far from fair to consumers in my home State of Washington and throughout this Nation. I will leave it to the lawyers here to discuss the legal intricacies of the bill. However, I want to raise some very serious, commonsense problems I have with this legislation. First, I am deeply concerned about the bill's potential to disproportionately harm women. I am amazed that the bill before us treats a corporate executive's loss of salary as more important and deserving of compensation than the loss of such priceless assets as the ability to bear children, the senses of sight and touch, the love of a parent or husband, and the ability to move freely--unhindered by disability, disfigurement, or lifelong pain. Certainly, this body must believe that raising a family, and having children should not be seen as unimportant in our legal system. S. 565 would eliminate joint and several liability for noneconomic losses. And, by making noneconomic damages more difficult to recover, it would impair a woman's ability to recover her full damage award. It is unfair to require only the victims of noneconomic losses--such as a woman who has lost the ability to bear children, or a child disabled in his youth--to bear the burden of pulling all the defendants who caused them harm into court. Joint and several liability allows injured victims to receive full compensation, and leaves it to the guilty defendants to divide the damages appropriately among themselves. It seems to me much fairer to place this burden with the guilty parties, than with those who are injured. The singling out of noneconomic losses for adverse treatment will prevent women from being fully and fairly compensated. This is especially objectionable because women have been the victims of many of our Nation's most severe drug and medical device disasters--DES, Dalkon shield and Copper-7 IUD's, and silicon breast implants are just three examples. I have met with many women from my home State of Washington whose lives have been devastated by these products. Their stories are tragic. Their lives have been changed dramatically. They deserve a system of laws that treats them fairly. Mr. President, mandating a nationwide cap on punitive damages also seems ill-conceived in light of the number of dangerous products that have been marketed primarily to women in this country. S. 565 establishes a cap on punitive damages of three times a person's economic injury or $250,000, whichever is greater. We should not forget in our rush to make changes in this Congress that the purpose of punitive damages is to deter bad behavior by making it impossible to calculate the risk of engaging in such behavior. Under S. 565's cap, I fear wrongdoers will find it more cost effective to continue marketing their dangerous products rather than removing them from the marketplace. Even Senator Snowe's amendment to change the cap on punitive damages to two times compensatory damages does not remedy the unfairness of this cap. Although, Senator Snowe's amendment includes noneconomic damages within the formula for punitive damages, it does not acknowledge the important role of punitive damages in deterring and punishing outrageous misconduct. Last year, Senator Kohl introduced an amendment to the product liability bill that, unfortunately, was not adopted. He sought to incorporate more fairness in this legislation by restricting the ability of Federal courts to sanction secrecy in cases affecting public health and safety. I was proud to join him as a cosponsor of his antisecrecy amendment last year, and look forward to joining him again when he raises the issue in this Congress. The settlement of the Stern case in 1985 by Dow Corning is a great example of why such a change is necessary. As a result of a secret settlement agreement, Dow Corning was able to hide its decade-old knowledge of the serious health problems its silicon breast implants could cause for 6 additional years. [[Page S6250]] The damaging information did not become public until the FDA launched a breast cancer implant investigation in 1992. In the meantime, nearly 10,000 women received breast implants every month, and countless women were harmed. Mr. President, this bill would not only disproportionately harm women, it would also deprive injured consumers in my home State of Washington of rights they currently have. This is significant because Washington has one of the most conservative tort law schemes in the Nation. This bill would reduce the statute of limitations in my home State of Washington from 3 years to 2 years. Injured consumers would have less time in which to file lawsuits when they are harmed by dangerous products. The bill also would reduce the number of situations in which product sellers can be held liable in Washington State. And the bill would abolish joint and several liability for noneconomic damages currently available in Washington when the injured person has not contributed to her injury. As the Seattle Times editorialized just last week: Recent polls show that the great majority of Americans oppose restricting the right of individuals to hold manufacturers and medical workers accountable for their injurious act. The National Conference of State Legislatures opposes having Congress federalize an area of law that has been the exclusive domain of state lawmakers for 200 years. And state judges are coming out against federal statutes that would tamper with century-old jurisprudence developed in state courts. The rush to impose federal rules on tort claims runs counter to the Republican philosophy of giving more power to the states. Surely, this is one area where state judges and legislators are better suited to determine what's needed in their communities. The Washington Legislature, for example, passed a comprehensive tort-reform law in 1986. Many other states have done so in the past decade, Yet, voters in some places, such as Arizona and Michigan, have turned down tort reform initiatives. Why should Congress now force those voters to live with legal changes they rejected at the polls. * * * I ask unanimous consent to have the editorial printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have just returned from a trip through the agricultural region of my State and the farmers I represent are very worried about their own future and the future of their industry. By any measure, American farmers are one of this country's success stories. They have provided their fellow citizens with a stable food supply that is both safe and affordable. In fact, Americans pay less for food than any other industrialized nation in the world. They have also produced enough food to feed the world's hungry and are one the few sectors of our economy that has consistently registered a positive balance of trade. Their success, however, seems to get lost in the discussions here in Congress and the political rhetoric of the Nation. I visited with farmers in Pullman, Colfax, Walla Walla, and Moses Lake and they do not feel that the rest of the country or the U.S. Congress appreciates their efforts. After reviewing the spate of proposals advanced this Congress, I am forced to agree with them. There seems to be a misconception around here that farmers are the only beneficiaries of the commodity programs. Nothing could be further from the truth. In exchange for income protection, the farmers that sign up for the program agree to accept production controls and numerous other guidelines and regulations on the operation of their farms. While these conditions were often put in place to achieve a specific public policy goal, it is important to remember that it is an additional cost to farmers and it is a cost they will not be able to recoup from the sale of their commodity. Because wheat farmers face many difficulties in providing the rest of us with our food, it is easy to understand why almost 90 percent of them in Washington State sign up for the program. In addition to a regulatory environment that they often consider unfavorable, they face unfair trading practices by our competitors, nontariff trade barriers, escalation costs, and a price that is too low to cover their costs of production. On top of all this, weather conditions often wreak havoc on all the producers' hard work. Every economic analysis I have seen paints a very bleak picture of the future of rural America. I believe the conditions of American agriculture justify our continued support of the commodity programs, the export promotion programs, and the conservation programs. The gloomy conditions in farm country are not the only reason to support these programs, however, and I am here talking on the floor of the Senate because I believe all Americans are well served by these programs, not just farmers. In my State, many of the jobs in urban areas depend on the exports provided by agriculture. If we, as a nation, wish to continue to guarantee that we have a stable food supply and continued economic growth in our cities, it is in our interest to continue to adequately fund this Nation's agricultural program. I know that I will have to continue to make that point in the urban areas of my State as well as here in Congress so that there will be a greater understanding of just how critical our agricultural industries are to all of us. We need to keep these things in mind as we consider the budget, the farm bill, and other legislation that impacts farmers.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I submit a resolution expressing the sense of Congress concerning the trafficking of Burmese women and girls into Thailand for the purpose of forced prostitution. This is identical to a resolution submitted in the House by Congresswoman Louise Slaughter. I have long supported steps to help improve the gross human rights violations inflicted on women around the world. I am outraged at reports from Human Rights Watch and others citing the egregious abuse of Burmese women and girls who are lured into Thailand with false promises to work at good paying jobs, and then confined in illegal brothels. These women and girls live in brutal conditions, often forced to work 18 hours a day with several different clients. They are subjected to physical and sexual abuse that makes escape practically impossible. In addition, there is virtually no health care or birth control available, and the HIV virus is rampant among these women and girls. Reportedly, these abuses take place with the knowledge of the Thai Government and the likely involvement of the Thai police. I am deeply concerned by reports that these officials not only fail to protect these women and girls, but actually provide support to the brothels and brothel owners. Mr. President, this resolution seeks to call attention to these abuses. In addition to stating that sex trafficking is a violation of the fundamental principle of human dignity, it encourages the State Department to press the Thai Government to enforce the laws that can lead to the prosecution of these traffickers. It also encourages the Thai Government to ensure the rights and safety of Burmese women and girls in Thailand. In addition, any weapons and equipment sold to the Thai police by the United States should be kept out of the hands of those individuals who may be involved in trafficking these women and girls. And, finally, the United States Agency for International Development should target a portion of its assistance to Thailand for AIDS prevention and control. We in Congress must act now to help stop these brutal practices. The savage treatment of Burmese women and girls in Thailand, and the abuses they are subjected to, must cease. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and help send a message that the trafficking and forced prostitution of women and girls around the world is simply unacceptable.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have spoken in the past about my commitment to continuing the production and distribution of clean, reliable hydropower through Federal Power Marketing Administrations. Today, I reaffirm this commitment. The Federal power program has served well both the taxpaying public and energy consumers. It serves the taxpaying public by paying its own way--and paying interest on its debt. It also serves the general public by providing navigation, flood control, recreation, fish and wildlife conservation, and irrigation. Few Federal programs can claim such far- reaching benefits at such a low cost. Mr. President, if we sell our PMA's, we cannot be assured that the general public will continue to reap these many benefits. While the sale of PMA's would product short-term revenue, the sale will do little to solve the long-term problem of our Nation's debt. In fact, the permanent loss of these productive assets will result in foregoing future revenues likely to be in the billions of dollars. At this time, the Bonneville Power Administration is not immediately threatened with sale. Several months ago, however, officials within the administration suggested to the President that he sell BPA to finance a tax cut. Fortunately, after hearing from Senators and Representatives from the Pacific Northwest, President Clinton elected to decline that advice. Recognizing the special attributes of BPA, he has said he does not intend to offer it for sale. So, my constituents appear to be safe for now. I speak in opposition to the sale of the other PMA's because I believe their sale is not in the best interest of either the taxpaying public or the tens of millions of consumers who will certainly be saddled with higher electricity bills. Let us reject this short-term solution to our deficit and protect our Federal assets for the next generations of Americans. Sale of the Power Marketing Administrations

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I say to Members of the Senate, the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee has just a few minutes ago concluded its testimony from Dr. Foster, who is the nominee for Surgeon General. I wanted to take this opportunity to personally thank Senator Kassebaum, chair of that committee, for doing an outstanding job of giving Dr. Foster the opportunity to present himself to the Senate and to the United States of America. I felt that the hearing was very fair and very well conducted by both Senator Kassebaum and all the members of the committee. I also wanted to take this opportunity to commend Dr. Foster who, for the last several months, has been a person we have only known as a cardboard cutout; who, in the last day and a half has, I believe, really presented a very strong image to this country of a man who is caring, who is compassionate, and who can be a very forthright Surgeon General, to speak to the issues of the day that are of concern to so many of us; who will be a person, I believe, who will speak to women's health care issues in a way that needs to be done in this country today; who will speak to the issue of teen pregnancy and provide leadership; and a man who I think is a person who we can all look up to in terms of being a model public servant; who understands that we cannot just sit in our houses and close our blinds and shut our doors, but we need to personally get out and work with young kids today and be a personal role model for all of them. I think he has done an outstanding job of answering all the questions that have been brought to him, and I believe that both Dr. Foster and the committee deserve a debt of gratitude from the Senate. I look forward to having an expeditious vote on his nomination and to being allowed, as a U.S. Senator, to vote up or down on his nomination very soon on the floor of the Senate. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for approximately 2 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to encourage girls and young women throughout the Nation to aspire and work hard to make their dreams a reality. In honor of national Take Our Daughters to Work Day, I have with me today my own daughter, Sara. When I was young, many women did not work outside the home. The women who did work were teachers, nurses, and waitresses. Life has changed a lot since then. Young women today have more options and greater opportunities than ever before. There are over 58 million working women in this country today. There are 3.8 million women working in jobs not traditionally held by women--occupations such as engineering, medicine, mechanics, construction trades, farming, forestry, and transportation. They are even Members of the U.S. Senate. Although it is encouraging to reflect on the changes that have been made by women since my childhood, I believe that the job choices available to young women today are not merely a matter of luxury. The reality is that many of our young women ultimately will be responsible for the financial well-being of their families. Women's employment is often critical to keeping families above the poverty line. Children whose mothers work are less likely to be poor, whether they live with one parent or two. The ability of young women to realize their goals of good paying, rewarding employment are hampered, however, by lack of involvement by parents toward their child's education. I was reading the Seattle Times last Sunday, and Erik Lacitis, a staff columnist for the Times, suggested that parents visit their child's school, a sort of Take Your Parent To School Day. Mr. Lacitis comments that, In talking to teachers over the years, what they tell me is that a number of you [meaning parents] are strangers to your kid's schools *** have you ever spent time in their classrooms, say, volunteering to carry out a project with the kids? He ends his editorial by saying that one of the best things that could happen to schools is the presence of parents in the classroom regularly. I could not agree more. I wholeheartedly support the idea of taking a child to work. I believe it is important for young people to see what their parents, and role models, do for 8 hours or more a day. It is important for us to show them they can achieve the same thing, and even more. However, I also feel that we need to see and experience what our children are doing for 8 hours of their day. It would show our children that we care about what they are learning in school, and would emphasize the importance of education in achieving their long-range goals. Mr. President, I feel that it is very important for me as a woman, as a mother, and a Member of the U.S. Congress to encourage girls and young women throughout the Nation to realize their potential. I never dreamed that I would become an elected official, much less a U.S. Senator. Today, I have the opportunity to be a role model for my daughter Sara and for other women across the country. Young women need to understand that they don't have to give up one part of their lives for another. Women should not have to choose between careers and families. I work long hours for the citizens of my home a lot of energy, caring, and love as a parent to my son and daughter. Today is an important day in America. Across this Nation, parents are taking their daughters and other young women to work. They are helping to broaden young women's horizons, to show them the range of options available to them in the future. I hope this day is a day when young women everywhere recognize that if they work hard and believe in themselves, they can be whoever they want to be. I am a U.S. Senator today because I learned to face tough challenges with courage, to take risks, not to be afraid to try, and to always dream the impossible. Finally, I would like daughters across this Nation to remember a lesson I was taught early on: When others say you can not make a difference, they are usually just afraid you will. Thank you, Mr. President.