Ensuring Tax Exempt Organizations the Right to Appeal Act -- Motion to Proceed -- Resumed

Floor Speech

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, while my colleague from Oregon is
still on the floor, I want to thank him for his leadership through
these discussions over these past several days on the floor and longer
prior to that. He has been a leader in trying to thread the needle, and
it has been a little bit harder, but I appreciate the fact that we are
here today and hopefully moving forward to that agreement that will
allow us as a nation to be the best we can and to engage in a level of
trade that is fair, free, and really of great benefit to us as a
nation. I thank him for that.

National Police Week

Madam President, I too want to speak about the trade promotion
authority and some of the issues associated with it, but I first want
to speak briefly and acknowledge the comments made by my colleagues
from New Hampshire when they spoke about National Police Week and
honoring those brave men and women who serve us day in and day out,
those who go where many of us would choose not to, whose families worry
about them, and those who have fallen in the line of their service.

This is National Police Week in the Nation's Capital and across
America. Each year during National Police Week I honor the men and
women of law enforcement who have given their lives in the line of
duty. In previous Police Week speeches I have taken note of the sad
coincidence that a spate of line-of-duty casualties seems to happen in
the days and weeks leading up to National Police Week.

This year, unfortunately, is no exception. Last weekend the Nation
was shocked by the shooting of two members of the Hattiesburg, MS
Police Department. A week ago two communities lost law enforcement
officers bearing the last name of Moore--Detective Brian Moore of the
New York Police Department and Sergeant Greg Moore of Coeur d'Alene,
ID. They are among 45 law enforcement heroes who have died in the line
of duty this year alone. I extend my condolences to their families and
to their communities on these tragic losses. And I extend my support to
my colleagues from the States of Idaho, Mississippi and New York who
share in the grief of their communities. In the U.S. Senate we take the
loss of a first responder personally for we regard these public
servants as members of our own extended families.

During National Police Week we honor and remember the 117 law
enforcement officers lost in 2014. Their names were read at a
candlelight vigil on Judiciary Square Wednesday evening and their
memories will be honored at the Peace Officers Memorial Service on the Capitol grounds
on Friday. This week the families and colleagues of these 117 officers
are gathered in Alexandria at the Police Survivors Seminar sponsored by
Concerns of Police Survivors, where they will gain comfort from a
community of survivors who have walked in their steps. This week's
events are very important steps in the lengthy journey our families
face to heal their losses. But it is a vital step.

I have attended the Police Survivors Seminar and cannot say enough
good things about Concerns of Police Survivors and Suzie Sawyer, its
founding executive director, who set the standard for caring and
healing. Although Suzie claims to have retired, when we face a law
enforcement tragedy in the State of Alaska I am comforted by the fact
that her phone number is still in my speed dial. Sadly I had an
opportunity to use it in 2014.

Last evening I attended the candlelight vigil as I have in past years
to honor fallen officers from the State of Alaska. Joined on the dais
by the Attorney General of the United States and the Secretary of
Homeland Security I was honored to read the names of two Alaska State
Troopers who gave their lives while protecting the Native Village of
Tanana in 2014. Trooper Sergeant P. Scott Johnson and Trooper Gabriel
Lenox Rich at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial.

I have spoken before about the unique dangers that are presented when
law enforcement officers perform their duties in Alaska Native
villages. No roads connected most of these villages to the nearest
trooper post which can be hundreds of miles away, accessible only by
air or boat and only then when the weather cooperates. And that was the
case when Sergeant Johnson and Trooper Rich were ambushed in the
village as they sought to apprehend an individual who was driving while
intoxicated in the village and brandished a weapon at the unarmed
village public safety officer.

There is no consoling those who remember the lives and passions of
Scott and Gabe. But it matters that their life stories were not
forgotten. Fallen law enforcement officers are heroes for the way they
live their lives. And at last night's observance the stories of Scott
and Gabe were an integral part of the event. Attorney General Loretta
Lynch spoke to their heroism as did the event organizers. For the first
time I can remember you could see the distinctive tunics worn by our
Alaska State Troopers among the crowd of 10,000, and as the event ended
my staff encountered two members of the Fairbanks Police Department in
uniform on the streets of downtown Washington. They traveled at their
own expense to pay their respects to two individuals from Interior
Alaska who were widely respected by area wide law enforcement. Sergeant
Johnson was well known as a ``cop's cop''. He was well known as both a
drug expert and a tactical expert.

The Fairbanks officers mentioned that Scott was gracious with his
time and his expertise--providing training to the Fairbanks Police
Department that otherwise would have cost tens of thousands of dollars.
Gabe Rich was a young guy and mentored by the finest of Alaska's
finest--Sergeant Johnson--and he demonstrated great potential. Both
lived their lives as model Alaska State Troopers.

Service as an Alaska State Trooper is regarded as a huge deal in our
State. I am reminded that there are 700,000 law enforcement officers
across the country but only 400 have what it takes to be Alaska State
Troopers. Guardians of the last frontier.

In May I came to the floor to discuss the lives of Scott and Gabe and
the families they left behind. Today I would like to pay homage to the
organization they were a valuable part of and devoted their lives to.
And I pay homage to the creed they willfully and enthusiastically chose
to live their lives by.

I ask unanimous consent that the Creed of the Alaska State Trooper be
printed in the Record.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I will close with these words which appear at the
gates to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. The words of
President George H.W. Bush: ``Carved on these walls is the story of
America, of a continuing quest to preserve both democracy and decency,
and to protect a national treasure that we call the American dream.''
Last evening the names of Patrick Scott Johnson and Gabriel Lenox Rich
were carved into those walls. A reminder, once again, that in valor
there is hope.

Madam President, returning to the issue of trade in my State of
Alaska, we are here to debate trade promotion authority. We have had an
opportunity to proceed to this measure. I was pleased to be able to
vote to advance it earlier this week and again today, and I will
continue to support free trade.

In my State, which is separated from the contiguous 48 States, our
trade is based primarily with those to the west in Asia. Most of our
trade does not go to the lower 48 States. So when we think about our
trading partners, for Alaskans, it is international trade.

International trade in our State supports about 1 in 5 jobs--over
90,000 Alaskan jobs. Of those who are exporters, about 70 percent are
small- and medium-sized companies. These are men and women who are
engaged in a very sophisticated level of trade overseas, but many of
them are relatively small. We are very vigorous in our trade with
Japan, South Korea, and China, but we also have good relationships, of
course, with our friends in Europe and elsewhere around the globe.

In 2013, the countries that are negotiating the Trans-Pacific
Partnership--the TPP--and the TTIP agreements comprised about 54
percent of Alaska's exported goods. This is a significant part of what
we look to for our exports. As we look to the TPP and the benefits that
it will accrue, I think our State is looking to clearly strengthen
these relationships as well as open new markets for Alaska's exports.

About 34,000 Alaska jobs are supported by trade with TPP countries.
Thirty-six percent of Alaska's goods are exported to TPP countries, and
more than 50 TPP companies have investments within the State of Alaska.

One of our longest and more established trading partners--Japan--is
obviously not a current U.S. FTA partner, but the TPP negotiations will
provide an avenue for removing some of the trade barriers we see with
Japan and will allow us additional economic opportunities within the
State of Alaska, specifically as it relates to our fish, our fisheries,
and our frozen fish. Current tariff rates to export frozen fish and
prepared crabs to Japan are about 10 percent, so a free-trade agreement
will lower these tariffs and increase access to Japan's seafood market.
This is something we care a great deal about, and it has been a very
longstanding partnership and relationship.

Today, I want to move from some of the issues relating to my State
and what opportunities there will be for us with the prospect of trade
promotion authority moving forward and I want to draw attention to a
related issue. This is an issue that is outdated when
it comes to exports and, very specifically, a ban on exports. What I am
referring to is the current ban, the prohibition on crude oil exports.

This absolutely runs counter to the principle of free trade as well as
the notion that we should stand ready to help our allies, to help our
friends for the sake of global security.

We talk a lot about national security. We talk a lot about what more
we can do to provide for national security and the geopolitics and how
we can be of help to our friends and allies. Well, one way we can
demonstrate our willingness to help is by lifting this decades-old ban,
this prohibition on our crude oil and allow for exports.

I want to share with my colleagues five quick facts they may or may
not know about our Nation's history of oil exports, because while we
have this ban in place--and it has been in place since the mid-1970s--
there is a history that I think is important.

The first fact goes back to World War II. The United States exported
tens of millions of barrels of crude oil to our allies in World War II,
and I am talking about Canada, the United Kingdom, India, and
Australia. We were engaged in a very robust level of exports to our
friends during World War II.

Second fact: When Egypt seized control of the Suez Canal, President
Eisenhower moved quickly, and he ordered American oil to relieve what
was called Europe's oil famine. That was pretty immediate, that was
pretty direct, and it was targeted to help our allies and friends at
that time.

Third fact: When Rhodesia cut off the flow of oil to Zambia in 1965,
America stood with Britain to provide assistance. We delivered
petroleum products in the Zambian airlift. So we were there in 1965
when Zambia needed that assistance.

Then, in the 1970s, facing a threat from multiple regimes, Israel
secured an agreement from the United States to supply it with oil in
the event of a national emergency. So this agreement was made back in
1975. This was under the administration of President Ford, and that
agreement was that the United States would stand with our friend and
ally and provide oil in the event that their sources were threatened,
that Israel was threatened.

That agreement stood through President Ford's administration,
President Carter's, President Bill Clinton's, President George Bush's,
and with President Obama's administration. So it is an agreement that
has endured--that we will stand by our friend Israel in providing it
with a source of oil in the event of a national emergency. This is
something where we just got the administration to sign off on this just
literally a month or so ago, to re-affirm that agreement.

Then, the fifth fact here is that former Ambassador Carlos Pascual
and others have testified before our energy committee that the
sanctions against Iran--which brought Iran to the table--worked. They
worked because of rising U.S. oil production. He went further to say
that we were hamstrung by our inability to export it.

We have heard this consistently in the energy committee. We heard
this discussed on the floor of the Senate the past couple of weeks when
we were talking about the Iran deal. Today, we are in a position where
our friends, our trading partners, and our allies are again asking for
our assistance. We have the resource.

Some would say we are awash in oil right now. The production we have
seen has been nothing short of phenomenal. But we are tied. We are
limited in our ability to move it beyond our shores. Our allies are
looking at us, and they are in the grips of tension.

Look at our friends and allies in Poland. Poland is 96-percent
dependent on Russia for their oil. Don't we think that Poland would
rather receive their oil from their friend the United States? Poland
has been there with us when it comes to national missile defense. With
just about every engagement we have had, Poland has been there for us.
Wouldn't it be nice for us to be there for our friend Poland?

Just a couple weeks ago, we had the Prime Minister of Japan here, Mr.
Abe. Iran is still supplying oil to Japan, despite those sanctions.

Japan needs a source of oil. Don't we think that Japan would much
rather receive oil from the United States--more crude from the United
States?

I think we recognize the world has changed out there. There are new
alliances, there are new threats, there are new hopes, and there are
new fears. It remains my hope that, while the world may change, our
role as a global leader has not eroded. And one way--one clear, sure
way--we can ensure that it hasn't eroded is to help our friends and to
use our resource as a national strategic asset to help our friends and
allies.

The whole idea that oil exports are still prohibited is just mind-
boggling. I have been working on this now for over a year. We have been
encouraging different reports so people really understand this issue
and wrap their minds around it, because to change a policy that has
been in place for decades takes understanding and education. I am
willing to give that time, but I also appreciate that the policy that
is in place right now just doesn't make sense.

The Commerce Department retains a list of commodities that are
defined in short simply, and they call this the Short Supply Controls.
Historically, these controls were generally not blanket prohibitions.
They were on things such as aluminum, copper, iron, steel scrap,
nickel, selenium, and the polio vaccine.

But it is interesting--we look at that Short Supply Controls list
right now, and there are three items on that list. The first,
obviously, is crude oil; the second is western red cedar; and the third
is horses for export by sea intended for slaughter.

Now, there is a small caveat, because there is a prohibition of
exports of petroleum products that would come from the Naval Petroleum
Reserve, but it is very small. So really what we are talking about and
the three items that are on this Short Supply Controls list--in other
words, prohibited--are oil, cedar, and horses. Go figure.

Now, we do have embargoes on North Korea, for example, and we control
the export of other things such as sensitive technology. But crude
oil's presence on the Short Supply Controls, I think, is particularly
conspicuous, since we export our petroleum products--our refined
products--at record levels. I think it is important for people to make
that distinction because sometimes there is a little bit of confusion.

We export our refined products at record levels. What we don't export
is the crude. Some people say: Well, I am afraid that if we lift the
oil export ban and we allow for crude export, the price of oil or the
price at the pump is going to go up, and I am worried about that. I
think we would all be worried about that. We don't want to see the
price of gasoline at the pump go up. The fact remains that what we put
in our vehicle, what we pump at the filling station is a refined
product that we already export. So we don't see that price spike; we
don't see that increase. What we don't refine is the crude product.

We have engaged in study after study after study. There have been
about eight different, very reputable studies out there, and each and
every one of them has come to the same conclusion--that allowing for
the lifting of the export ban will not increase the price of gas to the
consumer. I think it is important to reaffirm that.

I urge my colleagues who are ready to vote for trade promotion
authority to consider joining my effort. My colleague Senator Heitkamp
from North Dakota is working with me on the other side to lift this
ban, to extend the principle of free trade to crude oil exports.

We export natural gas. We export diesel, jet fuel, gasoline, natural
gasoline, propane, coal--so many other petroleum products.

I should end by reminding people that the ban that we have in place
does allow for certain limited amounts of export. Today, we export to
Canada about 4,000 barrels a day. I think that is about average right
now. With Alaska, there is an exception that allowed for export of
Alaska crude back in the mid 1990s. I just asked for confirmation on
what we have been exporting. Last year, in September of 2014, we
exported about 800,000 barrels to South Korea, and I am told that just
this month, in May, there were 975,000 barrels that went over to South
Korea.

So we in Alaska are trying to do our little bit to help. We need to
get our oil pipeline filled up so that we can do more to export more to
those who are our friends, partners, and allies. But this is something for which,
again, the time is now. The subject is ripe as we are talking about
allowing for greater opportunities for export. But when we look to
those policies that hold us back--hold us back from good jobs, from
producing our resources to our benefit and our economy's benefit and to
the benefit of our friends and allies--it is time that we lift the ban
on crude oil. Doing so will create jobs, strengthen our security, lower
our trade deficit, and, again, as study after study has shown, not
raise our gasoline prices.

I thank the Presiding Officer for the time on the floor this
afternoon, and look forward to working with my colleagues on these
issues.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source