Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would provide for the sale of oil. The volume of oil currently produced on Federal lands in Alaska is very minimal. This amendment in fact would really look to the future if something were to occur on Federal lands in Alaska. I want to stress again, this oil that we are talking about is on State lands. It is our oil. Very frankly, I do not see any harm in the amendment. I have one question to ask the author of the amendment, because after reading the amendment the only thing is, when does this kick in? When does that royalty oil kick in, if I may ask the gentleman from Washington?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This amendment was offered in the committee. It was defeated 24 to 11. I believe it is a deal killer. It was designed to block export volumes by giving the President limited authority to place a volume cap on exports. The export ban requires 1.6 million barrels of oil produced today be shipped to the West Coast. This again is a cap, it is a requirement, it will affect the California production area, it will not give us the jobs. This is opposed, frankly, by the administration. As the gentleman from Louisiana says, I agree with this administration, but the previous administration also said the same thing: This again interferes with the marketplace. It is my belief that it will not do everything we want it to do if we adopt the amendment, so I strongly oppose the amendment, and urge ``no'' on the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] has the right to close on his amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley].

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas].

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 40 minutes, with the time to be equally divided and controlled. This was the suggestion of the gentleman from California, and I think it is an excellent suggestion.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I understand and appreciate the interest of the gentleman from Washington in this issue of importance to his district. May I say the gentleman has talked to me about this. He has done an excellent job in the past and into the future representing his district concerning this issue. We have discussed it. We will be discussing it in conference. The gentleman will be working very closely with me in the conference, and I hope we will be able to address his concerns as well as the State of Washington, especially with the State of Alaska working in conjunction.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there are all kinds of remedies, the Secretary of Commerce, the President of the United States, the Congress itself. Let us not kid ourselves. There are so many safeguards in this. This is the only State in the United States that has this ban put upon it. This is a mischievous amendment. I do not blame the gentleman. The gentleman did not support the bill in the committee, he talked against the bill in the general debate, he wants to defeat the bill, and I understand why he offers the amendment. I compliment him for that. This is a mischievous amendment that should be soundly defeated.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, this is a very mischievous amendment. Just think of the term ``terminate.'' Terminator I, Terminator II. This is exactly what this does to the bill. Let us not kid ourselves. The bill is very self-explanatory. It says exports will be only on U.S.-crewed, U.S.-flagged vessels. That is in the bill. If it is not on U.S.-crewed or U.S.-flagged vessels, in fact there would be no oil export. What happens? Let us say that all the vessels for some strange reason became totally occupied, absolutely occupied, and we had to move the oil because the storage was not available, and we put it on one ship that was not, then the whole thing is terminated. We might as well go home. That is really what it does. Look at that word ``terminate,'' very smartly put in there. I want to suggest this amendment, as I say, is very mischievous and, by the way, not supported by any of the maritime unions. We worked closely with the maritime unions, closely with the Shipbuilding League, very closely with everybody involved in this issue, asking for their input, asking for their suggestions, and we have suggested very nearly everything they have suggested within the realities of other laws, such as GATT, international trade, et cetera, et cetera. We have done that. To have this amendment offered at this time, very frankly, with all due respect to my good friend from Connecticut, it causes me great, great anguish to have this presented as one that says well, this is just another fail-safe part of this bill. As a backup to what you say, it says it in the bill. The bill is very clear. It is there. By the word ``termination,'' it is absolutely a killer amendment, and I urge that it be defeated.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I am so impressed that the gentleman from Ohio has made me accept his amendment with great happiness and joy. It makes great sense. We should have put it in to begin with, and I thank the gentleman for offering it. Mr. Chairman, we do accept the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The substitute has the support of the administration and many other interest groups. The amendment brings the bill in conformity with title 2 of S. 395. In a nutshell, it would, among other things: Allow exports to be carried in U.S.-flag, U.S.-crewed vessels. Require the President to make a national interest determination. Require the President to conduct an environmental review, as well examining the effect of exports on jobs, consumers and supplies of oil. The President could impose terms and conditions other than a volume limitation. The Secretary of Commerce would be required to issue any rules necessary to implement the President's finding within 30 days. If the Secretary found drastic oil shortages or price increases, he could recommend actions, including modification and removal of the authority to export. Actions under this bill would not be subject to traditional burdensome notice and comment rulemaking requirements. The President would retain his authority to block exports in times of emergency. Finally, the substitute would also require the GAO to prepare a report assessing the impact of ANS exports on consumers, independent refiners, shipbuilders and repair yards. I urge support for the amendment in the nature of a substitute. amendment offered by mr. traficant to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. young of alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds before I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas]. I am amazed that the previous speaker would talk about the environment when in reality she has the tankers going right by her front door--of Alaskan crude oil that can possibly spill--and that is what this report says, so I cannot quite figure out the analogies of why are supposed to be environmentally safe to paint those big ships by their front door and yet say they are going to protect their coast. I just cannot figure that. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman on his hard work brining this to my attention. The gentleman is absolutely correct. The committee has been very sensitive to the concerns of the consumers of Hawaii as a result of the actions from the gentleman. Knowing of these concerns, I supported his amendment in committee and further revived the text of the committee print to insure that the President will consider the impact of proposed exports on consumers in noncontiguous States before making his national-interest determination. As the gentleman will recall, the committee print also established a mechanism for the President to monitor supply and price developments. The committee print provides the President with the power to modify or revoke the authority to export in appropriate circumstances. Again let me assure the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] that it is in the intent of this legislation to cause no harm to consumers in Hawaii. I will be glad to work with him in the future to address any problems that arise but otherwise cannot be adequately addressed in the procedures included in our legislation.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas]. (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Prudhoe Bay is all State lands.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I will not yield. I did not mention the gentleman's name. I did not mention the gentleman's name. I am just going to suggest respectfully, we could drill off the coast of California. We could drill off the coast of Florida, Massachusetts, North Carolina. We could do those things. But we have to understand the marketing principle of oil. What has happened here, the only State in the Union which required in 1973, the only State that owns its own oil, was required to transport it to, by law of this Congress, really one market. And as the gentleman from California mentioned, we also required the full maximum production of oil out of Elk Hills. It was a classic example of Government interference in the marketing capability of a resource. And it has been a disaster that has decreased production of our domestic oil producers and made us more dependent. Let us keep in mind also that there will be, in fact, a different type oil in many cases that will be shipped to the Asian market that has no place in the United States, that is high in sulfur, and is what we call coal oil. There is a market in the Asian countries that do want this oil. It will not be just Prudhoe Bay oil; it will be an Alaskan oil. Mr. Chairman, we have also heard the statement we are going to exploit. If anything, we have not, very frankly, explored enough, because as I mentioned in my opening statement, the highest trade deficit mark, highest in 7 years, is the importation of fossil fuels that do not come necessarily from the Far East, but other countries, because we killed our domestic production. This is an attempt to make the marketplace work; an attempt to open other fields and to get some of our independent oil producers back into the field. So, Mr. Chairman, I suggest respectfully, I know rhetoric is very popular on this floor, that we look at the facts, the people that support it, including this administration. Those that are directly affected support it and it was wrong to begin with and it is time that we lift that ban. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Burr]. (Mr. BURR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to compliment the gentleman from Connecticut for a great political speech. It had very little meat in it. A lot of, very frankly, assumptions were not true. We know what has happened to the world market of oil. We know the supply and demand. We know there is a glut on the west coast. We know that some people had a sweetheart deal. Very frankly, there are other areas that produce oil.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], a sponsor of the bill, a great leader who introduced this bill 10 years ago and has worked so diligently and hard. The gentleman deserves recognition for his effort in this great piece of legislation today. (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield. The gentleman is correct, and I would like to thank my colleague for his efforts in this regard. The administration has agreed to hold one or more hearings before the President makes his national interest determination. The bill requires the administration to conduct an appropriate environmental review within 4 months, and the hearings will take place within this process. The public will have a formal means of making its views known directly to the administration.