[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 16, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10393-S10400]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1999

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senate will now resume 
consideration of S. 2237, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2237) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Pending:

       Daschle amendment No. 3581, to provide emergency assistance 
     to agricultural producers.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are awaiting Senator Boxer. I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from California is recognized 
to offer an amendment related to oil royalties in which there shall be 
3 hours for debate equally divided.
  The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President.


                           Amendment No. 3594

(Purpose: To strike the section delaying issuance of a notice of final 
   rulemaking with respect to the valuation of crude oil for royalty 
                               purposes)

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself, Mr. 
     Bumpers, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Durbin and Mr. Wellstone, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 3594.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, is it a short amendment?
  Mrs. BOXER. Pardon me?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Is it a short amendment?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would like it read.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is no problem with us at all.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       On page 74, strike lines 13 through 20.

  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I said it was a short amendment. It is in 
fact a short amendment. It is a very straightforward amendment. It 
would actually strike a rider that has been placed in this bill that 
deals with oil royalty payments that are due Federal taxpayers.

[[Page S10394]]

  Mr. President, Senator Bumpers, Senator Durbin, Senator Daschle and 
Senator Wellstone are joining me today to offer an amendment to repeal 
a special interest rider that has been attached to the Interior 
appropriations bill. And I think, to put it in very, very 
straightforward terms, the taxpayers are being robbed. Now, that is a 
pretty strong statement, but I can back it up. They are being robbed to 
the tune of $5.5 million a month, and that is a lot of money, Mr. 
President. It adds up real fast to many, many millions of dollars, and 
over years, hundreds of millions of dollars.
  If any one of us were standing outside on the street and we saw 
someone's purse being snatched, and we saw somebody grab that purse and 
take the money out and pocket it, we would act like good Samaritans and 
we would say that is wrong. Well, I think it is wrong when we see the 
most powerful companies in this country--only 5 percent of the oil 
companies in this country are doing this--not paying their fair share 
of royalty payments.
  How do I know this is a fact? Because there have been lawsuits, Mr. 
President. All over this country the oil companies have, in fact, 
settled and admitted--admitted--they underpaid their royalties.
  I am very pleased that the Senator from Illinois has wound his way 
over here because he and I have worked on this together, as well as 
Senator Bumpers and Senator Wellstone. I was very proud that in the 
committee my motion to remove this rider got the support of Senator 
Byrd. And that is because wrong is wrong and right is right. It is 
wrong for the powerful oil companies, with teams of lawyers, to be able 
to take away the rightful funds of taxpayers.
  Now, what does this rider do?
  The rider prevents the Interior Department from acting to ensure that 
oil companies pay their fair share of royalties for oil drilled on 
public lands.
  Now, if you are asking what a royalty payment is, it is very simple. 
It is like a rent payment. The oil companies drill on Federal land, 
they have to pay a royalty payment, 12.5 percent of the value of the 
oil that they find on Federal land. What do we do with it in the 
Federal Government? It goes straight to the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund, which is the fund that purchases parks, to the Historic 
Preservation Fund, and a share of it goes to the States. What do the 
States do with it? They do with it what State law requires. In the case 
of my State of California, those royalty payments go directly to the 
schools.
  So this amendment that I am offering, if we are fortunate enough to 
pass it and we can strip this rider out, will mean more money for 
schoolchildren and more money for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  Now, this royalty payment is not a tax. It is a payment that the oil 
companies sign on to pay. They sign on to an agreement, just as you do 
if you lease an apartment. It says:

       The value of production for purposes of computing royalty 
     on production from this lease shall never be less than the 
     fair market value of the production.

  Keep that in mind. The oil companies have signed on to a lease that 
says that their royalty payments ``shall never be less than the fair 
market value of the production.''
  What has been happening? A small percentage of oil companies are 
paying a royalty not on the fair market value of the production, but on 
a made up price. A price that they, themselves, make up. I will explain 
that later. As a result of this phantom price system, they value the 
oil at a lower price than the market price. Taxpayers, therefore, are 
getting 12.5 percent of a lower price. Taxpayers are getting robbed, 
plain and simple. Only 5 percent of the oil companies are doing this, 
95 percent are not. We want to make sure those 5 percent, the bad 
actors, pay their fair share.
  That is what our amendment will do. It will strip out a rider that 
says to the Interior Department, ``Stop what you are doing to fix this 
problem.'' The rider in this bill says to the Interior Department, 
essentially, ``Stop what you are doing to fix this problem.'' The 
Interior Department is trying to get millions of dollars back for 
taxpayers. They are being stopped by a rider in an appropriations bill.
  It is a very simple issue. Believe me, it will be contorted to make 
it look complicated, but it isn't complicated. For years, oil companies 
have been cheating the American taxpayers out of millions, if not 
billions, of dollars. The Department of Interior took action to stop 
the cheating. And now, the Senate Appropriations Committee, pretty much 
on a party line vote, said to the Interior Department, ``You can't fix 
the problem.'' What we are doing in our amendment is saying, ``Yes, you 
can, Interior Department, fix the problem. Do it in a fair way, go 
after the 5 percent of the oil companies that are cheating the people. 
Fix the problem.''
  Now, how do we know that they are cheating? First of all, common 
sense will tell you. We have a chart that shows the difference between 
the posted price and the market price. We know that the Interior 
Department has already billed 12 companies over $260 million for past 
royalty underpayments. So we know there is a problem. The Interior 
Department wouldn't do that if they didn't think they had proof that 
there has been cheating. There have been settlements in five States on 
royalty underpayments. California has collected $350 million; Alaska, 
$2.5 billion; Texas, $17.5 million; Louisiana collected $10 million; 
New Mexico collected $8 million. So the States are ahead of us on this. 
They are suing the companies because the States know they are being 
cheated, and they are collecting.
  Just 2 weeks ago, Mobil Oil paid an additional $56.5 million in 
settlement. Now, oil companies would not have settled for these large 
sums of money if they truly believed they could justify their royalty 
payments. You don't go and say, ``Here are millions of dollars. I'm 
really innocent, but let's just get this over with.'' I don't know of 
any company that would turn over $56 million, or $2.5 billion, if they 
didn't think they were liable for it.
  Here is the issue. This chart shows ARCO as an example. This is the 
market price of oil in the west Texas market, in the blue on this 
chart. This is what ARCO said the price was. It is very easy to see the 
chart and see the difference, the area where we should be collecting 
money. Another chart shows the Koch Oil Company, the same thing. This 
is the market price in the blue line in the Louisiana market, and the 
red line is what they said the market price was.
  We also know that in February 1998 the Department of Justice 
intervened in a lawsuit under the False Claims Act, accusing five major 
oil companies of knowingly undervaluing oil extracted from public land 
and thus paying lower royalties. The suit was originally filed in the 
U.S. district court in Lufkin, TX, by three private parties. The 
Justice Department entered the suit because of the overwhelming 
evidence against the companies. These lawsuits are still pending, and 
the Justice Department is continuing its investigation of the remaining 
seven companies that have been billed by the Interior Department. Under 
the False Claims Act, the United States may recover, on behalf of 
taxpayers, three times the amount of its losses plus civil penalties.
  If anyone comes on this floor and says there is no cheating--and they 
will--if anyone comes on this floor and says, ``There is nothing there, 
Senator Boxer; what is the fuss?'' I will show them exactly what the 
fuss is all about. And that is the underpayment of royalties that the 
oil companies promised to pay. Remember:

       The value of production for purposes of computing royalty 
     on production from this lease shall never be less than the 
     fair market value of the production.

  And we know what the fair market value is because there is an open 
market on these prices.
  Who benefits from this rider that is on this appropriations bill that 
Senator Durbin, Senator Wellstone, Senator Bumpers, and I, and others 
are trying to remove? Who wins? Five percent of the oil companies.
  If you hear someone come on this floor and say this is an attack on 
small oil companies, this is an attack on the mom-and-pop oil 
companies, that is just not true. Five percent of the oil companies, 
the biggest oil companies, are the only ones who are affected by this 
rule; 95 percent of them are not, and there is no change. So we are 
talking about a rider that protects 5 percent of the oil companies--
namely, the biggest oil companies in the country

[[Page S10395]]

who make billions of dollars and who are not paying their fair share of 
royalties and basically have admitted it in lawsuit after lawsuit after 
lawsuit--maybe not technically, but when you settle for those amounts 
of money, you know they don't want to go to court about it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the names of the companies who are affected by this rule.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Paid vs.                 Liability
               Companies                 (Oil and gas J.)     (Oil and       revenue     Under the    v. revenue
                                                               cond.)       (percent)       rule      (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shell Total...........................    $29,151,000,000    $213,008,437         0.73  $19,459,159         0.07
Exxon Corp. USA, Total................    134,249,000,000     154,531,037         0.12    7,993,222         0.01
Chevron USA, Inc. Total...............     43,893,000,000     159,611,684         0.36    7,111,509         0.02
Texaco Exploration & Prod., I Total...     45,500,000,000      87,370,721         0.19    6,375,000         0.01
Marathon Oil Company Total............     16,356,000,000      53,593,234         0.33    5,225,380         0.03
Mobil Explor. & Prod. U.S. Total......     81,503,000,000      55,511,623         0.07    3,978,051         0.00
Conoco Inc. Total.....................     20,579,000,000      30,562,431         0.15    2,444,738         0.01
Phillips Petroleum Co. Total..........     15,807,000,000      10,527,634         0.07    2,334,420         0.01
BP Exploration and Oil Inc. Total.....     17,165,000,000      46,819,366         0.27    2,138,002         0.01
Amerada Hess Corporation Total........      8,929,711,000      12,271,849         0.14    1,446,901         0.02
Amoco Production Company Total........     36,112,000,000      31,030,184         0.09    1,427,185         0.00
Pennzoil Products Co. Total...........      2,486,846,000      23,858,522         0.96    1,416,140         0.06
Unocal Exploration Total..............      9,599,000,000      36,205,793         0.38    1,358,282         0.01
Murphy Oil Company U.S.A. Total.......      2,022,176,000      16,445,805         0.81      778,351         0.04
Arco Western Energy Total.............     19,169,000,000      50,363,676         0.26      718,384         0.00
Coastal Oil & Gas Corporation Total...     12,166,900,000       4,364,577         0.04      470,939         0.00
Total Petroleum, Inc.--Oil Total......     34,526,000,000       3,059,110         0.01      364,045         0.00
Koch Oil Co. Total....................        Unavailable       3,214,012  ...........      342,222  ...........
Fina Oil & Chemical Company Total.....      4,078,502,000       1,393,795         0.03      156,560         0.00
Hunt Oil Company Total................        Unavailable       8,256,498  ...........      125,731  ...........
Howell Petroleum Corporation Total....        712,501,000       1,581,010         0.22      122,669         0.02
Frontier Oil & Refining Co. Total.....          3,379,000         486,634        14.40       47,853         1.42
Giant Refining Company Total..........        Unavailable         945,403  ...........       46,854  ...........
Citgo Petroleum Corp. Total...........        Unavailable         600,941  ...........       45,755  ...........
Navajo Crude Oil Mktg Co. Total.......        Unavailable       2,598,096  ...........       45,063  ...........
BHP Petroleum (Americas), I Total.....        135,180,000       6,266,511         4.64       34,020         0.03
Barrett Resources Corp. Total.........        202,572,000         306,239         0.15       32,719         0.02
ANR Production Total..................        Unavailable         402,039  ...........       13,801  ...........
Petro Source Total....................        Unavailable         919,725  ...........       12,049  ...........
Berry Petroleum Company Total.........         57,095,000         132,733         0.23        9,711         0.02
Sinclair Oil Corp. Total..............        Unavailable         181,480  ...........        5,949  ...........
Ashland Exploration, Inc. Total.......     13,309,000,000          47,270         0.00        3,825         0.00
Big West Oil & Gas Inc. Total.........        Unavailable       1,877,664  ...........        3,415  ...........
Sun Refining & Marketing Co. Total....        Unavailable          73,075  ...........        2,683  ...........
Pride Energy Company Total............        Unavailable         113,116  ...........        2,389  ...........
Cenex, Inc. Total.....................        Unavailable         140,119  ...........        2,267  ...........
Sunland Refining Corp. Total..........        Unavailable           4,034  ...........        1,919  ...........
Diamond Shamrock Ref. & Mktg. Total...        Unavailable           6,805  ...........          226  ...........
Montana Refining Company Total........        Unavailable           2,923  ...........          213  ...........
Gary-Williams Energy Corp. Total......        Unavailable          27,848  ...........            8  ...........
                                                                                       -------------
      Grand Total--40 Companies.......  .................  ..............  ...........   66,097,612  ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, let the Record show that we have 1\1/2\ 
pages of companies that are affected by the rule, and we literally have 
34 pages of all the companies that are not affected by this rule. So 
we, in this amendment, are going after only the 5 percent of oil 
companies that are cheating the taxpayers, and 95 percent of them are 
unaffected by this rule. So the only one that is benefited by this 
rider, as it stands in the bill, is big oil.
  The delays caused by this and other riders will cost taxpayers--hold 
on to your hats--$82 million in taxpayer money lost by this rider--$5.5 
million a month for 15 months, from June of 1998 when the rules were 
expected to be finalized and this problem was supposed to be taken care 
of.
  I would like to share with you an editorial in the USA Today about 
this issue. I am going to read it because I think it is worth reading. 
It is one thing when I say this; it is another thing when an USA Today 
editorial says it.

       Today's debate: oil, politics and money.
       Time to clean up big oil's slick deal with Congress.
       Industry's Effort to Avoid Paying Full Fees Hurts 
     Taxpayers, Others.

  Imagine being able to compute your own rent payments and grocery 
bills, giving yourself a 3 to 10 percent discount off the market price. 
Over time, that would add up to really big bucks. And imagine having 
the political clout to make sure nothing threatened to change that cozy 
arrangement.

       According to government and private studies, that's the 
     sweet deal the oil industry is fighting to protect: the right 
     to extract crude oil from public land and pay the government 
     not the open market price, but a lower posted price based on 
     private deals the oil companies can manipulate for their own 
     benefit.
       Big oil has contributed more than $35 million to national 
     political committees and congressional candidates in that 
     time--a modest investment in protecting the royalty pricing 
     arrangement that's enabled the industry to pocket an extra $2 
     billion.

  This is USA Today speaking. I don't associate myself with that 
thought. I think there are people here who are not motivated by this. 
But I think it is interesting that that is the perception of USA Today. 
They go on about the lost payments:

       That's millions missing in action from the battle to reduce 
     the Federal deficit and from accounts for the land and water 
     conservation, historical preservation, and several Native 
     American tribes. In addition, public schools in 24 States 
     have been shortchanged. States use their share of Federal 
     royalties for education funding.
       But the taxpayers have been getting the unfair end of this 
     deal for far too long. One major producer, Atlantic 
     Richfield, has already adopted market pricing for calculating 
     its royalty payments.

  In other words, Atlantic Richfield has stepped out and done the right 
and corporate-responsible thing.

       Instead of protecting industry recalcitrants and campaign 
     contributors, the Congress should protect the public 
     interest.

  I want to identify and associate myself with that thought. I know 
colleagues believe it is in the best interest of America to stop the 
Interior Department from moving ahead with their rule. But if you 
really look at it and you see that we are being shortchanged by $6 
million--$5.5 million to be exact--every month, that hurts taxpayers. 
As I said, it is just the same as seeing a purse being snatched and a 
little lady running after the criminal saying, ``Give me back my 
money.'' Well, we can do a cartoon here of the oil companies--only 5 
percent of them, the bad actors here--snatching the taxpayers' purse to 
the tune of $66 million each and every year, and having the taxpayers 
say, ``Wait a minute, that's ours. You signed a royalty agreement and 
you said it shall never be less than the fair market value of the 
production.''
  I know there are many others who wish to speak, Mr. President, so I 
will soon conclude my remarks. But I want to make one point about why 
this is happening. The big oil companies are so large that they have 
affiliates to whom they sell. The problem is that if they sell to their 
own affiliates, that is called a ``non-arm's-length transaction.'' So 
if I have a product to sell on the market, because I don't own an 
affiliate, it is a very easy way to calculate the royalty. You go out 
on the marketplace, sell it to the highest bidder--you know what the 
market price is--and you pay a royalty payment of 12.5 percent on that 
price. If you own your own affiliate, you can pay whatever you want. So 
they sell it at a

[[Page S10396]]

lower price because they control the price, and then they go ahead and 
pay the royalty payment on the lower price that they control. It is 
very much like what the USA Today said about being able to manipulate 
the price. They say, ``Imagine being able to compute your own rent 
payments and your own grocery bill.'' That is a pretty good deal.
  But if you are the landlord and you pay yourself rent, you could pay 
yourself any amount and you won't evict yourself. That is what is 
happening here. They are selling the oil at a lower price because they 
control the affiliate, and then they pay the royalty payment on the 
lower price. Whereas, the oil companies that are smaller, that don't 
own the affiliate, have to go by the market price.
  Let's show that chart one more time. Here you have a case of a 
company that owns its affiliate and sells to its own affiliate at the 
posted price--the red line--when the market price that all the smaller 
companies have to pay is up here. The difference between the red and 
blue lines is the area of cheating. That is what we are trying to 
recover.
  So, Mr. President, I am honored that I have been able to offer this 
amendment. I am very pleased that Senator Gorton showed me great 
courtesy in allowing me to open up the debate this morning because it 
is an issue that is very important. Frankly, when it came up in the 
Appropriations Committee, we had to struggle to even get a minute or 
two to discuss it. It was almost as if people didn't want it to be 
discussed. I am very proud today that we now have time so Senator 
Durbin can speak on its behalf, as well as Senator Wellstone, and 
others, and some on the other side can have a chance to be heard.
  In concluding this portion of my remarks, let me thank my colleagues 
for their interest. Let me say that there aren't too many 
straightforward issues around here, and people are going to tell you 
this isn't straightforward. But for over 2\1/2\ years the Interior 
Department has tried to come up with a fair way to make sure the oil 
companies pay their fair share of royalty payments. They have done so.
  In my next series of remarks I will read you the accolades the 
Interior Department is getting for the way they went about this. And 
what do we do in the face of finally straightening out a mess that has 
caused lawsuits, has meant that kids in California are not getting 
payments into the classroom, has meant that the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund and Native Indian tribes and the Historic 
Preservation Fund have been cheated out of funds? We get a rider that 
says to the Interior Department: Sorry, we don't like what you are 
doing. Stop short right here, and let's not do anything to recover 
these royalty payments.
  Mr. President, I think that is wrong. I would like to see the 
Interior Department be allowed to do its job and, therefore, we offer 
this amendment with the best of intentions to allow the Interior 
Department to move forward on this rule.
  I yield the floor.
  I will later participate in the debate.
  Thank you very much.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me ask the Senator from California, 
Is there any urgency on her side to conclude her remarks? We can wait. 
We have others who want to speak.
  Mrs. BOXER. There are several others.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator from California has 1\1/2\ hours. We have 
1\1/2\ hours. I am not sure we will use all of ours. I don't know 
whether the Senator from California will use all of theirs. I have a 
few Senators who want to speak.
  Mrs. BOXER. I think we will be using our time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself just 5 minutes for some 
opening remarks.
  From our standpoint, I would like very much the distinguished Senator 
from Louisiana to take a few minutes of my time because the Senator 
from California spoke longer than 5 minutes. I will yield time to the 
Senator from Louisiana for his comments.
  First of all, Mr. President, it is too bad that the MMS, the Federal 
agency that is establishing these rules, doesn't have better 
credibility with those that they are proposing rulemaking against. You 
need not have the industry that you regulate think that you are totally 
against them--arbitrary, or somewhat capricious--in order to get your 
job done.
  As Senator Boxer has indicated on at least three occasions, this only 
affects 5 percent of the oil companies. That is MMS's view. That is the 
agency of the Federal Government that thinks these rules are wonderful.
  From my standpoint, I would like to tell you what the independent 
producers say. Frankly, I believe this is as valid as an MMS 
evaluation. The IPAA--that is the independents across America--say that 
the percentage of oil producers impacted by the oil royalty rule is 100 
percent. In fact, this is their principal concern this year, that these 
proposed regulations, if adopted, will have a serious impact on many, 
many independent producers. Frankly, I believe that is the case.
  First all, MMS, the regulating agency, has permitted so broad a 
latitude under the rubric of unreasonable that I believe they can do 
almost anything. It is not certain what the rules will be when they are 
completed. They will be very uncertain. Litigation will not disappear. 
It will become more rampant.
  I would like the statement from the independent oil and gas 
producers--many of them from my home State, many very small, many going 
broke today because of low oil prices--be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Percentage of Oil Producers Impacted by Oil Royalty Rule: 100 percent

       It's time to debunk the mistruths surrounding the proposed 
     oil royalty rule. Opponents of the oil industry and the 
     Minerals Management Service claim that America's independent 
     oil producers will not be affected by the proposed 
     rulemaking. Not true.


             Rulemaking will cripple independent producers

       Before exposing the sham on this issue, it's necessary to 
     state the position of independent producers on the proposed 
     oil royalty rulemaking. Under the current proposal, no oil 
     producer will be certain that royalty payments to the 
     government are final. In other words, the Interior Department 
     will have license to knock on the doors of independent 
     producers years down the road and demand additional tax 
     payments for oil drilled on federal lands. Not only is the 
     rule a violation of the lease contract between government and 
     industry, it will badly impact the health of independent oil 
     companies who are already on its knees because of the 
     devastatingly low oil prices.
       The proposed rulemaking will most certainly lead to years 
     of litigation and audit. In fact, IPAA's Board of Governors, 
     who represent over 8,000 independent oil and gas companies, 
     voted yesterday to pursue options to litigation should this 
     rulemaking be implemented. A proposed rule promoting more 
     government and less certainty should not be finalized. 
     Fighting it in the courts is an expensive proposition, but 
     independents are impacted by the rule and will have no choice 
     but to pursue costly litigation for survival.


                          Debunking more lies

       Opponents of the oil industry claim the industry-backed 
     moratorium is anti-environmental. Not true. In 1997, the oil 
     industry generated more than $4 billion in revenues from oil 
     and natural gas production on federal lands, much of which is 
     used for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The rulemaking 
     affects accounting procedures, not the environment.
       Opponents claim the moratorium will cost taxpayers and 
     school children $60 million per year. Not true. Interior has 
     the ability under the current rules to collect all they 
     believe is due and owing regardless of a moratorium.


                 All independent oil producers impacted

       Many changes. Like new duty to market at no cost.
       Second guessing, moving producers to alternative pricing.
       Chasing arm's-length prices away from the lease.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are here on the floor of the Senate, 
it seems to me, proposing a set of rules that would like to gouge for 
oil bucks, gouge for oil royalties.
  Let me state for the Senate a couple of facts about oil production in 
the United States and about the cost of oil that I believe are 
startling.
  First of all, about 3 weeks ago--I don't know what the exact 
measurement is today--one of my staff members drew some comparisons in 
terms of what oil is worth today, what gasoline is worth today for our 
automobiles and for our Nation. If you go to a supermarket, I say to my 
friend from Illinois, or if your wife does, and she buys bottled water, 
she will pay more for a

[[Page S10397]]

gallon of bottled water than Americans are paying for gasoline for 
their cars. That is good economics for America, but it is bad economics 
for America's oil independents, for America's independent producers. 
Because, just as that truism indicates that gasoline and oil producers 
have been at an all-time low for the last 5, 6 or 7 years, oil 
production is going down in the United States. Many independents who 
have been stalwarts are literally saying they do not know if they can 
make their bank payments for 1 additional month.
  Here we come to the floor with an amendment that is saying, let the 
regulators impose new regulations, and we sing the praises--at least 
the Senator from California does--that it is going to get more money 
out of the oil companies. That sounds wonderful. In fact, it is kind of 
alleged here this morning that, you know, they--these oil companies--
are just taking money out of somebody's purse so we ought to go after 
them like we would go after somebody who took a purse away from 
somebody.
  Mr. President, if you are going to take more money from the oil 
producers of this country--and we are already becoming more and more 
dependent on foreign oil, and the price of oil is going down and down--
I ask you, won't you in about 3 or 4 or 5 years get less by way of oil 
royalties than you are getting today by shutting off American 
production and causing some more of them to get closed? Where will the 
royalty come from as we produce less oil, rather than more?
  So whether it is $60 million, $70 million, $80 million or $100 
million that allegedly will come in, that is not the test of whether 
the rules are fair. If we imposed those kinds of regulations on any 
industry we regulated, could we stand up and say we just got $50 
million from the patent applicants of the United States because we just 
increased the fee? But you have to ask, what is fair, what is right, 
what is just, not just are the regulators right because they picked up 
more money.
  Before we are finished, we will go through a litany of arbitrary, 
confusing regulations that they intend to pursue. They are just looking 
for a little window--I can tell you these regulators are--because there 
is a moratorium right now. They are hoping against hope that they will 
get an 8- or 10-day window when there is no moratorium so they can slap 
on these.
  I want to tell them here and now that they are going to have a hard 
time doing that, because I believe we will prevail today, and I believe 
we will make sure that any bill that goes to the President for 
signature is going to have this on it.
  Having said that, I reserve the remainder of my time, excepting I 
would yield whatever amount of time that Senator Breaux from Louisiana 
desires.
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator?
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield time to the Senator, 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much remaining time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 56 minutes remaining.
  The distinguish Senator from Illinois is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from the 
State of California.
  Let me say at the outset that this is about more money for California 
schools. It is about more money for land and water conservation, which 
funds the acquisition of park space and green space across America. It 
is about more money for historic preservation. It is about more money 
for Indian tribes, Native Americans, who receive benefits from these 
royalties. This is about a matter of principle on which the Senator 
from California is taking the floor to lead the fight. I salute her at 
the outset, and say to those who are listening to this debate that we 
are fortunate to have people of the caliber of Senator Boxer from the 
State of California who are willing to wage these battles, because, you 
see, it would have been so easy for us to really kind of look the other 
way with a wink and nod and let this one slip by.
  This is not an issue that went before a committee with a lot of 
investigation, witnesses and hearings so that America could tune in and 
be part of the debate. This was done on a disaster bill for tornado 
victims--a bill that was also designed to buy emergency funds for our 
troops in the Middle East.
  You say, What could that possibly have to do with the royalties oil 
companies pay for drilling on Federal land? The honest answer is that 
it had nothing to do with it. It was put on at a late moment with no 
hearings and with little publicity.
  I have been around legislatures for about 32 years--State and 
Federal. I can tell you there are two things to keep your eye open for 
toward the close of business: find out if there is something that just 
got popped on a bill without any hearings, and find out whether it 
benefits some large special interest group. Guess what? Bingo. That is 
what we are talking about here. Senator Boxer caught it, brought it up 
in the Appropriations Committee, and said to her colleagues, Please 
don't do this. At least for the taxpayers of this country, take a close 
look at what is going on here.
  I salute her for doing that. Her leadership is important, and this 
issue is important. It is about $66 million a year. And I guess by 
Federal standards people say, wait a minute, in a budget that is 
dealing with $1.5 trillion, what does this mean?
  Well, it means a lot, because for schoolchildren in her State and a 
lot of other States and for the people I mentioned earlier who are 
dependent on these royalties, this is an important amount of money.
  I think what is more important than the money involved is the 
principle that is involved in this. Consider for a moment, you own a 
piece of property and someone comes to you and says, ``I want to rent 
from you under one condition, and that is I decide how much rent I am 
going to pay you.'' Well, you say, ``Well, at least let's have some 
standard. Let's have some objective standard.'' And they said, ``Yes, I 
will tell you what the objective standard will be. I will ask my Uncle 
Louie what's fair.'' And you say to yourself, ``Why would we sign such 
a lease?''
  That is what has happened here. The land that they are drilling for 
oil on is land that we own, ladies and gentlemen. It is the land of the 
people of the United States. It is not land owned by oil companies. 
They come on our land with our permission to drill oil from our land to 
make profits for their companies. That is what this is all about. And 
we say to them, ``Make a profit. That's fine. That's the American way. 
But we want one-eighth of your profit. We want one-eighth of the cost 
of the oil.'' Those who are involved in the oil business know that is 
not an unusual request. The owner of the land gets an eighth.
  The problem here is that the oil companies have said, ``We will 
determine an eighth of what. We will determine what Uncle Louie says is 
an eighth.'' And in this situation they won't take a market price that 
they are supposed to take. They take a price they have absolutely 
fabricated. They have made it up. They trade among themselves. They 
post prices and say, ``This is the price,'' and we know better.
  The charts the Senator from California brought to us make it clear 
the taxpayers are being cheated, because a handful of oil companies are 
declaring a price that they are basing the royalty on which is a phony, 
false price. State after State has turned around and sued them 
successfully for this sort of cheating. And now we are trying to 
promulgate a law here on Capitol Hill in the Senate which condones this 
cheating, saying, ``Keep on reaching in Uncle Sam's pocket, pull out 
all the money you need, play us for Uncle Sucker, and we are going to 
look the other way.''
  I do not think we should do that. I do not think that is fair to a 
lot of people. And I really am, in a way, surprised that a lot of oil 
companies that have extraordinarily good business reputations would be 
involved in this chicanery.
  I listened to the Senator from New Mexico give a speech. His speech 
is, as far as I am concerned, very accurate. The oil industry in this 
country does suffer some problems, particularly independent producers. 
They come from my State. Illinois is not a major production State, but 
we have a lot of

[[Page S10398]]

producers there who have come to see me. And it is a fact that the 
price of oil and the products of oil are so low that many of them 
cannot survive. It has domestic and international ramifications; I 
don't question that. But to argue that that situation with the oil 
industry in general means that we should give a handful of oil 
companies, 5 percent of them, an opportunity to reach in the Federal 
Treasury and pull more money out at the expense of taxpayers begs the 
question. If you let this 5 percent turn around and absolutely drill 
the oil for free and not pay the taxpayers a penny, it would not create 
a recovery in the oil sector. I am afraid that is what the other side 
is arguing. We are dealing with a small percentage here.
  And let me tell you what these royalties mean to these large 
companies that are drilling on taxpayers' land. The additional 
royalties represent approximately 1-100th of 1 percent of the $461 
billion in 1996 revenues for these companies. We have crocodile tears 
in the Chamber here about these struggling oil companies at a time when 
we look at their balance sheets, and many of them are making billions 
of dollars and would say to the taxpayers of this country, ``No, we 
can't pay you a royalty based on the real market price; we want to 
create some fiction.'' And so not in the dark of night but in the 
darkness of a conference committee room, along comes a provision which 
basically says the Department of Interior may not investigate, may not 
determine whether there is fairness in the price that is being charged. 
No. The Senate of the United States will shut them down and tell them, 
keep their noses out of these corporate boardrooms.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for 1 minute?
  Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. I wanted to know if the Senator was aware, when the 
Senator from New Mexico read from the independent oil producers, the 
director of the Minerals Management Service sent us over an 
announcement that I am going to put on everyone's desk that says:

       We understand that information is being provided to 
     Congressional Members indicating that the proposed Federal 
     oil valuation rule will put independent oil companies out of 
     business. This is untrue. The rule will have no impact on 
     independents who sell on the open market.

  And it goes on that only 5 percent of the companies will be impacted.
  The reason I interrupted my friend was to see if the Senator had seen 
this, because I think this is the key part of the debate. We know that 
the companies that are impacted in fact have billions of dollars of 
revenue. I just wanted to make sure that Senator Durbin from Illinois 
had seen this, and we will be putting it on everyone's desk.
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy that the Senator from California brought up 
the point, and I have this in my possession. I do not believe we can 
allow these major oil companies to hide behind the skirts of these 
independent oil producers who are struggling to survive.
  A letter from Secretary Babbitt that was sent to USA Today on this 
subject says that his data tells an entirely different story.

       Business is booming in the Gulf of Mexico. The industry 
     recently paid more than $1.3 for new deep water leases in the 
     gulf. Published reports claim there are more jobs available 
     than workers to fill them.

  This is hardly an industry on its knees. And we are talking here 
about those who will come on our land, the taxpayers' land, the Federal 
land, draw oil from our land to make a profit, who are unwilling to pay 
a fair share of that profit back to the taxpayers of this country.
  Right outside of this Chamber in the corridor is the bust of a man 
who I consider to be a real inspiration in public life, Theodore 
Roosevelt. I would like to hear Theodore Roosevelt in this debate. If 
you take a look at this bust here, if you have a chance to see it, it 
looks like he is about to charge right off the pedestal; that is the 
kind of man he was. And then when you read the sign below it, it says 
they picked the more common, thoughtful pose; there was one that was 
more aggressive. I can imagine Theodore Roosevelt in this Chamber 
talking about the public lands and the exploitation of these lands by 
special interest groups and big corporations at the expense of the 
taxpayers of this country.
  I might say to my friend from New Mexico, I believe that that 
Senator, if he were one, would have been on your side of the aisle 
making our argument, and thank goodness he was there to set the tone in 
this century for the profit relationship between corporations and the 
public good. Thank goodness the Senator from California has the courage 
to stand up here and take on the oil giants when it comes to this 
issue.
  This is simple and straightforward. Will the taxpayers receive a fair 
amount from those who would come on our land to drill oil from the 
taxpayers' resources and whether or not this is going to pass.
  I say to my colleague from California and those who support her that 
she has taken on an important issue, one that is critically important 
not just for the money for those who would receive it but one 
principle: If this position that is being espoused by the other side is 
so right and so good, why did we not have a hearing? Why did this not 
come before us with witnesses so that all could hear both sides of the 
stories, that the oil companies' executives who are making these 
billions of dollars could sit there in the chairs before the cameras 
and the microphones and explain it?
  They could not face the music. They could not take that kind of 
scrutiny, and neither can this program. Let the Department of the 
Interior go forward on behalf of the taxpayers. Let them make sure that 
we receive a fair amount for those who would take profits from 
America's lands.
  I yield back the remainder of my time. I yield the time back to the 
Senator from California.
  Mr. Domenici addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from New Mexico is 
recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield to Senator Breaux from Louisiana 
as much time as he desires.
  Before I do that, I just want to make an observation. I just read a 
most authentic history of Theodore Roosevelt, and my observation to the 
Senator from Illinois is he wouldn't take this case so he wouldn't be 
down here arguing on anything because he would look at the facts, and 
he would say I don't want to be on the wrong side of the facts. He 
wouldn't be down here anti-anything. He would leave the argument to 
somebody else.
  I yield to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, it is interesting. During the time I have 
been in the Senate and Congress, a lot of times when you don't have the 
facts on your side you have to create an enemy and talk about the 
enemy. I think this is exactly the case here. It is easy to find an 
enemy in the oil and gas industry. The oil and gas industry are the 
first people in the world to admit that they, on any kind of a 
popularity chart, would probably be right at the bottom--or probably 
right above the Members of Congress. The oil industry right in front of 
us, and we would be at the bottom.
  The point is, if you do not have the facts, you have to get somebody 
to argue against, somebody who people don't generally like. And I 
agree, people don't generally like oil and gas companies. So, let's 
make them the big bogeyman in this and argue about how bad they are. 
Fortunately, that is not the issue in this case. The issue in this case 
is really very simple. The issue is, how do you determine the proper 
value for oil that is discovered on Federal lands, and what is the 
royalty that companies who explore and develop should pay the Federal 
Government? It is very clear that companies do not determine how much 
they have to pay--we do. We passed the OCS Lands Act in 1976 and 
innumerable other Federal acts in Congress to determine what royalties 
should be. Congress makes that decision and we have made it many times.
  The question before the Interior Department in which they, I think, 
made a mistake is how do you determine the value of the oil. We know 
what the percentage is. Interestingly, companies made a proposal to the 
Federal Government and said let us quit fighting over what the value of 
the oil is; let us just give you the oil. If you are entitled to 15 
percent of the oil, and we have 100 barrels, let us just give you 15 
barrels

[[Page S10399]]

of oil and let you go sell it and you determine what the price is by 
selling it in the marketplace.
  The Federal Government said we don't want to do that. We think that 
is too complicated--and it is complicated. The problem before this 
Congress is what do we do, in trying to work with the Interior 
Department, in helping to determine what is the proper value. How do we 
find the proper value for oil?
  Someone said we ought to have hearings on this. We did. We had a 
hearing. We had two hearings. We had hearings in the Senate Energy 
Committee. We had hearings in the House Resources Committee. Minerals 
Management Service came and testified, members of the oil and gas 
industry came and testified and talked about how they were trying to 
work this problem out. I also hosted, along with Senator Hutchison from 
Texas, Senators Domenici and Bingaman from New Mexico and Senator 
Landrieu from my State and others, meetings between oil industry 
representatives and Interior officials to try to get them to sit at the 
same table and try to come to a resolution of the very complicated 
technical problem of determining how do you find out what the proper 
value of a barrel of oil.
  The oil is brought to the surface in the middle of the Gulf of 
Mexico. You can determine what the price is, if you look at what it is 
at the wellhead. One problem in this proposed rule is that we look at 
different prices and at a different time to determine the value. We 
don't look at what its value is in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico, 
but we look at it after it is brought onshore. How do you determine 
what are the legitimate transportation deductions in reaching the 
royalty value of crude oil? And, should companies have to pay all of 
the costs to this point onshore. If it is the Government's oil, 
shouldn't the Government pay the transportation cost of its share? 
Therefore, one of the real conflicts is how do you determine a proper 
transportation deduction?
  Companies will argue that the entire pipeline system is part of the 
cost of transporting oil. They say, ``If we do not have this elaborate 
system out there, we cannot transport it to the place onshore where the 
Government takes ownership, so that should be deductible.'' Minerals 
Management says ``No, you should not deduct all of that; it should be 
less.'' So this is a battle of what you should deduct and how you reach 
a legitimate price. There is nothing mysterious about this. Nobody is 
trying to rob anyone of anything.
  Oil and gas companies have paid more in royalties to the Federal 
Government than they have received in the price of oil they have taken 
from the Federal lands in terms of taxes they have paid and royalties 
that they have paid over the years since we have had an offshore oil 
and gas industry--companies have paid more to the U.S. Treasury than 
they have made in finding oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Eventually, in the 
future, it will turn around. They will start making more money than 
they have paid. That is why they are in the business. Up until this 
point they have still paid more to the Federal Treasury in royalties 
and taxes and benefits to the U.S. Government than they have made in 
selling the oil that they have found.
  We tried to have meetings with Minerals Management Service to resolve 
this. This rider is not the best way to handle it. I would admit that. 
But I think it is appropriate that when Congress sees something 
happening that is not consistent with what is good policy and what is 
the law, then Congress has an obligation to say ``hold it,'' ``stop,'' 
``slowdown,'' ``let's continue to try to work this out.'' That is 
exactly what an appropriation rider has done. We have told Interior 
Department, in the Interior appropriations bill, that this rule is 
fundamentally flawed. It is not correct. It is not right. It does not 
allow for the legitimate deductions in the costs of transportation that 
should be allowed, and therefore don't go forward with a rule that is 
fundamentally flawed. Give Congress and the Interior Department time to 
come to an agreement on what is appropriate and proper.
  That is the argument. That is the issue. We can talk about how bad 
the oil companies are. That is a easy thing to say if you don't like 
oil companies. I happen to like them. They employ hundreds of thousands 
of people in my State and provide the energy for people to drive to 
work in the morning. It is part of our national economic security and 
part of the national defense in our country. They do an important 
service for this country of ours. So the issue is not whether or not 
you like oil companies. The issue is very simple, Is this a good rule? 
The answer is no. Should it be stopped? The answer is yes. Should this 
amendment be tabled? The answer is also yes. I think when this 
amendment is tabled it will allow the administration and the Department 
to continue to work with those who are interested in trying to resolve 
this and come to a resolution that makes sense. Companies will continue 
to pay.
  It is interesting, when they had the hearings over in the House, when 
the administration testified concerning this argument about how much we 
are losing in lost revenue. The Director of the Minerals Management 
Service, when she testified at the House Resources Committee on 
February 26, 1998, said that these regulations ``are intended to 
simplify the royalty payments, make valuation methods reflective of 
modern market conditions, offer the industry more flexibility, reduce 
administrative costs, and maintain revenue neutrality.''
  When MMS proposed the rule, as flawed as it was, it wasn't to 
increase the amount of money they would get. At least that is what they 
said. It is simply to ``maintain revenue neutrality.'' Now the argument 
is we are losing millions of dollars every month. The whole purpose of 
the rule was to make the way we determine the value of the oil simpler 
and reflect modern market conditions. It doesn't do that. Therefore we 
should say stop, slowdown, let's continue to negotiate to come up with 
something that makes sense.
  That is what the bill before the Senate does. It should not be 
changed, and the amendment should be tabled.
  I yield back the time to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota. Who yields time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, Senator Boxer stepped out. She yielded 
me 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator is recognized 
for 15 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask the Senator, may I ask a 
parliamentary question, please?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time has been used by each 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California, Senator Boxer, 
has 55 minutes. The Senator from New Mexico has 74 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Boxer amendment would simply let 
the Interior Department do its job, which is making sure that oil 
companies pay full royalties for the oil they are drilling on Federal 
or Indian lands. That is what this amendment does.
  Right now, some of these companies are not paying the money that they 
owe, and several are being sued for it. Amazingly, there is a rider in 
this bill, the same rider put in during the conference committee on 
this spring s supplemental appropriations bill, that stops Interior 
from doing its job. That is what this is about. This rider stops 
Interior from issuing rules to collect these royalties. No wonder 
Senator Boxer has sounded the alarm.
  As a Senator from Minnesota, I am glad that we have Senators who are 
willing to stand up to oil companies. There are not that many Senators 
who will do so. The Senator from California has the courage to do so.
  This kind of sweetheart deal--and that is exactly what it is--is 
simply outrageous. It is corporate welfare of the worst kind. And even 
worse, in many cases this money is being taken away from our children's 
schools. In 24 States, the State's share of the royalties is used to 
fund public education, so when the oil companies underpay their 
royalties, education is the loser.
  In addition, the Federal share of these royalties goes to the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund and the National Historic Preservation 
Fund.
  If the Boxer amendment is adopted, the money will go where it should 
be

[[Page S10400]]

going--to public education, the environment, historic preservation, and 
to Native American communities--instead of corporate bank accounts.
  Mr. President, this is an unbelievable story. The Interior 
Department's Mineral Management Service--MMS--simply wants to collect 
the money these companies owe the public. Interior Secretary Babbitt 
says:

       Many of the industry's largest companies are underpaying 
     royalties.

  Just recently, Mobil Oil agreed to a $56.5 million settlement of 
Federal and State lawsuits alleging underpayment of royalties. That is 
what has been going on. And there has been a flurry of such 
settlements: $2.5 billion in Alaska, $350 million in California, $17.5 
million in Texas, $10 million in Louisiana, and $8 million in New 
Mexico. MMS has now billed 12 of these companies $260 million for 
overdue royalties. Now the Justice Department has joined a lawsuit 
under the False Claims Act alleging fraud. According to Justice, 
several of these oil companies have been deliberately underpaying their 
royalties.
  Remember, this oil belongs to the public and to Native American 
tribes. We are leasing the mineral rights to them, but only under one 
condition. We are saying, ``Go ahead, take the oil; all we ask is a 
12.5 percent cut on the fair market value.'' I don't think that is too 
much to ask. Nor do the people of this country think it is too much to 
ask. But apparently the oil companies do.
  Let me be clear about one thing. This has already come up in the 
debate. Senator Durbin spoke to it, and Senator Boxer spoke to it as 
well. We are not talking about all the oil companies. We are not 
talking about mom-and-pop independents. We are talking about the large 
integrated companies who sell to affiliates at undervalued prices. They 
make up only 5 percent of all the oil companies drilling on Federal 
land, but they account for 68 percent of all Federal production.
  For over 2 years, the Interior Department has been developing 
regulations to put a stop to this highway robbery. This is not new 
authority. Interior already has statutory authority to collect 
royalties on the ``fair market value'' of this oil, but the new 
regulations would keep oil companies from manipulating ``fair market 
value'' to underpay their royalties. The oil companies don't like that.
  Here is the question I ask colleagues: Do these companies, do these 
huge integrated oil companies, really deserve our sympathy? I don't 
think so. They have been caught--let me repeat that--they have been 
caught underpaying their royalties.
  Since when do we have such tremendous sympathy in the U.S. Senate for 
people who are cheating the public? It is interesting to me. We pass 
crime bills all the time. Now we have the Juvenile Justice Act--a 
crackdown on children. Very little sympathy there. Put children in 
adult corrections facilities; very little sympathy for these children.
  We passed a welfare bill. We don't really know what is happening. We 
know women have been taken off the welfare rolls. We know the children 
have been taken off the rolls. But we don't know what kind of jobs they 
have, what kind of wages. We don't know whether there is good child 
care for those children. Very little sympathy for these families 
either.
  We tried to bring an amendment to the floor to increase the minimum 
wage so that working people can make a decent living. There is very 
little sympathy on the floor of the Senate for any of these folks.
  But in through the door walks a CEO from one of these oil companies--
large integrated oil companies that have been underpaying their 
royalties, oil companies who happen to be heavy campaign contributors--
and all of a sudden we have sympathy to spare. We have sympathy coming 
out the wazoo. We feel their pain. All of a sudden it is, ``At your 
service, sir. What can we do for you, sir? How can we serve you 
better?''
  These companies have been caught red-handed. The cops are after them. 
Law enforcement is closing in. They are in deep trouble, and they are 
desperate for someone to come to their rescue, and fast.
  So who do they call? They call their friends. They call the U.S. 
Congress. And guess what. Congress answers the call without a moment's 
hesitation. With a rider in this bill, Congress comes to the rescue and 
rewards them with a ``get out of jail free'' card.
  The Boxer amendment would revoke this sweetheart deal that lets oil 
companies keep ripping off the public, lets them keep shortchanging 
education, even after they have been caught cheating. If there ever was 
a time to be tough on crime, this is it. In fact, I say this is a time 
for zero tolerance. The rider in this bill sends law enforcement on 
paid holiday. The Boxer amendment puts the cops back on the beat.
  I say to my colleagues, we have to ask ourselves a question: What is 
our purpose here? Are we elected to fight for people or for the oil 
companies? Were we elected to fight for good government or for 
corporate welfare? Are we going to do what the public wants us to do, 
or are we going to do what the oil companies want us to do?
  I urge my colleagues to join in a broad coalition that opposes this 
$66 million corporate welfare giveaway. That is what this amendment 
speaks to. That is what this debate is all about, and all of us will be 
held accountable.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes left.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. With the indulgence of my colleagues, I ask for a 
couple of minutes. I have been trying to give a speech for 3 days on 
what is happening in Burma. It will take me about 4 minutes. I ask 
unanimous consent that I have 4 minutes as in morning business.
  Mr. DOMENICI. At this moment?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am not taking near the 15 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. And you are not going to take the rest of the 15 
minutes?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. No. I thought my colleague wanted to hear me repeat 
the statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the Senator is 
recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I think this is a statement with which every single 
Senator will agree.

                          ____________________