[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 115 (Wednesday, September 8, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10551-S10584]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                             2000--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2466) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Gorton amendment No. 1359, of a technical nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, debate on the Interior appropriations bill 
took place on two separate occasions before the August recess. Two 
significant amendments have already been voted upon. We now have a 
unanimous consent agreement for listing all of the amendments that are 
in order, and they are 66 in number.
  A substantial share, perhaps 20 or more of those amendments, will 
either be accepted or will be a part of one omnibus managers' amendment 
at the end of this debate. I suspect several others will not actually 
be brought up for discussion in the Senate, but it seems apparent to 
this Senator, as manager of the bill, that as many as a dozen may 
require some amount of debate and very likely a vote.
  Up to four of those amendments are amendments that were included as a 
part of the bill as it was reported by the Subcommittee on Interior 
appropriations and by the full Appropriations Committee, which fell 
under the revised rule XVI. One of those is an amendment originally 
drafted by the Senator from Missouri. He will bring it up at this 
point.
  I have asked the Democratic manager, Senator Byrd, to get me a list 
of amendments that Members of his party wish to bring up. He is in the 
process of doing that at the moment. But this is an announcement that 
we are now open and ready for business. It may be that we will, from 
time to time, set amendments aside so we can hear debate on others. The 
majority leader may decide to stack votes on some of these amendments. 
But this is a very short week. We are starting this at 4 o'clock on 
Wednesday afternoon. We have all day and into the evening tomorrow for 
these debates. The majority leader has announced, due to the Jewish 
holiday, that there will be no votes on Friday. I hope we will have 
made substantial progress on the bill by the end of tomorrow's session 
of the Senate. That is possible, of course, only if Members on both 
sides--both Republicans and Democrats--are willing to bring their 
amendments to the floor.
  The one other amendment I have discussed seriously at this point is 
one by the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, and the Senator from 
Florida, Mr. Graham, on gambling. That amendment is ready to be 
accepted. Now I see two Members on the floor. If the Senator from 
Florida--who was told he could go first--would like to bring his 
amendment up now and submit the rest of the various statements on it, I 
understand the amendment will be accepted in relatively short order. Is 
my understanding correct?
  Mr. GRAHAM. That is my understanding, and we are prepared to proceed 
with our amendment.
  Mr. GORTON. Then I yield the floor and suggest the Senator from 
Florida seek to be recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Florida is 
recognized.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kasey 
Gillette of our staff have floor privileges for the duration of the 
consideration of the Interior appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1577

 (Purpose: To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from implementing 
          class III gaming procedures without State approval)

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

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham], for himself, Mr. 
     Enzi, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Reid, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Grams, Mr. 
     Lugar, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Bayh, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1577.
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . PROHIBITION ON CLASS III GAMING PROCEDURES.

       No funds made available under this Act may be expended to 
     implement the final rule published on April 12, 1999, at 64 
     Fed. Reg. 17535.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this amendment, which has been cosponsored 
by Senators Enzi, Bryan, Reid, Voinovich, Grams of Minnesota, Lugar, 
Sessions, and Bayh, has been before the Senate on several previous 
occasions. It essentially goes to the issue of what will be the process 
to determine whether on Indian properties there shall be allowed class 
III gambling. Class III gambling is the type of gambling that occurs in 
Las Vegas and Atlantic City. It is what we would characterize as casino 
gambling. Currently, for that gambling to occur, there has to be a 
compact entered into between the representatives of the Indian tribe 
and the Governor of the State in which the proposed casino would be 
located. This is all part of the Indian Gaming Act passed by the 
Congress in the past.
  The Secretary of the Interior, earlier this year, on April 12, issued 
a regulation that essentially said if he determined the States were not 
negotiating

[[Page S10552]]

on these compacts in good faith, then he could remove that power from 
the States, and the Secretary of the Interior would decide whether 
there should be class III gambling under the aegis of Indian tribes.
  I personally think that is a very bad idea. It disrupts the basic 
principle of federalism, the responsibility which this Congress has 
placed with the States and the tribes to reach an agreement.
  In my own State of Florida, we have a prohibition in our constitution 
against casino gambling. Three times since 1978 there have been 
attempts to amend the constitution and change that provision, and each 
time they have been overwhelmingly defeated. This would have the effect 
of overturning three constitutional expressions of opinion by the 
people of Florida, and similar expressions of opinion by citizens of 
other States, to have the Secretary of the Department of the Interior 
insert his or her will as to casino gambling within that State.
  At this time, unless there is further debate, I will yield my time. 
We will not necessarily ask for a rollcall vote on this matter if it 
can, as in the past, be resolved by a voice vote.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment 
introduced by the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham. This amendment has 
one very simple purpose: To ensure that the rights of Congress and all 
fifty states are not trampled on by an unelected cabinet official.
  This amendment is very straightforward: it prohibits Secretary 
Babbitt from expending any funds from this act to implement the final 
regulations he published on April 12 of this year. The regulations at 
issue would allow Secretary Babbitt to circumvent the rights of 
individual states by approving casino-style gambling on Indian Tribal 
lands. This amendment would prohibit this power grab.
  Mr. President, this is the fifth time in two years that I have been 
involved in amendments of this nature. I myself have offered four 
previous amendments to stop this power grab by the Secretary of the 
Interior, and four times this Senate has approved these amendments by 
voice votes. I think this body has spoken with a clear voice that it 
does not believe an unelected cabinet official should bypass Congress 
and all fifty states in a decision as great as whether or not casino 
gambling should allowed within the state borders.
  Mr. President, recently I was invited to testify before the Indian 
Affairs committee on a bill Senator Campbell has introduced to amend 
the statute that governs gambling on Indian Tribal lands, the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act. While I do not agree with all the changes 
Senator Campbell has proposed to IGRA, I applaud the Chairman for 
taking the initiative to attempt to make changes the proper way--by 
proposing a bill, holding hearings, receiving public input from all the 
stakeholders, and moving the legislation through both houses of 
Congress. I have a few ideas on how I believe the bill could be 
improved, and I welcome the invitation of Senator Campbell to offer 
some suggestions to his bill.
  In contrast to this legislative process--the proper way to make 
changes to substantive law--Secretary Babbitt wants to make changes by 
administrative fiat. His regulations are a slap in the face to the 
governments of all fifty states, to Congress, and to all the Indian 
Tribes that have negotiated Tribal-State compacts with the States in 
which they are located. The Secretary's rules effectively punish those 
tribes which have played by the rules. The Secretary's action will open 
the floodgates to an approval process based more on political influence 
than on proper negotiations between the states and the tribes. Who will 
be the winners under Secretary Babbitt's new regime? Will it be the 
Tribes that donate enough money to the right political party? In 
contrast to the Secretary's rules, the Graham-Enzi amendment would 
ensure that an unelected Secretary of the Interior won't single-
handedly change current law. This amendment will ensure that any change 
to IGRA is done the right way--legislatively.
  I have already had occasion on this floor to remark on the painful 
irony of the timing of Secretary Babbitt's power grab. In March of last 
year, Attorney General Janet Reno requested an independent counsel to 
investigate Secretary Babbitt's involvement in denying a tribal-state 
gambling license to an Indian Tribe in Wisconsin. Although we will have 
to wait for Independent Counsel Carol Elder Bruce to complete her 
investigation before any final conclusions can be drawn, it is evident 
that serious questions have been raised about Secretary Babbitt's 
judgment and objectivity in approving Indian gambling compacts. We 
should not turn over sole discretion of casino gambling on Indian 
Tribal lands to an individual who has shown such carelessness in 
administering his trust responsibilities to all the Indian Tribes 
within his jurisdiction.
  The very fact that Attorney General Reno believed there was specific 
and credible evidence to warrant an investigation should be sufficient 
to make this Congress hesitant to allow Secretary Babbitt to grant 
himself new trust powers that are designed to bypass the states in the 
area of Tribal-State gambling compacts. Moreover, this investigation 
should have taught us an important lesson: we in Congress should not 
allow Secretary Babbitt, or any other Secretary of the Interior, to 
usurp the rightful role of Congress and the states in addressing the 
difficult question of casino gambling on Indian Tribal lands.
  Mr. President, the Secretary has not given any indication in the 16 
months since the independent counsel was appointed that he should be 
trusted with new, self-appointed trust responsibilities over Indian 
Tribes. On February 22nd of this year, United States District Judge 
Royce Lamberth issued a contempt citation against Secretary Bruce 
Babbitt and Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs, 
Kevin Gover, for disobeying the Court's orders in a trial in which the 
Interior Department and the Bureau of Indian Affairs were sued for 
mismanagement of American Indian trust funds.
  In his contempt citation, Judge Lamberth stated, and I quote,

       The court is deeply disappointed that any litigant would 
     fail to obey orders for production of documents, and then 
     conceal and cover up that disobedience with outright false 
     statements that the court then relied upon. But when that 
     litigant is the federal government, the misconduct is even 
     more troubling. I have never seen more egregious misconduct 
     by the federal government.

  This conduct has raised such concern that both the Chairman of the 
Senate Indian Affairs Committee and the Chairman of Senate the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee have held hearings and proposed 
legislation to call Secretary Babbitt to task for his mismanagement of 
these funds and his disregard for the rulings of a federal court. The 
Secretary's continued violation of his trust obligations to Indian 
Tribes should serve as a wake-up call to all of us in the Senate. This 
is not the time to allow the Secretary to delegate to himself new, 
unauthorized, powers.
  I want to point out that this amendment does not affect any existing 
Tribal-State compacts. The amendment does not, in any way, prevent 
states and Tribes from entering into compacts where both parties are 
willing to agree on class III gambling on Tribal lands within a State's 
borders. This amendment does ensure that all stakeholders must be 
involved in the process--Congress, the Tribes, the States, and the 
Administration.
  Mr. President, a few short years ago, the big casinos thought Wyoming 
would be a good place to gamble. The casinos gambled on it. They spent 
a lot of money. The even got an initiative on the ballot. They spent a 
lot more money trying to get the initiative passed. I became the 
spokesman for the opposition. When we first got our meager organization 
together, the polls showed over 60 percent of the people were in favor 
of gambling. When the election was held casino gambling lost by over 62 
percent--and it lost in every single county of our state. The 40 point 
swing in public opinion happened as people came to understand the issue 
and implications of casino gambling in Wyoming. That's a pretty solid 
message. We don't want casino gambling in Wyoming. The people who vote 
in my state have debated it and made their choice. Any federal 
bureaucracy that tries to force casino gambling on us will only inject 
animosity.
  Why did we have that decisive of a vote? We used a couple of our 
neighboring states to review the effects of

[[Page S10553]]

their limited casino gambling. We found that a few people make an awful 
lot of money at the expense of everyone else. When casino gambling 
comes into a state, communities are changed forever. And everyone 
agrees there are costs to the state. There are material costs, with a 
need for new law enforcement and public services. Worse yet, there are 
social costs. And, not only is gambling addictive to some folks, but 
once it is instituted, the revenues can be addictive too. But I'm not 
here to debate the pros and cons of gambling. I am just trying to 
maintain the status quo so we can develop a legislative solution, 
rather than have a bureaucratic mandate.
  Mr. President, the rationale behind this amendment is simple. Society 
as a whole bears the burden of the effects of gambling. A state's law 
enforcement, social services, communities, and families are seriously 
impacted by the expansion of casino gambling on Indian Tribal lands. 
Therefore, a state's popularly elected representatives should have a 
say in the decision about whether or not to allow casino gambling on 
Indian lands. This decision should not be made unilaterally by an 
unelected cabinet official. Passing the Graham-Enzi amendment will keep 
all the interested parties at the bargaining table. By keeping all the 
parties at the table, the Indian Affairs Committee will have the time 
it needs to hear all the sides and work on legislation to fix any 
problems that exist in the current system. I urge my colleagues to 
stand up for the constitutional role of Congress--and for the rights of 
all fifty states--by supporting this amendment.
  I thank the chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from Hawaii, 
Mr. Inouye, may wish the opportunity to speak, and perhaps more likely 
will wish the opportunity to put a statement in the Record. I don't 
believe that affects the proposition that the amendment will be 
accepted by voice vote. But I ask that we not take that voice vote at 
this time, until we are apprised of the desires of the Senator from 
Hawaii.
  Under the circumstances, the Senator from Missouri being here, I ask 
unanimous consent that he be recognized and that we set this amendment 
aside to deal with another.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Missouri is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1621

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

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Mr. Lott, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1621.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 62, line 10, add the following before the period 
     ``:Provided, That within the funds available, $250,000 shall 
     be used to assess the potential hydrologic and biological 
     impact of lead and zinc mining in the Mark Twain National 
     Forest of Southern Missouri: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds in this Act may be used by the Secretary of the 
     Interior to issue a prospecting permit for hardrock mineral 
     exploration on Mark Twain National land in the Current River/
     Jack's Fork River--Eleven Point Watershed (not including Mark 
     Twain National Forest land in Townships 31N and 32N, Range 2 
     and Range 3 West, on which mining activities are taking place 
     as of the date of enactment of this Act): Provided further, 
     That none of the funds in this Act may be used by the 
     Secretary of the Interior to segregate or withdraw land in 
     the Mark Twain National Forest Missouri under section 204 of 
     the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 
     1714)''

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment, as the manager has already 
stated, deals with a matter that was approved in the committee and was 
taken out by a procedural move. The amendment requires a study of 
mining in the Mark Twain National Forest in south-central and southeast 
Missouri. It requires that it be conducted to address the scientific 
gaps identified by scientists in the Departments of the Interior, 
Agriculture, and others.
  While the relevant information is collected, the amendment delays any 
prospecting or withdrawal decisions for the fiscal year.
  This amendment is a commonsense amendment. It is a modern amendment. 
It enables the full-blown process to go forward before any decisions 
are made.
  This amendment does not permit mining. It does not permit 
exploration. It does not amend, weaken, or touch environmental 
standards.
  It prohibits exploration and withdrawal. It requires a scientific 
study of the scientific gaps identified by the agencies. It maintains 
the NEPA requirement for full-blown environmental impact statements 
which any withdrawal by the Secretary would preclude.
  This amendment preserves, as I said, the requirement of the full-
blown NEPA process. And a full-blown impact statement will ultimately 
dictate whether any mining should or should not take place if an 
application is made, if there are deposits of lead discovered.
  By the time any mining could take place, Senator Thurmond might be 
the only Senator remaining in this Chamber.
  The amendment does not give miners their way who want clearance for 
prospecting now.
  It does not give the zero-growth opponents their way. Contrary to 
precedent and current law, they want no economic activity on these 
public lands which are multiple-use lands in the State of Missouri.
  Anyone who understands this issue understands that bulldozers are not 
ready to roll, nor should they be. They don't even know yet what lead 
might be available. There are too many unanswered questions to make a 
final decision. Regrettably, some on the extreme want to preclude an 
opportunity to answer those questions.
  The fundamental question that this amendment addresses is whether 
someday, if we were to find lead in those areas, additional lead could 
be mined safely in the State of Missouri. That is a critical question 
and that is one that should be answered by the scientists.
  We are not here to legislate a decision and it should not be hijacked 
by administrative decree.
  Some suggest that we know enough already to make what would be a 
permanent decision for the 1,800 miners who are under the gun for the 
10 counties in south Missouri that depend upon this mining. They say we 
know enough already to prevent any further mining in an area which has 
90 percent of the domestic lead deposits. So we would export lead 
production overseas.
  This past month I met with the bipartisan county commissioners, 
Democrats and Republicans, who are elected by and responsible to the 
people in the counties they serve. They make up the Scenic Rivers 
Watershed Partnership. They are closest to the issue. They have the 
most at stake. They are the ones who represent the recreational 
interests. They are the ones who represent the timber interests. They 
represent the forest interests. They represent the interests of schools 
and roads which depend upon the royalties that come from mining. And 
they support this amendment. They said we must have a full-blown study.
  There is a technical team that has been set up.
  A multiagency technical team was established in 1988. It has the USDA 
Forest Service, the National Park Service, EPA, U.S. Geological Survey 
Water Resources Division and the Geologic Division, the Mineral 
Resources Division, the Mapping Division, the Missouri Department of 
Natural Resources, and the Department of Conservation. It has the 
private companies involved; it has the University of Missouri, Rolla; 
and it has the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
  What do these scientists and engineers who have begun the study say?
  First, they say:

       The technical team believes that there is insufficient 
     scientific information available to determine the potential 
     environmental impact of lead mining in the Mark Twain 
     National Forest area. This is a consensus opinion that the 
     technical team has held from the beginning through the 
     present. Due to the lack of scientific information available 
     to assess the potential impacts of lead mining, the technical 
     team proposed that a comprehensive study be conducted.

  That is contained in a letter to me dated July 30, 1999, from Charles 
G. Groat, Director of the U.S. Geological Survey, the Office of the 
Director, the

[[Page S10554]]

U.S. Department of the Interior in Reston, VA.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                  U.S. Department of the Interior,


                                       U.S. Geological Survey,

                                  Reston, Virginia, July 30, 1999.
     Hon. Christopher S. Bond,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond:  This is in response to your letter of 
     July 20, 1999, to Mr. Jim Barks, related to mining in the 
     Mark Twain National Forest (MTNF) area. In your letter, you 
     ask that we provide a brief and clear assessment as to the 
     quality of information that was compiled by the interagency 
     technical team charged with building a ``relevant database to 
     assess mining impacts and base future decisions.'' You ask 
     that we, ``specifically address the question as to the 
     adequacy and relevance of information currently available to 
     provide a solid scientific foundation for any decision to 
     justify either withdrawal or mining in the region.''
       In 1988, an interagency technical team was assembled to 
     guide the identification, collection, and dissemination of 
     scientific information needed to assess the potential 
     environmental impact of lead mining in the MTNF area. Since 
     1989, the team has been chaired by Bob Willis of the Forest 
     Service. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has actively 
     participated on the team from the beginning, with Mr. James 
     H. Barks, USGS Missouri State Representative, serving as our 
     representative.
       The technical team believes that there is insufficient 
     scientific information available to determine the potential 
     environmental impact of lead mining in the MTNF area. This is 
     a consensus opinion that the technical team has held from the 
     beginning through the present. Due to the lack of scientific 
     information available to assess the potential impacts of lead 
     mining, the technical team proposed that a comprehensive 
     study be conducted.
       In January 1998 at the request of the technical team, the 
     USGS prepared a proposal for a multi-component scientific 
     study to address the primary questions about the potential 
     environmental impacts of lead mining in the MTNF area. Mr. 
     Barks provided a copy of the proposed study to Brian 
     Klippenstein of your staff at his request on July 9, 1999. 
     Neither a requirement for full environmental review to 
     support a Secretarial decision nor a source of funding has 
     been established. For these reasons the proposed study has 
     not been initiated.
       Please let us know if we can provide additional information 
     or assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Charles G. Groat,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, there is further backup and supportive 
information that I can provide. But, in summary, my amendment provides 
the money for the research that the technical team says it needs, and 
it preserves the current rigorous environmental process which will take 
years to complete. If lead is discovered, if it is economically viable, 
and if the company decides to develop a mining plan and apply for 
mineral production, then the whole process will have to start.
  To vote for this amendment is to vote to let the scientists get what 
they say is necessary to make an informed decision, and it is a 
consensus of all of those agencies I outlined that they don't have the 
information. I think it is also a strong consensus of all the agencies 
that we must protect the environmental resources of the region.
  As one who has floated and fished on the streams in the Mark Twain 
National Forest, I can tell you that it is a real gem. I flew over much 
of the area and I visited on foot much of the area in the last month. I 
can tell you that it is a beautiful wilderness. But it is a multiple-
use area. It is used for recreation; it is used for timber; it is used 
for mining. We flew over some 160 exploratory drilling sites. But you 
don't see them because they grow back. As a matter of fact, I had my 
picture taken in one of the exploratory sites.
  There is an exploratory site 2 years after the exploration stopped. 
It is growing back. In another few years you won't even be able to tell 
it is there.
  That is why the scientists said that exploratory drilling has no 
impact. So it is not even an issue. It has no environmental impact. 
That is not a problem.
  There are those who do not live in the area who say that no economic 
use can be made. But I believe that for the good of the country, for 
the good of the area, to satisfy our needs, to provide the work for 
1,800 miners in the area, to provide the support for the schools, for 
the communities, for the roads and infrastructure in the area, we must 
follow the long established, rigorous evaluation process designed to 
allow environmentally acceptable activities and prohibit those that 
would be adverse to the environment.
  If you listen to the scientists, as we have, you know that it takes 
more information than is currently available to make that 
determination. These questions deserve to be answered before we mine, 
or before we slam the door in the face of the regions' residents and 
force our country to become exclusively reliant on foreign sources of 
this vital mineral.
  I urge my colleagues to support this measure. It is a commonsense 
amendment.
  Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                           Amendment No. 1577

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I was off the floor. What is the pending 
business? Are we going back to the Graham amendment now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are now on Senator Bond's amendment. We 
left the Graham amendment.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I ask unanimous consent to return to the Graham 
amendment so that I may speak in opposition to it for a minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I don't think anyone has more disagreement with Secretary Babbitt 
than I do as chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee. Certainly Indian 
trust funds have been an issue on which we have been at odds for 
literally months with the Secretary. In addition to that, as a member 
of the Energy Committee, I have had my disagreements with him on 
grazing, water, and many other things, too. But there are at least four 
reasons to oppose this amendment.
  I hope my friend, the Senator from Florida, will consider withdrawing 
it.
  First, after the Supreme Court decided in Seminole v. Florida that 
Indian tribes cannot sue States for unwillingness to negotiate Indian 
gaming agreements, it created a terrific problem, as many Members know. 
We have spent a considerable amount of time in our committee, with me 
as the chairman of that Committee on Indian Affairs, looking for ways 
that States and tribes can come to some consensus.
  We have a pending bill, S. 985. We have worked on it very hard. We 
want the legislative process to proceed. The Indian Gaming Regulatory 
Act requires tribes to have compacts before they can operate class III 
gaming. Right now, unfortunately, the States hold all the cards since 
the court decided the States do not have to negotiate in good faith.
  The Secretary of the Interior is now in Federal court over his 
ability to issue the kind of procedures that this amendment seeks to 
stop. As the Senator from Florida probably knows, these procedures can 
only be put into effect if they are published in the Federal Register. 
The States of Alabama and Florida have sued the Secretary of the 
Interior if this case moves ahead in the courts. It is in the interest 
of all parties, States and tribes, for the United States to allow the 
courts to decide once and for all if the Secretary has this authority.
  I point out, the House has already rejected a similar amendment. I 
have a letter dated August 2 from the Secretary of the Interior. I ask 
unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                The Secretary of the Interior,

                                   Washington, DC, August 2, 1999.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Campbell: As you know, a floor amendment has 
     been submitted for intended action on the FY 2000 Interior 
     appropriations bill which would preclude the Department from 
     expending any funds to implement the Indian gaming regulation 
     published in the Federal Register on April 12, 1999. The 
     question of our authority to promulgate that regulation is in 
     litigation in the Northern District of Florida in a case 
     brought by the States of Florida and Alabama. I urge you to 
     oppose the amendments in recognition of the fact that the 
     matter is now in the courts, and we have agreed to refrain 
     from implementing the regulation in any specific case until 
     the federal district court has an opportunity to rule on the 
     merits of the legal issues. We believe that this matter is 
     best dealt with by the courts and we are eager for a judicial 
     resolution.

[[Page S10555]]

       The regulation will have narrow application. It applies, by 
     its terms, only (1) when an Indian Tribe and a State have 
     failed to reach voluntary agreement on a tribal-state gaming 
     compact; and (2) when a State successfully asserts its 
     Eleventh Amendment immunity from a tribal lawsuit and thus 
     avoids the mediation process expressly provided in the Indian 
     Gaming Regulatory Act. The regulation will be implemented on 
     a case-by-case basis, controlled by the facts and law 
     applicable to each situation. As noted above, we are already 
     in litigation in federal court in Florida over the lawfulness 
     of the regulation.
       In a letter dated May 11, 1999, I explained our concern 
     that we do not think a legal challenge to the regulation is 
     ``ripe'' for adjudication until the Department had actually 
     issued ``procedures'' under it. Since that time, we have 
     sought to dismiss a legal challenge on ripeness grounds. We 
     intend to go forward with processing tribal applications 
     under our regulation and to issue ``procedures'' if they are 
     warranted. It is important to note that any such 
     ``procedures'' become affective only when published in the 
     Federal Register. As noted above, we have agreed to refrain 
     from publishing any procedures until the federal district 
     court has an opportunity to rule on the merits of the legal 
     issues.
       The House of Representatives rejected an amendment that 
     would have precluded implementation of the rule and I hope 
     that the full Senate will do the same. As you know, in the 
     past, I have recommended that the President veto legislation 
     containing similar provisions.
       Thank you for your assistance on this important matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bruce Babbitt.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. In that letter, the Secretary indicates the final rule 
will not be implemented and no tribal agreements will be authorized 
until the courts decide the real issue of whether he has authority to 
issue these procedures. That may take several years.
  I ask the legislative process proceed and we not short circuit it 
with this amendment. I ask the Senator from Florida to withdraw that 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by the distinguished Senators from Florida and Wyoming, Mr. 
Graham and Mr. Enzi. This is an amendment that prevents the Interior 
Department from implementing new regulations that seriously threaten 
the rights of States to regulate gaming activities within their 
borders.
  This amendment reinstates the prohibition on the Secretary of the 
Interior, which expired on March 31, from approving casino gaming on 
Indian land in the absence of a tribal-State compact. A similar 
provision was adopted unanimously by the Senate as part of the fiscal 
year 1998 Interior appropriations bill as well as the fiscal year 1999 
omnibus appropriations bill.
  As many of my colleagues are aware, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 
enacted in 1988 divides Indian gaming into three categories. The 
amendment offered for consideration on the Senate floor today addresses 
the conduct of class III gaming; that is, casino gaming, slot machines, 
video poker, and other casino-type games.
  Under IGRA, the Congress very clearly intended to authorize Indian 
tribes to enjoy and to participate in gaming activities within their 
respective States to the same extent as a matter of public policy that 
the State confers gaming opportunities generally to the State.
  There are two clear extremes. In one case, we have the States of Utah 
and Hawaii. Those are the only two of the 50 States that I am aware of 
that permit no form of Indian gaming. It is very clear that because 
those two States as a matter of public policy confer no gaming 
opportunities upon its citizenry, Indian tribes in Utah and Hawaii have 
no ability to conduct gaming activities within the class III 
description, the so-called casino-type games.
  Equally clear at the other end of the spectrum is my home State of 
Nevada. Nevada has embraced casino gaming since 1931. It is equally 
clear in Nevada law that the Indian tribes in my own State are entitled 
to a full range of casino gaming. Indeed, compacts have been introduced 
to accomplish that purpose.
  Under IGRA, the class III gaming activity is lawful on Indian lands 
only if three conditions are made:
  No. 1, there is an authorized ordinance adopted by the governing body 
of a tribe and approved by the Chairman of the National Gaming Indian 
Commission;
  No. 2, located in a State that permits such gaming for any purpose by 
any person, organization, or entity--I want to return to that because 
that is the key here--located in a State that permits such gaming for 
any purpose by any person, organization, or entity.
  No. 3, are conducted in conformance with a tribal-State compact.
  As I know the distinguished occupant of the Chair fully understands, 
the implementation of IGRA requires that compact be negotiated and 
entered into between the Governor of the State and the tribe within 
that State that is seeking to conduct class III activity. When IGRA was 
enacted in 1988, Congress was careful to create a balance between State 
and tribal interests. One of the fundamental precepts of IGRA is that 
States and tribes must negotiate agreements or compacts that delineate 
the scope of permissible gaming activities available to the 
tribes. Again, the intent of IGRA is clear and I support its concept. 
Very simply stated: To the extent that a State authorizes certain 
gaming activity as a matter of public policy within the boundaries of 
that State, Indian tribes located within that State should have the 
same opportunity. There is no fundamental disagreement about that.

  However, a situation has arisen in a number of States in which Indian 
tribes have tried to force Governors to negotiate extended gaming 
activities that are not authorized or permitted by law within that 
State; for example, a State that may authorize only a lottery might be 
pressed by a tribe to permit slot machines--clearly something that IGRA 
did not contemplate. It is in that area that we have had some very 
serious disagreements.
  The new Interior Department regulations destroy the compromise that 
is reflected in IGRA. It is in my view a blatant attempt by the 
Secretary to rewrite the law without congressional approval. The rule 
that has been promulgated allows the Secretary to prescribe 
``procedures'' which the Interior Department characterizes as a legal 
substitute for a tribal-State compact, in the event a State asserts an 
11th amendment sovereign immunity defense to a suit brought by a tribe 
claiming a State has not negotiated in good faith.
  The effect of this rule for all intents and purposes nullifies the 
State's constitutionally guaranteed sovereign immunity by allowing the 
Secretary of the Interior to become a substitute Federal court that can 
hear the dispute brought by the tribe against the State. Ironically, 
the new rule permits a tribe to sue based on any stalemate brought 
about by its own unreasonable demands on the State, such as insisting 
on gaming activities that violate that State's law.
  I support this amendment because I believe, as do the Governors and 
the States Attorney General, that the Secretary does not possess the 
legal authority he has sought to grant to himself under this rule, and 
that statutory modifications to IGRA are necessary in order to resolve 
a State's sovereign immunity claim.
  In a letter to the majority leader and the Democratic leader, the 
Nation's Governors stated they strongly believe that no statute or 
court decision provides the Secretary of the U.S. Department of 
Interior with the authority to intervene in disputes over compacts 
between Indian tribes and States about casino gambling on Indian lands. 
In light of this strongly held view, the States of Florida and Alabama 
have already filed suit against the Secretary to declare the new rule 
ultra vires.
  The most troubling aspect of the new rule is that the Secretary of 
the Interior grants himself the sole authority to provide for casino 
gaming on Indian lands in the absence of the tribal-State compact.
  As a former Governor, I appreciate the States' concern with the 
inherent conflict of interest of the Secretary in resolving a major 
public policy issue between a State and Indian tribe while also 
maintaining his overall trust responsibility to the tribe.
  I ask my colleagues to consider the Secretary of the Interior would 
in effect be the arbiter where a dispute arose between the tribe and 
the Governor in which the tribe was asserting a claim to have more 
gaming activity than is lawfully permitted in the State. The Secretary 
of the Interior, who

[[Page S10556]]

holds a trust responsibility to the tribe, would in effect be making 
the determination in that State as to what kind of gaming activity 
would be permitted. I cannot imagine something that is a more flagrant 
violation of a State's sovereignty and its ability, as a matter of 
public policy, to circumscribe the type of gaming activity permitted. 
The States have asserted a wide variety of these. Some States, as I 
indicated earlier, provide for no gaming activity at all. Others 
provide for a full range of casino gaming, as does my own State. Other 
States permit lotteries. Still others authorize certain types of card 
games. Others permit a variation of horse or dogtrack racing, both on- 
and off-track.

  So a State faces the real possibility, under this rule, if it is not 
invalidated--and I believe legally it has no force and effect, but we 
want to make sure this amendment prohibits the attempt of the Secretary 
to implement it--in effect, the Secretary of the Interior would have 
the ability to set public policy among the respective States as to what 
type of gaming activities could occur on Indian reservations within 
those States. We are talking now about class III casino gaming. Even 
though a State Governor and the legislature and the people of that 
State may have determined, as a matter of public policy, that they want 
a very limited form of gaming--a lottery or racetrack betting at the 
track as opposed to off-track--the Secretary would have the ability, 
when a tribe asserted more than the State's law permitted, to, in 
effect, resolve that. I cannot think of anything that is more violative 
of a fundamental States rights issue in terms of its sovereignty and 
its ability as a matter of public policy to make that determination.
  I agree with many of my colleagues that statutory changes to IGRA are 
in order, in light of recent court decisions. I am hopeful that 
Congress will see fit to reassert its lawmaking authority in this area 
by reexamining IGRA, rather than sitting on the sidelines while the 
Secretary of the Interior performs that task.
  But, in the meantime, it is imperative that the Congress prohibit the 
Secretary from approving class III gaming procedures without State 
approval. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support the 
carefully crafted amendment by my colleague from Florida, Senator 
Graham, and Senator Enzi from Wyoming--an amendment to preserve the 
role for States in the conduct of gaming on Indian lands.
  It is fair, it is balanced, and it is reasonable. It is consistent 
with the overall intent of IGRA, which was adopted in 1988 by the 
Congress, to permit class III gaming activities when the three 
conditions which I have enumerated are met, ultimately with a compact 
negotiated by the Governor and the tribe within that State. In the 
absence of such an agreement, the Secretary of the Interior must not be 
allowed to determine that State's public policy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it is still the opinion of the managers 
that this amendment is likely to be accepted by voice vote. We still 
haven't directly heard from the Senator from Hawaii, however, who may 
be nearby. I hope when he finishes we can cast such a vote.
  We have heard, on the other hand, the senior Senator from Illinois 
wishes to speak against the Lott amendment proposed for him by Senator 
Bond and will ask for a vote on that. So we will await his presence and 
his speech on that subject before there is any attempt to bring that 
amendment to a vote. But for all other Members with the other 64 
amendments, now that we have started to deal with two of them, we would 
certainly appreciate their coming to the floor and showing a 
willingness to debate. The Democratic manager, Senator Byrd, and I are 
certainly going to be happy to grant unanimous consent to move off of 
one amendment and onto another, I am sure, to keep the debate going 
with the hope of making progress on the bill.
  With that, however, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I join with my distinguished colleague, the 
manager of the bill, in urging Senators to come to the floor and debate 
these amendments. It is my understanding, as it is his, that the 
distinguished Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, wishes to speak 
against the amendment by the distinguished Senator from Missouri, Mr. 
Bond, and he will certainly have that opportunity.
  I trust the offices of Senators--I am sure they are watching and 
listening--will pass on to the respective Senators this urgent message 
that we are trying to state here, that we are here, we are here to 
discuss amendments, debate them, agree to them, vote them down, vote 
them up, amend them further, or whatever. But Senators need to come to 
the floor and make their wishes known so that this valuable time will 
not be lost. So I urge our Senators to act accordingly.
  Now I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, may I be recognized?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, with the greatest respect for my friend 
from Florida, I rise in opposition to the amendments he proposes to the 
Interior appropriations bill.
  As similar amendments have done in prior years, this amendment seeks 
to prevent Indian tribal governments from engaging in activities that 
have been authorized by the U.S. Congress and sanctioned by the Supreme 
Court of the United States.
  My colleagues know well that there has been a serious impasse in the 
operation of federal law, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act--IGRA--since 
1996.
  In that year, the Supreme Court concluded that the means by which 
tribal governments could have recourse to the Federal courts if a State 
refused to negotiate for a tribal-State compact violated the states' 
eleventh amendment immunity to suit.
  Thus, while there are presently over 128 tribal-State compacts as 
many as 24 States, in those States where tribal-State compact 
negotiations had not been brought to fruition by 1996, the Court's 
ruling gave those States a trump card in the negotiations.
  Those States--and there are only a few--now had a means of avoiding 
compliance with the Federal law altogether. They could refuse to 
negotiate any further, or refuse to negotiate at all, with the 
knowledge that tribal governments had no remedy at law and no recourse 
to the Federal courts.
  We have tried to address this matter through legislation, and indeed, 
the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Senator Ben Nighthorse 
Campbell, currently has a bill pending in the Senate which specifically 
addresses this matter and establishes a process for resolving this 
impasse.
  In the interim, the Secretary of the Interior has stepped into the 
breach--first by soliciting public comment on his authority to 
promulgate regulations for an alternative process if tribal-State 
compact negotiations should fail, and then by following the 
administrative procedures to assure that everyone with an interest had 
an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process.
  That was the open and public and well above-board process that was 
followed, and it seems to me only fair that if a State refuses to 
negotiate with a tribal government,--that there be some other means by 
which an indian government can secure its right under Federal law to 
conduct gaming activities.
  Mr. President, if there were a proponent of this amendment that could 
tell us what equitable alternative they would propose for those tribal 
governments that will be directly affected by this amendment, I would 
give that alternative my earnest consideration.
  But all that I see going on here is an effort to assure that the 
windfall enjoyed by those States that had not entered into compacts by 
1996, never have to do so.
  I suggest that if what we are about here is to render the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act a nullity, then let's be direct and forthright 
about it.
  Let's repeal the Federal law.
  Let's have the Supreme Court's ruling in Cabazon be the order of the 
day and of every day to come.

[[Page S10557]]

  I, for one, will not be party to this obvious effort on the part of 
some States to evade the mandates of the Federal law.
  There is nothing constructive being advanced today. There is no 
effort to assure some balance in the positions of the respective 
sovereigns, tribal and State governments, and as such, I must strongly 
and respectfully oppose the adoption of this amendment.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  At the request of Mr. Gorton, the following statement was ordered 
printed in the Record:
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my 
distinguished colleagues, Senator Enzi and Senator Graham, in offering 
this important amendment to the fiscal year 2000 Interior 
appropriations legislation. This is an amendment that should be 
supported by anyone who is concerned about the issue of gambling, and 
who also believes that the Federal Government often goes too far in 
exerting its will on the individual States. I think that the amendment 
we offer today, which will prohibit taxpayers money from being expended 
to implement the final rule published on April 12, 1999 at 64 Federal 
Register 17535, is an important amendment because if it passes it will 
prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from unilaterally approving the 
expansion of casino gambling on Tribal land throughout this country, 
including States, like Alabama, in which a Class III gambling compact 
has not previously been negotiated.
  Allow me to briefly share some of my thoughts on the importance of 
this amendment. As Attorney General of Alabama, I cosigned a letter 
with 25 other Attorneys General that was sent to the Secretary of the 
Interior in regards to his promulgation of the rule we seek to block 
today. Every Attorney General who signed that letter shared the opinion 
that the Secretary of the Interior did not have the legal authority to 
take action to promulgate regulations which gave him the authority to 
allow casino gambling in this manner. In fact, I previously warned the 
Secretary that if he attempted to implement this rule, he would 
immediately be sued by States throughout this country in direct 
challenge to these regulations, resulting in a terrible waste of 
resources on both the State and Federal level. Unfortunately, my 
prediction has come true, as the States of Florida and Alabama have 
filed suit to block the implementation of this rule.
  This is an important issue for my State, which has a federally 
recognized tribe and which has not entered into a tribal-State gambling 
compact. Alabama's citizens have repeatedly rejected attempts to allow 
casino gambling to occur within our State. However, under the rules 
that the Secretary of the Interior has promulgated, he has given 
himself the authority to unilaterally decide whether tribes within the 
State will be allowed to open casinos, regardless of the opinion of the 
State itself, despite his obvious conflict of interest, and even in the 
absence of any bad faith on the part of the States. I fail to see how 
the Secretary of the Interior can cede himself the authority to make 
this determination for the people of Alabama. Allow me to quote two 
points from the legal analysis prepared by the States of Florida and 
Alabama which highlight these issues:
  The States of Florida and Alabama point out in their lawsuit that 
``under IGRA, an Indian tribe is entitled to nothing other than the 
expectation that a State will negotiate in good faith. If an impasse is 
reached in good faith under the statute, the Tribe has no alternative 
but to go back to the negotiating table and work out a deal. The rules 
significantly change this by removing any necessity for a finding that 
a State has failed to negotiate in good faith. The trigger in the rule 
would allow secretarial procedures in the case where no compact is 
reached within 180 days and the State imposes its Eleventh Amendment 
immunity.''
  Additionally the States' challenge points out the problems associated 
with the Secretary of Interior's conflict of interest. In their 
argument the States point out that ``the rules at issue here arrogate 
to the Secretary the power to decide factual and legal disputes between 
States and Indian Tribes related to those rights. Pursuant to 25 USC 
Section 2 and Section 9, the Secretary of the Interior stands in a 
trust relationship to the Indian tribes of this nation. The rules set 
up the Secretary, who is the Tribes' trustee and therefore has an 
irreconcilable conflict of interest as the judge of these disputes. 
Therefore, the rules, on their face, deny the States due process and 
are invalid.''
  Both of these points help to illustrate just how badly flawed the 
regulation proposed by the Secretary of the Interior is, and help 
underscore why Congress should be vigilant in ensuring it cannot be 
utilized.
  Why is this issue so important to my State? Because in giving himself 
the ability to decide whether to allow tribal Class III gambling in a 
State, the Secretary of Interior has given himself the ability to 
impose great social and economic burdens on local communities 
throughout Alabama. Let me share with you a letter that the mayor of 
Wetumpka, Jo Glenn, whose community is home to property owned by a 
tribe, wrote me in reference to the undue burdens her town would face 
if the Secretary were to step in and authorize casino gambling. Mayor 
Glenn writes:

       Our infrastructure and police and fire departments could 
     not cope with the burdens this type of activity would bring. 
     The demand for greater social services that comes to areas 
     around gambling facilities could not be adequately funded. 
     Please once again convey to Secretary Babbitt our city's 
     strong and adamant opposition to the establishment of an 
     Indian Gambling facility here.

  Mayor Glenn's concerns have been seconded by other communities. Let 
me share with you an editorial that appeared in the Montgomery 
Advertiser in regards to regulations being discussed today. The 
Advertiser wrote:

       Direct Federal negotiations with tribes without State 
     involvement would be an unjustifiably heavy handed imposition 
     of authority on Alabama. The decision whether to allow 
     gambling here is too significant a decision economically, 
     politically, socially to be made in the absence of extensive 
     State involvement. A casino in Wetumpka--not to mention the 
     others that would undoubtedly follow in other parts of the 
     State--has implications far too great to allow the critical 
     decisions to be reached in Washington. Alabama has to have a 
     hand in this high stakes game.

  Mr. President, the States of Alabama and Florida were correct to 
challenge this regulatory proposal, and the writers of the above quoted 
letter and editorial were correct when they voiced their objections to 
it. We should not allow the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate 
rules giving himself the authority to impose drastic economic, 
political and social costs on our local communities, and we should take 
steps now to ensure that he is unable to do so. I urge my colleagues' 
support for the Graham-Enzi amendment.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, on April 12, 1999, Thomas Jefferson must 
have turned over in his grave. That Monday, the Secretary of the 
Interior promulgated a regulation which had the potential to 
unilaterally strip the duly elected Governors of America of their 
decision-making authority on the issue of casino gambling.
  That day, the Secretary published regulations that would circumvent 
the State-tribal compact negotiation process by allowing tribes to 
apply directly to the Department of Interior for the approval of Class 
III gaming. If the Secretary determines that the State and tribe have 
not been able to reach an agreement, he, alone, can grant the tribes 
the authority to engage in Class III gaming.
  Class III gaming is the sort of gambling you might find in Atlantic 
City or Las Vegas--blackjack, slot machines, craps, roulette.
  It's an old story, Mr. President: Washington knows best. But in an 
era when we have correctly determined that political decisions are best 
made at the State and local level, this complete abrogation of States' 
rights is particularly outrageous. Today, Senator Enzi and I are taking 
steps to reverse the Interior Department's power grab. Our amendment to 
the Interior Appropriations bill would preserve the fundamental right 
of every State to decide whether or not it wants Class III Indian 
gaming within its borders. It would block these efforts to unilaterally 
approve tribal casino-style gambling applications by prohibiting the 
use of Department of Interior funds for the implementation of the 
Secretary's final rule.

[[Page S10558]]

  The final rule publication on April 12 is fraught with long-term 
consequences. If we allow the long-standing tribal-State negotiation 
process to be bypassed, we will undermine a dialogue which has promoted 
greater understanding between both parties in the negotiation of gaming 
compacts.
  This amendment does not limit the ability of tribes to obtain Class 
III casino-style gambling provided that tribes and States enter into 
valid compacts pursuant to existing law.
  But even more importantly, Department of Interior's action calls into 
question the basic right of States to make decisions that are in the 
best interest of their residents. In the State of Florida, our 
Constitution prohibits this sort of gambling, and in 1978, 1986, and 
1994, Floridians overwhelmingly rejected casino gambling in three 
separate statewide referendums. State and local law enforcement 
officials are equally vehement in their opposition.
  Mr. President, our amendment has the support of the National 
Governors Association, National Association of Attorneys General, 
National League of Cities, and the National Conference of State 
Legislatures.
  Four times in the past three years, an amendment similar to this one 
has been offered in the Senate, and all four times it has been 
accepted. Should it fail this time, the Interior Department will have 
unfettered power to grant Class III gaming compacts over State 
objections, even in State where casino gambling is against State law, 
including in States like Florida, where casino gambling is prohibited 
by the State constitution.
  This amendment neither affects existing tribal-State compacts nor 
amends the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. It does protect States' rights 
and ensures that elected State leaders--not unelected Federal 
officials--have the right to negotiate gaming compacts based on public 
sentiment.
  I hope that my colleagues will join Senator Enzi, our cosponsors, and 
myself in supporting this amendment.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as far as I know, that concludes debate on 
the Graham-Enzi amendment. As far as I know, Members are willing to 
accept a voice vote on the amendment. So unless someone else rises, I 
suggest the President put the question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1577.
  The amendment (No. 1577) was agreed to.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                           Amendment No. 1603

  (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for the purpose of issuing a 
  notice of rulemaking with respect to the valuation of crude oil for 
               royalty purposes until September 30, 2000)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1603.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments will 
be set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), for herself, Mr. 
     Domenici, Mr. Lott, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Murkowski, 
     Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. Shelby, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1603.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 62, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 1  . VALUATION OF CRUDE OIL FOR ROYALTY PURPOSES.

       None of the funds made available by this Act shall be used 
     to issue a notice of final rulemaking with respect to the 
     valuation of crude oil for royalty purposes (including a 
     rulemaking derived from proposed rules published at 62 Fed. 
     Reg. 3742 (January 24, 1997), 62 Fed. Reg. 36030 (July 3, 
     1997), and 63 Fed. Reg. 6113 (1998)) until September 30, 
     2000.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Shelby be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on my behalf, 
and in addition to Senator Shelby, Senators Domenici, Lott, Nickles, 
Breaux, Murkowski, and Landrieu.
  This amendment will continue an existing provision that will prevent 
the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, MMS, from 
implementing an overreaching and unwise new oil royalty valuation 
system. This moratorium was adopted by the Senate Appropriations 
Committee and continues the same restrictions that have been passed by 
the Senate and the House and signed by the President three times 
previously.
  I add that it has been bipartisan, and the initial moratorium and its 
subsequent extensions have been supported by Senators on both sides of 
the aisle, and the same is true on the House side. This will be the 
fourth time that Congress will have to act to stop this action by the 
Minerals Management Service. I regret that, and I wish there did not 
have to be a first time. But this moratorium is absolutely necessary in 
order to stop the MMS from overriding its regulatory authority by 
imposing a backdoor tax on the production of oil from Federal leases.
  We have heard about judges legislating from the bench. This is, I 
think, legislating from the cubicle. This new rule violates both the 
language and the intent of Federal law governing the assessment and 
collection of Federal royalties from oil and gas drawn from Federal 
lands in the Outer Continental Shelf.
  Everyone agrees the existing rules are too complex and burdensome, 
and Congress and the industry groups had welcomed a revision of the 
rules. But the proposed rule 3 years ago which MMS announced without 
prior notice to Congress could impose even more costly regulations on 
oil producers and effectively enact a royalty rate hike or tax increase 
which the agency simply does not have the authority to do. While the 
larger oil companies might be able to absorb these costs, hundreds of 
small independent producers probably will not. This new rule hits them 
at a time when they are still reeling from the historically low oil 
prices we have seen lately.
  Anyone who has any kind of oil production in their States knows that 
hundreds of thousands of oil-related jobs in our country have gone out 
of existence in the last 6 months. We all know that oil prices went 
down to $10 a barrel. We have not seen that in this country for 40 
years. We know that small independent producers had to go out of 
business, thus throwing hundreds of thousands of people off the 
payroll.
  In addition, there are two recent developments that justify more than 
ever before the extension of the moratorium. First, the MMS itself says 
it needs more time to review its rule; second, a serious ethical and 
legal question has recently been raised about the rulemaking process.
  Earlier this year, the Minerals Management Service did reopen the 
comment period for their rule for 30 days. During that period of time, 
they received extensive comments dealing with the many facets of this 
issue, and they have not yet finished reviewing and considering those 
comments.
  Because they have held workshops and various oil industry 
representatives and others interested in this issue have been able to 
meet together, it is going to take time for the agency to digest the 
input they have. I hope there is a window in which the Minerals 
Management Service will be able to sit down and come up with something 
that is fair and will not put more of our oil industry jobs off the 
books and into foreign countries.
  Remember, today we import more than 50 percent of the oil needs of 
our country. We are certainly not doing anything to help our own oil 
industry keep oil jobs in America, and it is a security risk to any 
country that cannot produce 50 percent of its energy needs.
  I think everything we can do to keep this industry strong is a 
security issue for our country, and it is certainly a jobs issue.
  Unfortunately, extending the moratorium through the next fiscal year 
is the only way we are going to be able to get this agency to produce a 
workable

[[Page S10559]]

rule that stays within the bounds of the law. That is what we are 
trying to do.
  In fact, I want our oil industry to pay its fair share of royalties 
to the people of our country. Our taxpayers deserve that. That is 
exactly what we are trying to do with the MMS. But the MMS has been 
very heavy handed, and they act as if businesses going out of existence 
is preferable to having a fair royalty rate in which the industry would 
pay its fair share and we would keep jobs in America.
  Several of my colleagues and I strongly urged MMS to sit down with 
Members of Congress and industry representatives to discuss these 
issues. It did so last year. Some progress was made, and I thought we 
were coming toward a compromise. Unfortunately, the Department of the 
Interior brought the progress to an abrupt halt. The only way we will 
be able to sit down with the agency is if there is a moratorium until 
there is a satisfactory resolution of this issue by the MMS and the 
Members of Congress who are interested in keeping oil jobs in America.
  In addition, I and other Members of Congress only recently became 
aware of a situation that, frankly, calls the entire rulemaking process 
into serious question. This spring it was revealed that a self-
proclaimed government watchdog group called Project on Government 
Oversight, or POGO, gave $350,000 each to two Federal officials: One at 
the Department of the Interior and the other at the Department of 
Energy, apparently in connection with their work on the royalty 
valuation issue.
  This matter is presently under criminal investigation at the 
Department of Justice, and it is the subject of an investigation by the 
Department of the Interior's inspector general. Until these 
investigations are complete, the prudent course would be for the 
Interior Department to take a voluntary action to suspend its plan to 
finalize the new royalty valuation rule. Unfortunately, the Department 
has indicated it is not willing to do this. I can't imagine an agency 
that has admitted or at least acknowledged that one of its employees in 
this rulemaking process took $350,000 as part of a payment in a lawsuit 
from this government watchdog organization, and the agency is not even 
willing to say we should call a moratorium on this whole process until 
we get to the bottom of this. That is why, when things such as this 
happen, people don't trust their Government.
  I can't imagine the Interior Department not volunteering to take this 
action and sit down with us and make sure that this rulemaking process 
has integrity.
  The Interior Department's proposed rule defies the law and the intent 
of Congress. This disregard for the law is what is at the heart of our 
objection to the proposed new rule, not the $11 million the 
Congressional Budget Office estimates the proposed rule will generate 
in new income for the agency.
  Federal law requires for purposes of royalty payments the value of 
oil drawn from Federal land is to be assessed at the wellhead; that is, 
when the oil is drawn from the ground. The MMS, however, continues to 
try to assess the value of the oil away from the wellhead, after the 
oil has been transported, processed, and marketed, each of which must 
occur before the oil can be sold. In effect, the MMS is trying to get a 
free ride on these costs rather than allowing companies to deduct them 
from the price they ultimately receive for the oil. So you are asking 
people to pay a tax on their cost of doing business. That does not make 
economic sense. It certainly doesn't pass the fairness question.
  There isn't any question that the existing system of computing 
Federal oil royalties is overly complex. No one disputes that. Under 
the current system, oil producers are often unclear as to what their 
royalty payments are supposed to be, and even the MMS is often at a 
loss as to what they are owed. But rather than propose a simpler method 
of ascertaining royalty payments, the MMS has proposed an even more 
complex and protracted litigation over just what the new rule requires.
  While the proposed rule could bring in increased Federal revenues, 
the increased payments could also be eaten up by the need to hire an 
army of new Federal auditors to ensure compliance with the complex new 
system. Furthermore, if companies decide not to go forward with their 
drilling because they can't make any kind of profit, there will be no 
revenue to the schoolchildren in our country because there will be no 
oil royalty extracted from those companies. So the new rule is going to 
be a regulatory thicket that really is not going to help the situation, 
which is the problem of a too complex regulation today.
  Let me also emphasize this amendment has nothing to do with the 
entirely separate issue of whether or not any particular oil company 
has paid the royalties it owes under the existing system.
  I have heard a lot of rhetoric on this issue. I have heard my 
colleagues talk about the lawsuits and the settlements and companies 
that haven't paid their fair share. If any oil company has not paid its 
fair share under the existing regulation, I want it to be prosecuted. I 
want it to have to pay. That is not an issue in this regulation. The 
only issue before us today is what is going to be the oil royalty 
valuation process and is Congress going to have the right to raise 
taxes or is an unelected bureaucrat who is not accountable going to 
have that right.
  Federal land and the mineral resources within that land belong to us 
all. Proper royalties must be paid for the right to extract those 
resources. Since 1953, those payments have totaled over $58 billion. 
That is what we have collected in oil royalties. But enforcement of the 
law and writing the law are two separate things. The MMS seems to have 
forgotten that it is the responsibility of Congress, not the government 
bureaucrats, to determine what the royalty is. That is why we must 
continue this moratorium until Congress says this is the right 
approach.
  The new rule imposes upon Federal lease producers a duty to market 
their oil without allowing the cost to be deducted. Oil does not sell 
itself. There are overhead costs associated with listing the oil for 
sale, locating buyers, facilitating the sale, and then ensuring that 
the oil is delivered to that buyer. Federal law and existing 
regulations only require that the lessee place the oil in marketable 
condition; that is, that the oil is ready to be sold by removing water 
and other impurities from it. But lessees are allowed, under current 
law, to deduct the costs associated with transporting and marketing the 
oil.
  The new rule, as contained in the MMS' own explanation, states that 
the producers must market the oil for the mutual benefit of the lessee 
and the lessor. This, then, would mean producers would no longer be 
allowed to deduct these costs in order to arrive at true wellhead 
value, as called for by Federal law. There is no other way to slice it. 
This constitutes a backdoor royalty rate hike; in effect, a tax 
increase on Federal lands producers.
  Secondly, the MMS rule would not allow for the proper deduction of 
transportation costs. Oil producers typically have to bear the cost of 
transporting the oil to the buyer, either by pipeline or truck. 
Presently, those costs are determined by using a methodology recognized 
by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which has regulatory 
authority over interstate oil pipelines. So the new MMS rule would 
actually reject the Federal Government's own cost guidelines and impose 
a new, untested system for determining transportation costs.
  So it comes down to a simple decision: Do we want unelected 
bureaucrats enacting policy with regard to our Federal lands, or do we 
want Congress to establish these policies? There have been other bills 
introduced that would deal with this issue. I hope we can come to an 
agreement. But I don't think we can forget what has happened to the oil 
industry over the last 2 years. In fact, this is coming at a time when 
oil and gas production in our country is at an all-time low. In March 
of this year, we saw oil prices in parts of our country going down to 
even $7 or $8 a barrel.
  While the price of oil has since begun to come back up--and today 
stands at about $20 a barrel--the impacts of a year and a half price 
crash are reverberating throughout the United States. Since the price 
of oil first fell in late 1997, over 200,000 oil and gas wells have 
been shut down. Most of these, of

[[Page S10560]]

course, were the low-yield marginal or ``stripper'' wells that will 
never again be opened because it is not economically feasible to do it.
  In March of this year, crude oil production in the lower 48 States 
fell to 4.8 million barrels per day, the lowest level in 50 years. The 
number of oil rigs in service in the United States fell to just over 
100 for the last week in July, the lowest number in service since 
records have ever been kept.
  During this time, foreign oil imports rose steadily and now account 
for 57 percent of consumption, well above the 36 percent import level 
we saw during the 1974 oil embargo that nearly shut down the American 
economy.
  The oil crisis has also had a devastating impact on American jobs. 
Since November 1997, we have lost over 67,000 jobs just in the 
exploration and production sectors of this industry, which represents 
20 percent of the total number of jobs in this field. In January 1999 
alone, 11,500 oil and gas jobs were lost. If one looks back to 1981, 
the numbers are even more alarming: Over half a million good-paying 
American jobs have been lost in the oil and gas industry.
  There are those who would say this is going to hurt our 
schoolchildren, that they are not going to get the revenues from our 
public lands. This is very important in my home State. There are dozens 
of school districts that rely heavily on oil production; property taxes 
fall with the price of oil. Statewide school districts will collect an 
estimated $154 million less in revenues this year than last. That is 
$154 million worth of teachers' salaries, books, computers, you name 
it. That is what we are talking about in Texas when we talk about the 
impact of oil on education.
  So if we are going to hit the oil business again, what is it going to 
do to the schoolchildren of our country? Is it going to take another 
$154 million hit in my State? Do you know that they had to let teachers 
off in midyear in many counties in Texas because they didn't have the 
money because of oil companies going out of business and having no 
income whatsoever? So when my colleagues say the schoolchildren are 
going to lose $60 million, perhaps, in California alone, I point my 
colleagues' attention to the fact that we have lost $154 million this 
year in Texas, and we are cutting teachers off in midyear and shutting 
down schools because our oil industry is on its knees.

  During 1998, while the average yield for stocks in the Dow Jones 
Industrial Average was a positive 18 percent, the yield for oil and gas 
stocks was a negative 36 percent. So what does that do to the elderly 
investor, or the person who is investing in mutual funds? What does 
that do to an industry that is very important for the retirement 
security of millions of our citizens?
  For companies inclined toward exploration and production, earnings 
and stock values have fared even worse. The yield on independent 
refiner stocks, down 40 percent. The yield on exploration and 
production stocks, down 63 percent. The yield on drilling stock, down 
64 percent. These stock values reflect huge losses by oil companies 
over the past year and a half. Corporate earnings of the 17 major U.S. 
petroleum companies fell 41 percent between the first quarter of 1998 
and the first quarter of 1999. Fourth quarter losses for 1998 and the 
first quarter of 1999 were some of the largest witnessed in industry 
history. Some companies have lost over $1 billion during each of these 
quarters.
  So we are not just talking about the loss of revenue to our 
schoolchildren. We are not just talking about the stability of the 
retirement pension plans of millions of Americans. We are talking about 
flat bad policy. We are talking about cutting off an industry that is 
essential to our security, essential to the retirement security of 
individuals in this country, essential to job security for thousands of 
workers; and we are talking about blithely saying let the bureaucrats 
who aren't accountable increase the taxes without congressional 
responsibility.
  Congress didn't say that last year, they didn't say it the year 
before, and they didn't say it the year before that. They said: No, you 
will be accountable because we do care about the schoolchildren of this 
country, we do care about the people living on retirement incomes in 
this country, and we do care about those who have mutual funds that 
include oil industry stocks; we want them to be stable, we want them to 
pay their fair share, and we believe their fair share includes not 
paying taxes on their expenses. It is economics 101.
  So I am asking my colleagues, for the fourth straight time, to come 
forward and vote to keep this moratorium so Congress can exercise its 
full responsibility, so that we will not put people out of business 
because the margins are so low and because they have been hit so hard 
over the last year and a half.
  We are joined by many groups who care about the economic viability of 
our country: Frontiers of Freedom, the National Taxpayers Union, 
Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens 
for a Sound Economy, the Alliance for America, People for the USA, 
Sixty-Plus, the Blue Ribbon Coalition, the American Land Rights 
Association, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the National Center 
for Public Policy Research, Rio Grande Valley Partnership.
  The moratorium that I am proposing to extend will force the 
Department to take the time to craft a rule that works and accurately 
reflects the will of Congress--a rule that will be fair to the 
schoolchildren of our country, a rule that will be fair to the 
taxpayers of our country, a rule that will make the oil industry pay 
its fair share, but a rule that will not make the oil industry pay an 
increased tax on their expenses. That is unheard of in economics in our 
country, nor good business sense. It is confiscatory taxation, and we 
will not stand for our retirees having their investments obliterated by 
taxes that are unfair. The buck stops here. It does not stop on the 
bureaucrat's desk; it stops here, because we are responsible for 
keeping the jobs in this country. We are responsible for fair taxation 
policy. We are responsible for the schoolchildren of our country. And 
the way to keep these companies paying their fair share, creating the 
jobs, and creating safe retirement systems for the people of our 
country is to keep the moratorium on and force the Department of the 
Interior to do the will of Congress, which is what it is supposed to 
do. If we don't stand up for our responsibility, who will? Who will 
stand up for Congress' responsibility if the Senate doesn't?

  I urge the adoption of the amendment which has been adopted three 
times before, and which I hope will be adopted again, so that we will 
keep the oil jobs in our country, so that we will keep the retirement 
security of the mutual funds that depend on oil companies being stable, 
so that we will keep the schoolchildren of our country having the 
ability to get revenue that is fair, and to make the oil industry pay 
its fair share. That is what this amendment does.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I know there are Senators who are 
waiting to speak on other measures. I am only going to speak for 2 
minutes.
  I congratulate Senator Hutchison on the argument she offered today. 
She indicated that the last three times we have done this, I have 
either been the sponsor and she the cosponsor, or vice versa.
  I am here today to again indicate that whoever follows us and talks 
about the fact that we ought to stick big oil, or we ought to make sure 
there are no longer any slick deals, as I see some of these comments 
that are going to be made here on the floor, let me suggest that if you 
are taxing anything in the United States and you are doing it wrongly 
or unfairly or without justification under the law, then it doesn't 
matter whether somebody is going to lose money if in fact Congress says 
you have to stop doing that.
  That is what we have here. We are going to have Senators argue that 
there are certain oil companies that are not going to have to pay. 
There have been settlements where they have paid. But the truth of the 
matter is, the intention of this law is, if you are going to change it 
materially, Congress is supposed to be involved.
  We have tried to get involved. In fact, for 6 months we have mutually 
attended hearings with the MMS and the oil producers and talked about 
what was wrong with these regulations and

[[Page S10561]]

rules. Everybody on both sides was saying, let's fix them; let's modify 
them; let's change them. Frankly, I think the oil people who were at 
those meetings who have talked with us and have gone to hearings in the 
Energy Committee are more than willing to listen to realistic, 
reasonable changes.
  But essentially what has happened is, the MMS decided to change the 
rule which historically based royalties on prices at the wellhead. They 
decided they would go downstream from that wellhead, and they invented 
a new concept called ``duty to market.'' They decided that they are 
going to decide what expenses are allowed in moving that gas downstream 
to where the marketing occurs. They are deciding what the values are at 
that point. And we could go through a litany of situations where the 
oil industry believes the decisions are not fair, not market oriented, 
or not consistent with business practices. Frankly, I think some--
because it is oil, or big oil--think it just doesn't matter, stick 
them.
  Frankly, as I indicated before, we want to stand here and say: Why 
don't you get serious about fixing those regulations? And we will get 
off your back.
  That is what is going to happen. Until they do it realistically and 
we get some word that they have been fair and reasonable in the way 
they are setting these royalty costs and prices that yield dollars in 
taxes to the oil industry, until we find out there are some changes 
made, we are going to be here on the floor saying this is a new add-on 
tax to an industry that maybe 15 years ago we could talk about as if 
what you taxed them didn't matter. But we know that we have a falling 
production market in the United States. It is more and more difficult 
to produce these products. It is more and more expensive and cheaper 
overseas. Some of us don't want to see the American industry taxed any 
more than is absolutely reasonable and fair.
  These regulations are not right. They are not fair; they are not 
based on marketplace concepts, or we wouldn't be here.
  I know some are going to want to debate this for a very long time. 
Maybe we will even have to ask for the debate to be closed. But we are 
not going to give up very easily.
  We ask Senators who pay close attention. It is not a matter of what 
we could get out of this industry or what somebody alleges they would 
have paid in the settlement. It is a question of whether the new rules 
and regulations are right and consistent with fair market concepts or 
not. As you figure the royalty, are you inventing costs and prices and 
disallowing deductions and the like that have no relationship to 
reality? We think that is what these are.
  We would be happy to come back again and debate. I will be glad to be 
here. But for now I yield the floor. I thank Senator Hutchison.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if I may say so, I appreciate that 
this is the Hutchison-Domenici amendment. Sometimes it is Domenici-
Hutchison because we both have worked so hard on this issue over the 
last 3 years. I appreciate the leadership of my colleague from New 
Mexico who feels the loss of oil jobs just as my State of Texas does. 
It is a team effort.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the 
pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President.


                           Amendment No. 1583

 (Purpose: To strike Section 329 from a bill making appropriations for 
  the Department of Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year 
                       ending September 30, 2000)

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I call up an amendment that has been filed 
at the desk on behalf of myself and Senators Bingaman, Boxer, Cleland, 
Chafee, and Torricelli.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia (Mr. Robb), for himself, Mr. 
     Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Chafee, and Mr. 
     Torricelli, proposes an amendment numbered 1583.
       Beginning on page 116, strike line 8 and all that follows 
     through line 21.

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I did not ask that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with because it was so short and to the point.
  The amendment simply strikes section 329 from the Interior 
appropriations bill we are now considering. Section 329 is a rider that 
is intended to overturn recent decisions handed down by the Eleventh 
Circuit Court of Appeals and the Federal District Court in Washington 
State dealing with national forests.
  These courts were asked to examine the activities of the Forest 
Service and BLM to determine whether, in allowing certain timber sales 
from public lands, they complied with their own regulations and 
resource management plans that were developed under the National Forest 
Management Act. The courts found that they did not comply and 
disallowed the sales until they did.
  The forest plans guide the Federal decision-making, so that one 
activity in the national forests such as logging does not occur in 
detriment to other uses. These plans apply only to national forest 
land--Federal land--not private land. This is land held in trust for 
all people and all uses, and the Forest Service and BLM are charged 
with ensuring that decisions involving these public treasures are made 
wisely.
  We in Congress continually insist that Federal regulators operate 
using good science. But there is no good science without good data.
  Section 329, which my amendment would strike, would relieve the 
Forest Service from the obligation to develop any new data. And we 
cannot have good decisions without good science and good data.
  After decades of managing our forests primarily for the production of 
logs, we are now managing forests for a variety of uses. But we cannot 
do that without baseline data on threatened and endangered species.
  We are changing the way we manage forests and the way we look at 
forest uses. Preserving habitat and providing recreation also have 
become increasingly important.

  These changes are not easy. Proponents of this section, that my 
amendment would strike, fear that the requirements that we make sound 
decisions based on sound science and good data will lead to less 
logging. This is simply not true. Managing forests for their various 
uses, which include harvesting timber, requires an understanding of the 
entire system, including the plants, animals, even the pests that 
sometimes inhibit or damage growth.
  To improve forest management, in December of 1997 the Chief of the 
Forest Service appointed an independent committee of scientists to 
advise him on ways to bring better science into forest planning. The 
panel's findings strongly recommended the use of scientific evidence in 
managing forests. The panel repeatedly advised that monitoring is 
critical to sustaining forest health.
  In the cases that section 329 seeks to overturn, the courts simply 
require the Federal Government to undertake the monitoring that their 
own forest plans and rules require. Supporters of section 329 argue 
that the courts in these two cases have deviated from rulings by other 
courts where challenged timber sales were allowed to proceed. In other 
cases--and here is the important difference--the courts had enough data 
to rule in favor of the Forest Service. There was evidence to show that 
while the data gathered may not have been exhaustive, at least it was 
adequate.
  In the most recent cases that section 329 seeks to overturn, the 
courts, after noting deference to the Forest Service, recognized the 
job simply had not been done adequately or at all. The courts didn't 
rule that each and every species had to be monitored. They simply said 
to the Federal Government: You have to follow your own rules. You have 
to gather the data in which a sound decision can be based.
  For example, the Eleventh Circuit decision delayed seven timber sales 
in the southern Appalachian forest in Georgia until the Forest Service 
completed an evaluation of the impact the sales would have on the 
forest environment.
  The purpose of the information gathering is to ensure that the Forest 
Service makes an informed decision before it allows the removal of 
expanses of

[[Page S10562]]

timber that could be crucial to survival of endangered or threatened 
species or that could affect overall forest health.
  In a similar action, a Federal judge in Washington State has delayed 
over 25 timber sales until the Forest Service completes the survey work 
required by the Northwest Forest Plan.
  In the case involving the southern Appalachian forest, the Forest 
Service failed to develop the required baseline data on a number of 
species in both the endangered and the threatened category and in a 
category known as ``indicator'' species. For example, the Forest 
Service had no population inventory information at all for 32 of 37 
species in one category. The court of appeals ruled that in proffering 
the tracts of timber for sale, the Forest Service failed to comply with 
its own regulations. The court didn't just determine that the data was 
inadequate; the court determined that the data was nonexistent.
  Under most forest plans, the Forest Service develops lists of 
indicator species to provide a basis for monitoring. These lists have 
species such as deer, bear, bass, and trout. These species are 
representative of all the other species in the forest. The list is 
short and it is designed to be easy to monitor.
  In the Eleventh Circuit case, the Forest Service developed such a 
list but then failed to gather any information on most of the species 
on the list. In the Northwest, the court found that the Forest Service 
sidestepped similar requirements of the forest plan.
  The Northwest Forest Plan is the legal and scientific framework that 
allows timber sales to go forward in the old growth forests of the 
Northwest. As our colleagues will recall, lawsuits in the early 1990s 
brought logging in that region to a complete halt. The Northwest Forest 
Plan, which was the result of lengthy and often painful negotiations, 
allowed timber sales to go forward, provided that there was an adequate 
basis to make an informed decision. The agreement provides the best 
hope of sustained yield and multiple use. This latest ruling by the 
Western District Court of Washington is a reminder that the agreement 
is the operating plan for the forests, and that guidance memorandum 
cannot exempt the Forest Service from its duty. This ruling will delay 
timber sales but only until the Forest Service completes the work laid 
out in the plan.

  Of the 80 surveys in question, all but 13 have protocols developed 
that will allow survey work to move forward. These decisions are not a 
result of overstepping by the courts. They are a result of the courts 
examining the rules the Forest Service laid out for itself and merely 
requiring the Forest Service to operate by the rules it adopted.
  Let me quote from the Eleventh Circuit decision:

       While the Forest Service's interpretation of its Forest 
     Plan should receive great deference from reviewing courts, 
     courts must overturn agency actions which do not scrupulously 
     follow the regulations and procedures promulgated by the 
     agency itself.

  I suggest to our colleagues who support section 329 that we should 
not as a result of one court decision turn our backs on the necessity 
of developing good information on plant and animal populations in our 
national forests. This data is the basis of the good science we keep 
talking about. It will add to our knowledge. In fact, most forest 
districts already have a substantial amount of data and continue to 
develop more. The majority of sales are moving forward under the 
existing rules and plans. It would be a mistake to let delays in a few 
timber sales negate all of the important work that is now being done. 
Section 329 effectively stops data gathering for the coming fiscal 
year.
  In addition, section 329 establishes a new standard to be applied by 
the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management for determining 
when to approve timber sales. However, according to the agencies that 
are required to implement the change, rather than speed timber sales 
up, it would slow them down. To understand the effect of this change, 
we ought to hear from those who will be responsible for implementing 
the change.
  In a statement issued jointly by the Secretaries of Agriculture and 
Interior they say:

       [I]f this rider were adopted, tens of thousands of 
     individual management activities and planning efforts would 
     be subject to a new legal standard.
       This would have the unintended effect of increasing project 
     costs and increasing delays in order to conduct time-
     consuming reviews of administrative records to document 
     compliance with the new standard.
       Increased litigation and delay could also be expected as 
     plaintiffs seek to define the new standard in court.
       In an effort to free up a limited number of timber sales in 
     Georgia and the Pacific Northwest, the Senate would 
     unnecessarily override the Federal Court ruling, agency 
     regulations, and resource management plans requiring the 
     Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to obtain and 
     use current and appropriate information for wildlife and 
     other resources before conducting planning and management 
     activities.
       Moreover, the bill language applies not just to timber 
     sales decisions and required surveys in the forests of the 
     Southeast and Pacific Northwest, but to all activities for 
     which authorization is required on all lands managed by the 
     Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service.
       As such, it could result in far-reaching, unintended 
     negative consequences.

  In short, the Secretaries who would be required to implement the new 
standard write that:

       Section 329 is unnecessary, confusing, difficult to 
     interpret, and wasteful.
       If enacted, it will likely result in costly delays, 
     conflicts, and lawsuits with no clear benefit to the public 
     or the health of public lands.

  The Forest Service, which is charged with implementing the court's 
ruling, is acting. In the southern Appalachian forests, they are 
modifying the forest plan and have developed guidance to help meet the 
court's directives. In the Northwest, they are completing a 
supplemental environmental impact statement that will respond to the 
court's concerns.
  Incidentally, the SEIS was in process before the court ruled because 
the Forest Service had already recognized that the plan needed 
adjusting, and the plan has mechanisms in it to accommodate change.
  The Forest Service does not believe this rider is necessary in order 
to approve timber sales. In fact, they believe it will interfere with 
timber sales.
  I want to emphasize an additional problem with section 329. It does 
not just apply to timber sales. Again, according to the Secretaries of 
Agriculture and the Interior:

       The provision which applies for one year would apply to all 
     of the nearly 450 million acres of land managed by the two 
     agencies and would apply to all management activities 
     undertaken by the bureaus, not just timber sales.

  We should not be putting a rider on an appropriations bill to lower 
the standard for government agencies in the hope that it might pass 
unnoticed. One of the reasons people get cynical about their government 
is that it does not always do what it says it will do. In this case, we 
would lower the bar for agencies that do not want the bar lowered. The 
Forest Service believes that it can do the job right. We would do a 
disservice to this body and to the people who expect us to protect our 
national treasure by not demanding that Federal agencies make informed 
decisions with adequate data.
  What section 329 proposes to do is lower the standard the first time 
that agency fails to meet it. I believe this is the wrong approach. I 
believe we should strike section 329 from this appropriations bill and 
that the Federal Government should comply with the laws we have passed 
and the rules it has established and the plans it has adopted.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.


                           Amendment No. 1603

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia for his 
very important comments. I rise in very strong opposition to the 
Hutchison amendment that was laid aside and about which, as I 
understand it, probably we will have to vote on a cloture motion. I 
await the word of the chairman on that.
  I want to tell my colleagues that this is a very serious matter. I 
hope they will listen very carefully as to why the arguments against 
the Hutchison amendment are so important. I am going to say some very 
strong things on the floor. But everything I say will be backed up by 
fact, backed up by quotes, backed up by court cases, backed up by 
recent history on oil royalty payments.
  What the Hutchison amendment will do for the fourth time is to stop 
American taxpayers from receiving the

[[Page S10563]]

amount of oil royalties they are owed by the oil companies. Let me 
repeat that. The Hutchison amendment will stop the American taxpayers 
from receiving the fair share of oil royalties that they deserve. If it 
does pass, and I hope it does not, it will sanction that. It will say 
to the oil companies: It's OK, you continue, big oil companies, 
underpaying your oil royalties. We know they have a plan to underpay. 
We know that. We have heard it from people who have blown the whistle 
on the oil companies.
  If we go with the Hutchison amendment, our fingerprints are on this 
defrauding of the taxpayers. This is very serious business. I ask my 
colleagues to pay attention, because when this issue was last before 
us, we did not have a whistleblower who worked for the oil companies in 
court, saying that the oil companies, in essence, defrauded the 
taxpayers and they planned to do so. We have that information. I will 
lay it before the Senate.

  What is an oil royalty payment? Right here you see what a royalty 
payment is. The oil companies sign an agreement with the Federal 
Government that when they drill on Federal lands in any State of the 
Union, be it onshore or offshore, they must pay a fair percentage, 12.5 
percent, of the value of that oil over to the Federal Government. It is 
like paying rent. It is not a tax; it is a royalty payment.
  If you do not own the place in which you live, you pay rent. Imagine 
if you decided on a daily basis what that rent ought to be. No, no, 
no--you would go to jail or you would be evicted because you have 
signed a contract to pay a certain amount of rent. The oil companies 
have signed a contract to pay a certain amount of rent based on the oil 
they extract from Federal lands. Here it is. It ``shall never be less 
than the fair market value of the production.'' Keep that in mind, 
``fair market value of the production.'' They have to base their 
royalty payment on the fair market value of the oil.
  Senator Domenici was on the floor and he said beware of colleagues 
who start talking about Congress' slick deal with the oil companies. He 
said beware.
  I am not saying it; USA Today said it. USA Today said it is ``time to 
clean up Big Oil's slick deal with Congress.'' They say, in their view, 
``industry's effort to avoid paying full fees hurts taxpayers [and] 
others.''
  Here is what USA Today says on the subject in this article. They knew 
the Hutchison amendment was coming and this is what they said.

       Imagine being able to compute your own rent payments and 
     grocery bills, giving yourself a 3 percent to 10 percent 
     discount off the marketplace. 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.

  They go on to say the fact that ``big oil has contributed more than 
$35 million to national political committees and congressional 
candidates.'' They say that is ``a modest investment in protecting the 
royalty-pricing arrangement which has enabled the industry to pocket an 
extra $2 billion.''
  This is a very bad situation. If you vote for the Hutchison 
amendment, you are aligning yourselves with a planned effort to defraud 
taxpayers. I do not know how many of my friends want to go home and 
face their constituents and make that argument. This is what USA Today 
continues saying:

       That's millions of dollars missing in action from the 
     battle to reduce the Federal deficit and from accounts for 
     land and water conservation, historic 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.

  They conclude by saying:

       . . . the taxpayers have been getting the unfair end of 
     this deal for far too long.

  We have a chance to stand up for the consumer, for the taxpayers, 
against cheaters, against people who would knowingly defraud taxpayers, 
if we do not support the Hutchison amendment, if we oppose it.

  We heard the Senator from Texas say: Oh, my God, things are terrible 
for oil. We are suffering in the oil industry.
  What she does not tell you is something very important: 95 percent of 
the oil companies are not affected by the rule the Interior Department 
wants to put into place which will fix this problem. The Hutchison 
amendment stops them in their tracks and prohibits them from fixing 
this perpetual underpayment of royalties. That is what the Hutchison 
amendment does.

  She says big oil and oil across the board is hurting. Ninety-five 
percent of the oil companies are not affected. They are decent. They 
are paying their fair share of royalties. It is the 5 percent that are 
doing this slick thing that are, instead of paying their royalty based 
on a market price, they are paying it based on a posted price which 
they post. They decide what the price is, and we know they are cheating 
us. How do we know that? That is a tough thing for a Senator to say, 
but I want to prove it to you.
  First of all, we know this for sure: Seven States have already won 
battles in court against oil companies. The seven States have said that 
the oil companies are underpaying their royalty payments to the Federal 
Government and the States' share of those royalty payments, therefore, 
are lower. The oil companies have settled with these States.
  If they were doing the right thing, do you think they would be 
settling for $5 billion so far? I doubt it. If they were so innocent, 
do you think they would be shelling out--``shelling'' is a good word--
$5 billion to seven States? By the way, the Federal Government is suing 
as well. We do not want to have to keep these battles in court. The 
Interior Department wants to fix these problems so nobody will have to 
sue anymore. There will be a fair payment. So one reason we know they 
are cheating us is they are settling these cases all over the country.
  There is another reason we know. This one is very direct and this one 
is new. I urge my colleagues at their peril to pay attention to this 
matter, please:

       A retired Atlantic Richfield employee has admitted in court 
     that while he was Secretary of ARCO's crude pricing 
     committee, the major's posted prices were far below fair 
     market value.

  He goes on to say--Anderson is his name:

       He admitted he was not being fully truthful 5 years ago 
     when he testified in a deposition that ARCO's posted prices 
     represented fair market value. He said: ``I was an ARCO 
     employee. Some of the issues being discussed were still being 
     litigated. My plan was to get to retirement. We had seen 
     numerous occasions, the nail that stood up getting beat 
     down.'' Said Anderson, ``The senior executives of ARCO had 
     the judgment that they would take the money, accrue for the 
     day of judgment, and that's what we did.''

  Here is a retired former employee of one of the oil companies that 
has been ripping off the taxpayers admitting it in a court of law--he 
could go to jail if he lies--swearing on a Bible, an oil company man, 
that they sat around and agreed to understate the value so they could 
get away with it and wait for the day of judgment. Talk about a smoking 
gun, here it is. This is new information, and yet Senator Hutchison is 
asking you to stand with those people, one of whom admitted they 
actually had a plan to defraud the taxpayers.
  This is a very serious issue. It is not politics. It involves a plan 
to understate the market price. It is wrong.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from California yield for a question?
  Mrs. BOXER. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. I want to ask my colleague, the Senator from California, 
if she will clarify several things so those following the debate 
understand the parameters of this issue. In every instance here are we 
talking about private oil companies drilling for oil on public lands?
  Mrs. BOXER. That is correct, I say to my friend. These are private 
oil companies that have signed an agreement with the Federal Government 
to pay the royalty payment based on the fair market value when they 
drill on land that is owned by the people of the United States of 
America.

  Mr. DURBIN. I further ask the Senator from California, it has been my 
experience in Illinois that coal mining companies and oil exploration 
companies will go out and buy private land, at least an easement or 
right to drill on private land, and pay compensation to the landowner 
for that purpose. But in this situation, we are dealing with land owned 
by the people of America----
  Mrs. BOXER. Correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. That these companies are using to make a profit; is that 
correct?

[[Page S10564]]

  Mrs. BOXER. That is absolutely correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. And their payment to the taxpayers for the use of our 
land, the land owned by the taxpayers across America, is this royalty; 
is it not?
  Mrs. BOXER. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. Can the Senator from California explain the impact, then, 
of the Hutchison amendment, how this will affect the royalty that is 
paid by the oil companies that want to drill for oil and make a profit 
from that oil off land owned by taxpayers?
  Mrs. BOXER. What the Hutchison amendment does is it puts off for the 
fourth time any move by the Interior Department to fix the problem we 
are facing with this underpayment of the royalties that are due the 
taxpayers.
  The Interior Department has held a series of 17 meetings across the 
country. They have met with the oil companies, they have met with 
Members of Congress, they have done everything, and they are ready to 
finalize a rule. Every time they are ready to promulgate a rule to fix 
this problem, up comes one of the Senators from the oil States who 
says: Oh, wait, wait, wait, it is too complicated; it isn't a good 
idea.
  It isn't a good idea from the oil companies' perspective because as 
we just heard this one whistleblower say, they want to put off the day 
of judgment and use this float to make more and more money. But my 
friend is right in his questions.
  Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from California, let's consider two 
possibilities. If the royalty is based on the price of oil, there is a 
possibility that the royalty payments might go down if it is 
recalculated; there is a possibility that it might stay the same, or it 
might go up.
  But I take it from this amendment that the oil companies that are 
pushing this amendment are so certain that their payments to the 
Federal Government are going to go up that they want to stop the 
Federal Government from recalculating the royalties.
  The net impact of this, and the Senator from California can correct 
me, is that the oil companies are being protected from paying their 
fair share of rent or royalties for using public lands, and the 
taxpayers, because of this amendment, are the losers. We are the ones 
who do not get the royalties back from those who want to drill all the 
oil out of land that we own and not pay the taxpayers of this country 
for the right to do so.
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, I can put it in specific dollars. 
Already the Hutchison amendment, since she first offered it and our 
colleagues backed her on it, has lost taxpayers $88 million, and if she 
succeeds in this, although Senator Hutchison has pared it back to a 
year, another delay of a year, it is another $66 million. That is a lot 
of millions of dollars. Taxpayers already have lost $88 million, and 
they are about to lose another $66 million unless we can stop this. The 
Interior Department is with us 100 percent.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Hutchison amendment prevails and is not defeated--
--
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield on 
that point because I think there has been an error in the amount that 
we are talking about.
  Mr. DURBIN. If I can say to my colleague, the Senator from Texas, I 
was only asking a question of the Senator from California who I believe 
has the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. And I will address this----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. I have a letter that backs up those numbers which I will 
put in the Record. I will continue to yield for a question.
  Mr. DURBIN. The point I am getting to is, if the Hutchison amendment 
is adopted, then basically we are giving a discount to these oil 
companies from the amount they owe taxpayers for drilling oil out of 
public lands and selling it at a profit; is that the net impact of this 
amendment?
  Mrs. BOXER. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. I know we are in an era of surpluses where we are trying 
to figure out ways to give away money, but I ask the Senator from 
California why would we decide to give money to oil companies at this 
point? Why adopt an amendment that would give them additional profits 
for drilling oil on lands owned by the taxpayers, the people of 
America?
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I think this is a special interest rider. 
I have to say that, with all due respect. By the way, it doesn't give 
money to all the oil companies. It only gives it to the top 5 percent, 
the ones that are vertically integrated. Ninety-five percent of the oil 
companies are not affected, and they are paying the fair market value. 
They are paying the royalty based on the fair market value.
  I ask unanimous consent, before yielding to the Senator for more 
questions, to have printed in the Record a letter from the Secretary of 
the Interior, which was based on the original Hutchison amendment, 
which addresses the question of the dollars lost. It is very clear what 
will be lost. In her additional amendment of 21 months, they calculate 
it at $120 million, and we are just paring it back to the 1-year 
number. We also have a letter from the Office of Management and Budget 
which clearly states that the rider, as it is before us now, will cost 
taxpayers about $60 million.
  I ask unanimous consent to have those two documents printed in the 
Record when I complete my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I object. I do want the Senator to be 
able to enter her documents in the Record, but I want to also have 
entered in the Record that the Congressional Budget Office has 
estimated it would be $11 million. That would be the cost to the 
taxpayers; that is, if the oil companies continue to drill. So she 
may----
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, may we have regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I don't ever remember having one Senator object to 
another Senator putting a document in the Record. I am kind of shocked 
at that.
  I ask, again, unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the two 
Federal agencies versus the one that back us up on our documentation. I 
ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to have those printed in the 
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will not object, as long as the Record also shows 
the CBO has said $11 million and that assumes people are not going to 
go out of business.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have no objection to the Senator 
entering into the Record anything she wants, but I can say very clearly 
that we know what this is costing.
  The Senator herself admits it is $11 million taken out of taxpayer 
pockets. We believe it is $66 million.
  I continue to yield to my friend.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that these 
payments, these royalties come through the Federal Government and back 
to many of the States. Is my understanding correct?
  Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely. In other words, if there is oil being drilled 
in Texas, it is on Federal lands, but the Federal lands are within 
Texas. Texas gets 50 percent of the royalty payment. I know in 
California, it is 50 percent if it is onshore and about 25 percent if 
it is offshore. In many of the States, including California, these 
funds go directly into the classroom and to the schools.
  Mr. DURBIN. So in some of the States, for example, Texas and 
California, if the Hutchison amendment passes, there will be fewer 
dollars from these royalty payments coming back to the States of the 
two Senators engaged in this debate.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is correct, and into the classrooms.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator, it is my understanding from her 
previous statement that many of the States have sued the oil companies 
saying: You didn't pay enough. You owed us more in royalties. You 
underpaid the amount you were required to pay for drilling for oil on 
federally owned public lands for profit.
  Mrs. BOXER. My friend is correct. To be very specific, I will tell 
the Senator, the oil companies that are being so defended here have 
agreed in court to pay up not $1 billion, not $2 billion, but $5 
billion to these States; in essence,

[[Page S10565]]

agreeing that they undervalued. Alaska got $3.7 billion, for example; 
California, $345 million. By the way, private owners are also 
complaining, and they have resolved some of the disputes for $194 
million.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from California, as a followup 
question, so I understand it completely, these private oil companies go 
on to public lands, drill for oil which they sell for a profit. They 
are charged a royalty based on the price of the oil. The impact of this 
amendment by the Senator from Texas would be to say to the Department 
of the Interior: You cannot recalculate the royalty to raise it. So we 
are protecting these oil companies from an increase in what they are 
going to pay taxpayers for drilling on public land, which means more 
money in their pocket. The losers are not only Federal taxpayers but 
States such as Texas and California and their taxpayers who lose the 
benefits of the money that might come back to them from these 
royalties?
  Mrs. BOXER. My colleague is right. But it is even worse than that 
because a royalty payment is a contract. The oil companies have signed 
a contract. It says very clearly ``fair market value.'' It is not that 
the Interior Department wants to increase the percent, for example, 
that is paid; they just want to make sure the contract is carried out.
  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.'' So all they are trying to do is correct a 
serious problem. And we know, because I can show my colleague another 
chart on posted prices versus the market prices of ARCO, I will show 
him what has happened. Right now the oil companies, these 5 percent of 
them that are cheating us, they base their royalty payment on what they 
call posted prices. They create the price. If we could show this to the 
Senator, look at the difference between the market price and the posted 
price. This is one oil company, but I could show my friend, every 
single one of these oil companies, by some kind of magic action, they 
have the same spread. And if you heard what the ARCO executive said, 
the former executive, they did this on purpose. They made the posted 
prices below the market price.
  Mr. DURBIN. I only have three questions, and I will stop.
  Mrs. BOXER. I appreciate my colleague asking as many questions as he 
wants.
  Mr. DURBIN. The Senator made reference to a Wall Street Journal 
article where a former official from ARCO said--was this under oath or 
was it just a public statement in terms of their efforts to try to 
reduce the royalty payments to the Federal Government for this private 
company to drill oil on public land and make a profit?
  Mrs. BOXER. The article that I quoted is Platt's Oilgram News--an oil 
industry newsletter. In fact, my colleague is right, they talk about a 
court case in which a retired Atlantic Richfield employee admitted in 
court----
  Mr. DURBIN. Under oath.
  Mrs. BOXER. Under oath, penalty of perjury, that while he was 
secretary of ARCO's crude pricing committee, the major's posted prices 
were far below the market value.
  Mr. DURBIN. So this gentleman, no longer employed, conceded the point 
which you have been making during the course of this debate, that these 
oil companies are really cheating the Federal Government, the taxpayers 
of this country, because they are using our public lands and not paying 
a fair royalty payment for the oil they are extracting and selling at a 
profit.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is absolutely right. They are basing their royalty 
payment on a price that is not reflective of the fair market value. It 
is a price they made up. It is as if one day you woke up and let's say 
you paid rent, which my friend probably does here in Washington, DC, 
and you just decided one day that the fair market value of the rent was 
lower than your lease.

  Mr. DURBIN. My landlord wouldn't allow that.
  Mrs. BOXER. He would not allow that. He would probably evict you. Yet 
what do we have here in this Senate. We have Senators standing up 
condoning this kind of behavior.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from California, in my home State of 
Illinois, there are many small oil producers that are going through 
very difficult times. Some of them may not survive. There has been an 
argument made that we have to give this break, in the Hutchison 
amendment, to these oil companies to help these small producers and 
help the oil industry.
  If I vote against the Hutchison amendment and go home to Illinois and 
face these small oil companies that are trying to survive in difficult 
times, will they be saying to me: You have just cut off the flow of 
money to us? What companies are affected by this Hutchison amendment?
  Mrs. BOXER. First, let me say there are 777 companies that are not 
impacted at all by this Interior rule, but there are 44 companies that 
are impacted. Let me say to my colleague, I voted to help the small oil 
companies. I was proud to support the Domenici amendment. We took it up 
recently when we helped the steel companies. If we want to help the oil 
companies because they are having tough times, I will be right there. 
If there are reasons to help smaller companies, I am right there. And I 
have always been right there.
  But it seems to me we can't stand on the floor of the Senate and help 
the largest oil companies--most of these are the largest; not all, but 
most--5 percent of the oil companies that are out-and-out cheating the 
taxpayers. We know it because it has been testified to in a court of 
law, and we know it because they have been settling these cases all 
over the country. My friend should feel very comfortable when he 
opposes the Hutchison amendment case that he is impacting only 5 
percent.

  (Mr. SMITH of Oregon assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Is the Senator aware of the fact that the Los Angeles 
Times, on July 20 of this year, in analyzing this debate, concluded by 
saying, ``not since the Teapot Dome scandal of the 1920s has the stench 
of oil money reeked as strongly in Washington as it is in this case''?
  I ask the Senator from California, isn't it odd that on an 
appropriations bill we are considering a string of riders that are of 
such import and controversy, putting them on a spending bill instead of 
having a hearing so the oil companies could come in and try to defend, 
if they would like to, so the Department of the Interior can come in 
and basically explain why they think taxpayers across America are 
ripped off by this amendment? It seems to me to be an odd state of 
affairs that we have seven, eight, or nine different riders on this 
bill which really go to important, substantive issues that have not 
been addressed by this Congress during the course of this year. Does 
the Senator agree with me that this is an exceptional procedural issue 
to be taking up on a spending bill?
  Mrs. BOXER. Well, I think it is not appropriate. I hope the Senator 
from Texas will not proceed with this. She knows if she does--and we 
are very open about this--we are going to be on our feet a long time. 
So we are going to have a cloture vote to see where this all comes out. 
I want to say this to my friend and then I will yield to my friend from 
Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. I just have a question on procedure, not on the substance, 
if the Senator would not mind yielding.
  Mrs. BOXER. I do mind yielding at this point. I don't want to lose my 
train of thought.
  My friend is so right in his understanding of what this means. This 
is an example of legislating on an appropriations bill. This Hutchison 
amendment was put into the committee and stripped out because of the 
way it was put into the committee. It was stripped out. It has been 
defined and technically changed, and now it is being offered. But it is 
still the same thing. You know, you can put a dress on a hippopotamus 
and it still looks like a hippopotamus. That is what this is. This is a 
very ugly amendment.
  I want to mention one thing in answering the question. I was very 
pleased that my friend read the Los Angeles Times editorial. It is a 
newspaper that now has Republican ownership. I think that is very 
important. I want to read a couple of other statements from it. I see 
my friend from

[[Page S10566]]

Wisconsin is here. Is he going to ask me a question as well?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes.
  Mrs. BOXER. This Los Angeles Times article says, ``The Great American 
Oil Ripoff.''
  It says:

       America's big oil companies have been ripping off Federal 
     and State governments for decades by underpaying royalties 
     for oil drilled on public lands. The Interior Department 
     tried to stop the practice with new rules, but Congress has 
     succeeded in blocking their implementation, and will again if 
     the Senate bill calling for a moratorium on the new rules 
     proposed by Senators Hutchison and Domenici comes up before 
     the Senate.

  It has and here we are.

       The large integrated oil companies, not the small 
     independent producers, have been cheating the State and 
     Federal Treasuries by computing their royalties on the so-
     called ``posted rights'' rather than the fair market price.

  That is what we are talking about, computing royalties on posted 
rights, rather than fair market price.

       It could be as much as $4 or $5 a barrel lower. 
     The Interior Department estimates this practice costs the 
     taxpayers up to $66 million a year.

  Senator Hutchison says it is $11 million, and that is a lot; but we 
think it is $66 million, and so does the OMB.

       Two years ago, Interior drew up rules that would stop the 
     underpayment but Congress has blocked implementation.

  They go on to explain:

       The bottom line is, Congress should not buckle to the 
     pressure of the oil companies, and the Hutchison amendment 
     should be defeated.

  Mr. CRAIG. If the Senator will yield briefly, I will leave the 
Senators to debate this. We have the Robb amendment on the floor. 
Several of us came to debate that, expecting it would be stacked for a 
vote in the morning. Obviously, you are going to continue this debate 
into tomorrow. I wonder what your plan is for the evening because it is 
predicated upon a unanimous consent agreement that we want to craft. If 
you plan to debate late into the evening, we will not stay.
  Mrs. BOXER. No, we don't.
  Mr. CRAIG. There are four Senators, including the Presiding Officer, 
who came to the floor because the Senator from Virginia was on the 
floor with his amendment. We hoped to debate that within the next 35 to 
40 minutes if the Senator will consider yielding the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. I don't have any intention of talking more than 40 
minutes. I will be yielding for a question. I thought the Senator came 
because he was drawn into this debate.
  Mr. CRAIG. No. I just say I think it is a rather baseless debate, 
with a lot of politics.
  Mrs. BOXER. I was trying to----
  Mr. CRAIG. I will stay out of the substance.
  Mrs. BOXER. I was trying to use a little bit of humor.
  Mr. CRAIG. I am more interested in the timing for this evening, on 
behalf of five Senators.
  Mrs. BOXER. I told my friend the time. I don't intend to go over 40 
minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. BOXER. I will be glad to yield for a question.
  Mr. DURBIN. Not only do I not think this is baseless, I want to touch 
all the bases so the Senator from Idaho can understand why we think 
this is worthy of debate on the floor of the Senate.
  I ask the Senator from California this: We had a big debate about 
welfare reform and welfare ``Cadillacs.'' We are talking about welfare 
``tankers'' here--$11 million--or $66 million going to these major oil 
companies. I say to the Senator from California, how many times have we 
done this? How many times have we postponed this decision by the 
Department of the Interior to give to the taxpayers of this country the 
fair share they are entitled to for these oil companies to use our 
lands--the lands of people who live in Illinois, California, Idaho, and 
Texas--to drill oil. How many times has the industry come in and, with 
an amendment similar to the one before us, tried to stop this 
recalculation?
  Mrs. BOXER. This is the fourth time this amendment has come before 
the body. I have to say to my friend, I don't think it has ever gotten 
the attention it needs. To come in and say it is a baseless debate, 
when we are talking about as much as $66 million on top of the $88 
million we have already lost from the three other times this amendment 
came before us, is unbelievable to me. It is unbelievable that we close 
our eyes to this kind of purposeful rip off, and to call it a baseless 
debate, I find that amazing.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator from California will further yield, is not 
the fact that these States have come forward in court and sued the oil 
companies successfully evidence of the fact that the oil companies have 
been underpaying the Federal taxpayers, as well as the State taxpayers, 
and this amendment will continue that?
  Mrs. BOXER. That is absolutely correct. Let me reiterate what I said. 
In cases all across this country, there have been settlements in seven 
different States, and $5 billion has been collected from the oil 
companies in these settlements. Now, if the oil companies had such 
clean hands and they were paying their fair amount of royalties, I 
assure my friend they would not part with $5 billion--I didn't say 
million, I said $5 billion. I don't even know what $5 billion looks 
like in a room. All I can say to my friend is, it is more than we spend 
on Head Start in a year.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator from California yield for a question?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask the Senator from California this because I share 
her strong opposition to this amendment, which would allow oil 
companies to continue to underpay the U.S. Government in royalties for 
drilling on public lands. It is my understanding this rider was 
modified by the managers' amendment. But, as originally drafted, the 
rider blocks the implementation of new Interior rules to stop these 
underpayments, just as their implementation was blocked in the last 
Congress; is that correct?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes. This is the fourth time that this Interior 
Department ``fix'' to ensure fair royalty payments has been stopped in 
its tracks, unless we defeat the Hutchison amendment.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I know the Senator from California is obviously 
concerned about big windfalls for the oil companies. The Interior 
Department estimates that underpayments by the oil companies cost the 
taxpayers up to $66 million a year. I am wondering if she is aware of 
some of the largest oil companies that benefit from it.
  Mrs. BOXER. I would be very pleased if the Senator could put that 
into the Record because I haven't done that.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. They are not small mom-and-pop, independent producers. 
They are companies like Exxon, Chevron, BP Oil, Atlantic Richfield, and 
Amoco. I ask the Senator if she is aware of some of the campaign 
contributions that entities such as this put forward in order to 
achieve this end.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am very glad the Senator put out some of the names of 
the big oil companies that would be impacted by this Interior rule that 
Senator Hutchison is trying to get. Fully 95 percent of the oil 
companies are not impacted. Only 5 percent are impacted. The 95 percent 
of the others are paying their fair share of royalty payments. That is 
something to be happy about. They are good corporate citizens paying 
their fair share of royalty payments based on fair market value just as 
they signed in their lease agreements with the United States of 
America. But it is the 5 percent of most of the large ones that are 
getting away with it.
  I say to my friend that he is a champion of campaign finance reform. 
I am so proud to be associated with him on that issue.
  I can only say to my friend that this issue was mentioned in the USA 
Today editorial, dated Wednesday, August 26, 1998, that big oil has 
contributed more than $35 million to national political committees and 
congressional candidates. They make the point. These are their words, 
not my words. They say that is a modest investment for protecting 
royalty pricing arrangements which enables the industry to pocket an 
extra $2 billion.
  My friend is on a certain track. I think it is important.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I am grateful for the Senator's tremendous leadership 
on this.
  She may be aware that from time to time I do something that I call 
``calling of the bankroll''--interest in companies that contribute 
large sums of

[[Page S10567]]

money in terms of campaign contributions.
  I am wondering if the Senator is aware that during the 1997-1998 
election cycle oil companies gave the following in political donations 
to the parties and to Federal candidates:
  Exxon gave more than $230,000 in soft money and more than $480,000 in 
PAC money.
  Chevron gave more than $425,000 in soft money and more than $330,000 
in PAC money.
  I wonder if the Senator is aware that Atlantic-Richfield gave more 
than $525,000 in soft money and $150,000 in PAC money.
  BP Oil and Amoco, two oil companies which merged into the newly 
formed petroleum giant, BP Amoco, gave a combined total of $480,000 in 
soft money, and nearly $295,000 in PAC money.
  This is just some of the information we have. I don't know if the 
Senator was aware of these figures.
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend that I was not aware of those specific 
figures. It is very rare that I feel that if Congress goes along with 
something it is really part of an ugly situation. I feel that way here. 
I feel that we have enough information now to take a stand with the 
Interior Department, with the consumers, and with over 70 groups that 
stand with us against the Hutchison amendment.
  I hope my friend will listen to some of these groups because my 
colleague, my friend from Texas, listed groups that were with her. I 
think it is important that we compare these groups, who they stand for, 
and who they speak for. They are with us on our side trying to stop 
this oil company rip off, stop the Hutchison amendment: American 
Association of Educational Services Agencies, American Association of 
School Administrators, the American Lands Alliance, the Americans Ocean 
Campaign, the Better Government Association, Common Cause, Consumer 
Project on Technology, Council of State School Officers, Friends of 
Earth, Funds for Constitutional Government, Government Accountability 
Project, Green Peace, the Mineral Policy Standard, National 
Environmental Trust, National Parks and Conservation Association, the 
National Rural Education Association, the National Resources Defense 
Fund, the Navajo Nation, Ozone Action, Public Citizens, Congress Watch, 
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Safe Energy 
Communication Council, the Surface Employees International Union, and 
the Taxpayers for Common Sense.

  They are with us on this.
  The United Electrical-Radio Machine Workers of America.
  These are just some of the groups that are opposed to the Hutchison 
amendment, for one basic reason: They believe the big oil companies, 
the 5 percent of them, are cheating the taxpayers.
  These are all public interest groups.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I finally ask the Senator to make the comparison 
between the list that she just read. By and large these are very 
important groups that represent the average people of this country. 
There is no way four of them could get together and give $2.9 million 
as these four corporations I just described did. Obviously these four 
corporations want this rider to be a part of the Interior 
appropriations bill. It is the powerful political donors. They may well 
get their way despite the credibility of groups and interests that the 
Senator just indicated.
  I, again, very much thank the Senator from California for her 
leadership on this.
  I rise today to share my concern about the number and content of 
legislative riders to address environmental matters contained in the FY 
2000 Interior Appropriations Bill. I hope that all provisions which 
adversely effect the implementation of environmental law, or change 
federal environmental policy, will be removed from this legislation 
when it returns to the floor.
  I believe that the Senate should not include provisions in spending 
bills that weaken environmental laws or prevent potentially 
environmentally beneficial regulations from being promulgated by the 
federal agencies that enforce federal environmental law.
  I want to note, before I describe my concerns in detail, that this is 
not the first time that I have expressed concerns regarding legislative 
riders in appropriations legislation that would have a negative impact 
on our nation's environment.
  For more than two decades, we have seen a remarkable bipartisan 
consensus to protect the environment through effective environmental 
legislation and regulation. I believe we have a responsibility to the 
American people to protect the quality of our public lands and 
resources. That responsibility requires the Senate to express its 
strong distaste for legislative efforts to include proposals in 
spending bills that weaken environmental laws or prevent potentially 
beneficial environmental regulations from being promulgated or enforced 
by the federal agencies that carry out federal law.
  The people of Wisconsin have caught on to what's happening here. They 
continue to express their grave concern that, when riders are placed in 
spending bills, major decisions regarding environmental protection are 
being made without the benefit of an up or down vote.
  Wisconsinites have a very strong belief that Congress has a 
responsibility to discuss and publicly debate matters effecting the 
environment. We should be on record with regard to our position on this 
matter of open government and environmental stewardship.
  I have particular concerns regarding several riders contained in this 
bill. I will site three examples of provisions of concern to me. I am 
concerned that we failed to strip the rider on the mining millsite 
issue. This is the second rider of this type we have considered. In 
Section 3006 of Public Law 106-31, the 1999 Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act, Congress exempted the Crown Jewel project in 
Washington State from the Solicitor's Opinion. This rider, in contrast 
to the previous rider, applies to all mines on public lands.
  I am also concerned that we have chosen to again include a grazing 
policy rider as well. It requires the Bureau of Land Management to 
renew expiring grazing permits under the same terms and conditions 
contained in the old permit. This automatic renewal will remain in 
effect until such time as the Bureau complies with ``all applicable 
laws.'' There is no schedule imposed on the Agency, therefore necessary 
environmental improvements to the grazing program could be postponed 
indefinitely. This rider affects millions of acres of public rangelands 
that support endangered species, wildlife, recreation, and cultural 
resources. The rider's impact goes far beyond the language contained in 
the FY 1999 appropriations bill, in which Congress allowed a short-term 
extension of grazing permits which expired during the current fiscal 
year. As written, this section undercuts the application of 
environmental law, derails administrative appeals, and hampers 
application of the conservation-oriented grazing Guidelines.

  I also want to voice my opposition to the amendment that would allow 
oil companies to continue to underpay the U.S. government in royalties 
for drilling on public lands. I understand that this rider was modified 
by the manager's amendment, but as originally drafted the rider blocks 
the implementation of new Interior Department rules to stop these 
underpayments, just as their implementation was blocked in the last 
Congress.
  This is a huge windfall for the oil companies--and as it is with so 
many special interest provisions that find their way into our 
legislation, to the wealthy donors go the spoils, while the taxpayers 
get the shaft. The Interior Department estimates that these 
underpayments by the oil companies cost the taxpayers up to $66 million 
a year. And the oil companies that enjoy this cut-rate drilling are not 
small independent producers. On the contrary, the oil companies that 
benefit are among the largest in the world. Names like Exxon, Chevron, 
BP Amoco and Atlantic Richfield.
  I'd like to take a moment to Call the Bankroll on these companies, 
something I do from time to time in this chamber to remind my 
colleagues and the public about the role money plays in our legislative 
debates and decisions here in this chamber.
  During the 1997-1998 election cycle, oil companies gave the following 
in political donations to the parties and to federal candidates:

[[Page S10568]]

  Exxon gave more than $230,000 in soft money and more than $480,000 in 
PAC money;
  Chevron gave more than $425,000 in soft money and more than $330,000 
in PAC money;
  Atlantic Richfield gave more than $525,000 in soft money and $150,000 
in PAC money;
  BP Oil and Amoco, two oil companies which have merged into the newly 
formed petroleum giant BP Amoco, gave a combined total of more than 
$480,000 in soft money and nearly 295,000 in PAC money.
  That's more than $2.9 million just from those four corporations in 
the span of only two years, Mr. President. They want this rider to be 
part of the Interior Appropriations bill, and as powerful political 
donors they are likely to get their way.
  I'd like to discuss one final rider, which undoubtedly deserves its 
own Calling of the Bankroll. Though I understand that this rider has 
now been modified by the substitute amendment, the underlying bill 
initially prohibited the use of funds to study, develop, or implement 
procedures or policies to establish energy efficiency, energy use, or 
energy acquisition rules. Unchanged, this language would have blocked 
federal programs which cut federal agencies' energy expenditures, save 
taxpayer funds, and contribute to reductions in pollution.
  In conclusion, I think that delay of mining law enforcement is 
indefensible, as are the other changes we are making in environmental 
policy without full and fair debate. I hope my colleagues will join me 
in demanding that this bill be cleaned up in Conference.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend and commend my friend from Illinois. I 
think their questions and their caring are very important to this 
debate. We have to take a stand on the floor of the Senate once in a 
while for average people--people who are faceless in this institution. 
They think it is dominated by the special interests. My friend from 
Wisconsin who works so hard every day to get the special interest money 
out of this Senate has made a very important point--that the very 
companies that are going to benefit from the Hutchison amendment have 
given huge contributions to Federal candidates and to Federal 
committees.
  If you put that together, as my friend points out, with the retired 
ARCO employee testimony under oath that he lied 5 years ago--he 
admitted he was not truthful when he testified in the deposition that 
ARCO-posted prices represented fair market value. He goes on to 
honestly say he was afraid he would lose his retirement. He was afraid 
he would be fired. You put together the contributions from big oil with 
the testimony of this former ARCO employee, who sat in the room when 
the decision was made to stop taxpayers from getting their fair share--
when you put that together with the recent settlements by many States 
with the oil companies, the oil companies saying to the States: Take 
your lawsuit out of here. We will pay you billions of dollars to go 
away. We will not go to court to try to make the case that oil royalty 
payments are fair. You put all of that together, and it adds up to a 
bad situation.
  I would be so proud of this Senate if we stood together on behalf of 
the people and on behalf of the consumers against the bad actors in the 
oil industry, who according to this employee, said we will put off 
judgment day. We will go take our chances.

       The senior executives of ARCO had the judgment that they 
     would take the money, accrue for the day judgment, and that's 
     what we did.

  That is what he said.
  He said this:

       I would not have been there in any capacity had I continued 
     to exercise the right they had given me to dissent to the 
     process during the suggestions stage.

  I know colleagues are here on other matters. I just felt it was very 
important to lay out the case against the Hutchison amendment. I will 
lay it out again and again and again if I have to. I hope I don't have 
to. I really could. I hope we can vote against cloture and hopefully 
rid this bill of this special interest rider that helps the 5 percent 
of the oil companies that are bad actors.
  The 95 percent who are paying their fair share are doing fine; they 
will not be impacted by the Interior Department. It is just that 5 
percent.
  This is an important debate. It is not a baseless debate. It is 
debate on behalf of the hard-working taxpayers. It is a debate on 
behalf of everyone who pays rent or a mortgage payment every month. 
Imagine one day waking up and saying to the bank: Guess what. I don't 
like my mortgage payment. I'm paying less because it is no longer the 
fair market value as the day I signed up.
  I think the bank would say: Renegotiating the interest rate is fine; 
but if you don't pay your fair share, we are taking you to court and we 
will repossess your house.
  We cannot allow the top 5 percent of oil companies to act in an 
irresponsible fashion. I hope my colleagues will join with me, Senator 
Durbin, Senator Feingold, Senator Wellstone, Senator Murray, and many 
other Senators who feel very strongly about this and vote down the 
Hutchison amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent the pertinent letters be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                    Washington, DC, June 24, 1999.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The purpose of this letter is to provide 
     the Administration's views on the Interior and Related 
     Agencies Appropriation Bill, FY 2000, as reported by the 
     Senate Subcommittee. As the Committee develops its version of 
     the bill, your consideration of the Administration's views 
     would be appreciated. These views are necessarily preliminary 
     because they are based on incomplete information, since the 
     Administration has not had the opportunity to review the 
     draft bill and report language.
       The allocation of discretionary resources available to the 
     Senate under the Congressional Budget Resolution is simply 
     inadequate to make the necessary investments that our 
     citizens need and expect. The President's FY 2000 Budget 
     proposes levels of discretionary spending that meet such 
     needs while conforming to the Bipartisan Budget Agreement by 
     making savings proposals in mandatory and other programs 
     available to help finance this spending. Congress has 
     approved, and the President has signed into law, nearly $29 
     billion of such offsets in appropriations legislation since 
     1995. The Administration urges the Congress to consider such 
     proposals as the FY 2000 appropriations process moves 
     forward. In addition, we urge the Committee to reduce 
     unrequested funding for programs and projects in this bill.
       The Administration appreciates efforts by the Committee to 
     accommodate certain of the President's priorities within the 
     302(b) allocations. However, it is our understanding that the 
     Committee bill makes major reductions to critical requests 
     for the President's Lands Legacy Initiative and for key 
     tribal programs. We also understand that the bill may include 
     a number of environmental provisions that would be 
     objectionable to the Administration--and would likely not be 
     approved by Congress, if considered on their own. We strongly 
     urge the Committee to keep the bill free of extraneous 
     provisions and to address the following issues:
       Lands Legacy Initiative/Land and Water Conservation Fund 
     (LWCF). The Administration strongly opposes the 
     Subcommittee's decision not to fund major portions of the 
     President's Lands Legacy Initiative. Overall, only $265 
     million (33 percent) of the $797 million requested in this 
     bill for the Initiative would be funded. The bill would 
     provide no funding for State conservation grants and planning 
     assistance, and only a portion (11 percent) of the requested 
     increase for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation 
     Fund. It would also make significant cuts in State and 
     Private Forestry grants. Federal land acquisition funding 
     would be cut by more than half from the Lands Legacy request, 
     from $413 million to $198 million. It would be short-sighted 
     to gut this important environmental initiative, given the 
     growing bipartisan recognition of the need for the federal 
     government, the states and the private sector to protect open 
     spaces and preserve America's great places.
       Land Management Operations. The Administration commends the 
     action of the Subcommittee to address the operational and 
     maintenance needs of land management agencies in Interior and 
     USDA. The Administration is concerned, however, with cuts in 
     key conservation programs. For example, the bill would reduce 
     requests for the Fish and Wildlife Service's endangered 
     species program by $13 million (12 percent) and the Forest 
     Service forest research program by $48 million (25 percent). 
     Increased funding for key programs within the Forest Service 
     operating program, such as wildlife and fisheries habitat and 
     rangeland management, could be offset with reductions in 
     unrequested and excessive funding for timber sale preparation 
     and management.
       Environmental and Other Objectionable Riders. The 
     Administration strongly objects to objectionable 
     environmental and other riders. Such riders rarely receive 
     the level of congressional and public review required of

[[Page S10569]]

     authorization language, and they often override existing 
     environmental and natural resource protections, tribal 
     sovereignty, or impose unjustified micro-management 
     restrictions on agency activities. We urge the Committee to 
     oppose such provisions. For example, the Administration would 
     strongly oppose an amendment that may be offered that would 
     prohibit implementation of the oil valuation rule. Such a 
     prohibition would cost the American taxpayer about $60 
     million in FY2000.
       Millennium Initiative to Save America's Treasures. The 
     Administration strongly objects to the lack of funding for 
     this $30 million Presidential initiative to commemorate the 
     Millennium by preserving the Nation's historic sites and 
     cultural artifacts that are America's treasures.
       National Endowment for the Arts/National Endowment for the 
     Humanities. The Administration strongly objects to the 
     proposed funding levels for the National Endowment for the 
     Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities. The 
     Subcommittee's proposed $51 million (34 percent) reduction 
     from the request would preclude NEA from moving forward with 
     its Challenge America initiative which emphasizes arts 
     education and access to under-served communities across 
     America. The $38 million (25 percent) reduction from the 
     request would preclude NEH from expanding its summer seminar 
     series to provide professional development opportunities to 
     our nation's teachers as well as broadening the outreach of 
     its humanities programs. The Administration urges the 
     Committee to approve funding for the Endowments at the 
     requested levels.

                           *   *   *   *   *

                                  ____



                                The Secretary of the Interior,

                                    Washington, DC, June 30, 1999.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to express my grave concern over 
     the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for FY 
     2000 reported by the Committee on Appropriations Bill for FY 
     2000 reported by the Committee on Appropriations. If the bill 
     were presented to the President as it was reported from the 
     Committee, I would recommend that the President veto the 
     bill.
       The bill contains a number of objectionable legislative 
     provisions, three of which I'd like to highlight. The 
     amendment on mill sites adopted by the Committee permanently 
     extends the Mining Law's existing near-giveaway of Federal 
     lands to include as much acreage as a mining company thinks 
     it can use for mountains of mine waste and spoil. The 
     amendment further tilts the Mining Law against the interests 
     of the taxpayer and the environment, ignoring the need for 
     comprehensive reform.
       The extension of the moratorium on issuance of new rules on 
     oil valuation will delay these rules for an additional 21 
     months. Revision of the way royalties are collected is 
     urgently needed to assure the taxpayer a fair return. 
     Extension of the moratorium cuts off the dialogue on how best 
     to do this and will needlessly cost the taxpayers about $120 
     million in lost royalty payments.
       It is also my understanding that the Committee adopted an 
     amendment that could limit the implementation of the 
     President's June 3 Energy Efficiency Executive Order to 
     reduce Federal energy costs. Restricting the agencies' 
     ability to improve energy efficiency in our buildings will 
     prevent the Federal Government from saving taxpayer dollars, 
     cutting dependence on foreign oil, protecting the environment 
     through improved air quality and lower greenhouse gas 
     emissions, and expanding markets for renewable energy 
     technologies.
       Although I appreciate your efforts in re-working the 
     discretionary spending allocations in order to increase the 
     spending limits for the Interior bill in the face of the 
     limitations placed on you under the Budget Resolution, the 
     funding amount proposed by the Senate denies funding to 
     protect America's open spaces and great places for the future 
     through the President's Lands Legacy initiative, as well as 
     critical requests for land management, trust reform, other 
     Indian programs, and science.
       Overall, the reductions to the budget request seriously 
     impair the Department's ability to be a responsible steward 
     of the Nation's natural and cultural resources and to uphold 
     our trust responsibilities to Indians. The 2000 budget sets a 
     course for the new millennium providing resources that are 
     needed to accommodate increasing demand and use of our public 
     lands and resources. In this decade, visits to parks, refuges 
     and public lands have increased up to 31 percent; the number 
     of students in BIA schools has increased 33 percent; and the 
     BIA service population is up by 26 percent.
       In this regard, the Committee proposal does not provide 
     sufficient increases to fully operate our National Parks, 
     restore healthy public lands, rebuild wildlife and fisheries 
     resources, clean up streams in support of the Clean Water 
     Action Plan through Abandoned Mine Land grants, or improve 
     the safety of schools and communities for Indians. At the 
     funding level provided, we will be unable to meet the needs 
     expressed by Congress for better stewardship of public lands 
     and facilities, resolution of the Indian trust issue, and 
     improved schools and quality of life in Indian Country. 
     Further, the Committee eliminated funding for the Save 
     America's Treasures program that preserves priority historic 
     preservation projects of national scope and significance.
       I urge you to reconsider the contents of the Interior bill 
     and work with the Administration and me towards a more 
     balanced approach. I look forward to working with you to 
     address these concerns.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bruce Babbit.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I believe the matter before the Senate now 
is the amendment of Senator Robb, and I ask consent of the Senator from 
California that her presentation, including all of her questions and 
answers, be included in the Congressional Record immediately after the 
speeches of Senators Hutchison and Domenici so that the debate on that 
subject be continuous, and that other speeches during the course of the 
evening be consolidated in the Record on the Hutchison amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend for his excellent idea. We should keep 
this debate seamless.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Second, I have a unanimous consent agreement under which 
there will be two votes on the Bond amendment and a vote on the Robb 
amendment tomorrow morning that apparently have been cleared.
  Before I present that, I say we will be in session long enough this 
evening for anyone who wishes to do so to speak on the Bond amendment. 
I believe the Senator from Illinois wishes to speak. The Senator from 
Missouri (Mr. Bond) may return for that subject. Senator Hutchison 
wishes to speak again on her amendment. There may be other speeches on 
that. There are three or four people here to speak on the Robb 
amendment. I want all of the speeches on each of these subjects to be 
consolidated into one point in the Record.
  This unanimous consent agreement is not going to limit anyone's right 
to talk on any of these subjects this evening as long as they wish.
  Mrs. BOXER. If the Senator will yield for a question, what is my 
friend's plan of action on the Hutchison amendment?
  Mr. GORTON. I believe a cloture motion on the Hutchison amendment 
will be filed tomorrow to ripen sometime early next week. There will be 
lots of time for a discussion of that amendment before any vote on 
cloture takes place.
  I hope during most of tomorrow, however, we will deal with other 
amendments that can be completed and dispensed with. By the time we get 
to a vote on the cloture, we are pretty close to the end of debate on 
this bill. I don't know if that is true or not. We will have dealt 
today in whole or in part with 4 of the 66 amendments that are reserved 
for the Interior appropriations bill. I trust some will go faster than 
many of those today.
  I will state the unanimous consent agreement. Then I intend to speak 
briefly on the Robb amendment. I believe the Presiding Officer and 
Senator Craig will also speak on that.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the 
vote scheduled at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, notwithstanding rule XXII, the 
Senate resume consideration of the Interior appropriations bill and 
there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the 
Bond amendment No. 1621; following that vote, there will be 2 minutes 
equally divided on the pending Robb amendment No. 1583. I ask unanimous 
consent no amendments be in order prior to these votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. In light of this agreement, I am able to announce for the 
majority leader that there will be no further votes today but that 
there will be three votes at 9:30 tomorrow morning and immediately 
thereafter.
  I will speak to the Robb amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from Washington be kind enough to yield 
for a unanimous consent request so we can make a record of the sequence 
of speakers?
  I have been here for a while but other Senators have, too. I want to 
speak to the Bond amendment and I certainly yield to the chair of the 
subcommittee for his comments on the Robb amendment.
  Is it appropriate to ask unanimous consent that after the Senator 
from

[[Page S10570]]

Washington completes his remarks, I be given no more than 10 minutes to 
respond to the Robb amendment?
  Mr. GORTON. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1583

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, with respect to the Robb amendment which 
would strike section 329 of the bill before the Senate, perhaps the 
best way to begin my remarks on it is to read that relatively short 
section.
  It reads as follows:

       For fiscal year 2000, the Secretary of Agriculture with 
     respect to lands within the National Forest Service and the 
     Secretary of the Interior with respect to lands under the 
     jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, shall use the 
     best available scientific and commercial data in amending or 
     revising resource management plans for offering sales, 
     issuing leases, or otherwise authorizing or undertaking 
     management activities on lands under their respective 
     jurisdictions provided that the Secretaries may at their 
     discretion determine whether any information concerning 
     wildlife resources shall be collected prior to approving any 
     such plan, sale, lease, or other activity and, if so, the 
     type of collection procedures for such information.

  It seems to me there are fundamentally three subjects involved in 
section 329. The first is, of course, that it applies only to fiscal 
year 2000, the year covered by this appropriations bill. The second 
subject is that the two Secretaries managing these national lands shall 
use the best available scientific and commercial data in dealing with 
the plans they have for those lands. I can't imagine that there is any 
objection on the part of the proponents of this current amendment to 
that language. The third subject says that the Secretaries may, at 
their discretion, determine whether any additional information 
concerning wildlife resources shall be collected prior to approving 
these plans.
  In other words, section 329 doesn't require these Secretaries to do 
anything. It simply grants them the discretion to act in a reasonable 
fashion.
  A number of court decisions, pursuant both to the National Forest 
Management Act and perhaps even more significantly to forest plans 
already prepared by this Clinton administration and under the 
supervision of these Secretaries, have stated essentially that before 
any contract is entered with a private organization for the harvest of 
timber in national forests or on Bureau of Land Management lands, an 
extraordinarily expensive wildlife census must be taken, a census at 
least as detailed as the census of the people of the United States to 
be taken next year--on reflection, a census much more elaborate than 
the census of the people of the United States next year, as we are 
going to be asked to spend about $4 billion to count every person in 
the United States.
  The cost of carrying out the activities required by our courts on our 
national forests, if we go forward, would be somewhere between $5 
billion and perhaps $9 billion. These are matters that deal simply with 
endangered species. We already have injunctions and orders for the 
Federal Government with respect to protecting endangered species and 
not allowing them to be harmed by any of these commercial 
activities. These are, in effect, censuses of everything that exists in 
the forest, vertebrate and invertebrate, plant and animal species -- 
the entire works. There are, of course, other decisions on the other 
side of this issue. Section 329 attempts to deal reasonably with these 
requirements.

  The very groups that brought these actions, various environmental 
groups, have made two arguments over the course of the last 10 or 12 
years that perhaps predominate over the balance of their arguments. The 
first is that we should stop engaging in timber sales in which the 
Federal Government--either the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land 
Management--lose money; that below-cost timber sales are not a wise 
investment of the resources of the United States of America. At the 
same time, of course, they advocate positions, and have succeeded in 
front of some courts with those positions, the net result of which will 
be that there can never be a timber sale that is not below cost. The 
cost of any one of these surveys on any public lands will exceed the 
value of the timber located on the land. That, of course, in turn, is 
in pursuit of the second goal of many of these environmental 
organizations, specifically including the Sierra Club, and that goal is 
that there should be no harvest, no harvest under any circumstances, on 
any of our public lands of any of our timber resources. That is a 
formal position of many of the environmental organizations including 
those that have been plaintiffs in this litigation.
  The net result of these decisions is the success of that latter 
policy. The United States of America is not going to spend $9 billion, 
or $5 billion, engaging in these particular surveys. It is not a 
provident expenditure of our money. There is no money in this 
appropriations bill for such elaborate courses of action under any set 
of circumstances.
  As a former head of the Forest Service under President Clinton, Jack 
Ward Thomas said: This whole idea is designed to make this survey and 
management system unworkable. Scientists are not looking for these 
creatures in the first place. The Clinton forest plan, which has 
reduced by about 80 percent harvests on the public lands--in the 
Pacific Northwest, in any event, it already set aside 84 percent of our 
national forests essentially as wildlife refuges. The other 16 percent 
has been considered by this administration for a harvest in the Pacific 
Northwest of about 1 billion board feet a year. This was the 
President's forest plan, his promise in his campaign in 1992 to the 
people of the Northwest, somewhere between one-fifth and one-sixth of 
what was the historic harvest.
  The President has not been able to keep that promise, even using his 
administration's present forest policies. He has not reached that 
particular goal. The harvest under these decisions will be zero because 
the cost of preparing the sales will simply be too great.
  This is not a policy--the policy of the present enjoined forms of 
wildlife surveys--that comes from an administration that has been hell-
bent for leather to harvest trees in the forests either in the Pacific 
Northwest or in the Southeast, the location of the 11th Circuit, by any 
stretch of the imagination. Nor is this discretion being given to 
officials in the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the 
Interior who are bound and determined to cut the last tree. This, I 
want to repeat, is a 1-year provision--that is to say it will apply 
only through most of the rest of the Clinton administration--granting 
discretion to the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Babbitt, and the 
Secretary of Agriculture, to use their present relatively reasonable 
systems of determining whether or not some small portions of the 16 
percent of the national forests not set aside for wildlife purposes can 
be the subject of timber harvesting contracts. It does not require the 
administration to follow exactly the procedures it has been following 
with the Northwest forest plan and its plans for other forests at all. 
It simply says if in their discretion they think they have done enough, 
they can go ahead and meet their own very modest goals of at least 
providing a modest harvest of our timber in our national forests. That 
is all. It is neither more nor less than that. It is not a mandate. It 
is authority to very green, very pro-environmentalist Departments of 
Agriculture and Interior to engage in activities of this nature.

  It is very clear the goal of these lawsuits and the goal of the 
organizations that have brought these lawsuits is not to get these 
surveys done. The goal is to see to it that the cost of entering into 
preparing for any contract for the harvest of timber is so high that 
none of them will be worth doing. But the effects of those lawsuits, 
and therefore the effects of this amendment, do not apply only to 
timber harvesting contracts by any stretch of the imagination. They 
will apply to any new or different use of any portion of our national 
forests and of our BLM lands. They will apply equally to the building 
of campsites or the improvement of campsites or other recreational uses 
of the forest system itself. As a consequence, the effect of these 
present lawsuits is to make de facto wilderness areas out of all of our 
national forest areas and to prohibit any improvement for human 
recreation, other than that allowed of wilderness areas itself, as well 
as of any timber harvest. It is an extraordinary set of policies that 
are essentially advocated by the Robb

[[Page S10571]]

amendment, a set of policies based on the proposition from some 
national environmental organizations that there should be no productive 
use, no economically productive use, of our national forest system 
whatsoever.
  The section 329, which really should not have been contested at all, 
is simply to grant this Clinton administration, for 1 year, the right 
to go ahead with the extremely environmentally sensitive forest plans 
that it has structured during the course of the last 6 years, not only 
in the Northwest part of the United States but in the Southeast part of 
the United States and Texas and in every other place, either BLM lands 
or Forest Service lands, and allows them to go ahead. If the President 
does not want them to go ahead, if the policies are those advocated by 
these organizations in these lawsuits, nothing in this section 329 
prohibits them from adopting those policies. But what it does require 
is that it will require the President to say: Whatever I told the 
people of the Northwest, whatever I told the people of other parts of 
the country about a balance, about the proposition that there were 
certainly some of our national forests that were appropriate for 
productive use, for the provision of jobs and for the provision of 
timber resources of the United States, I now have changed my mind. We 
are not going to do it at all.
  If he wants that as a policy, it is not barred by section 329. But he 
will not be able to hide behind a court decision and say he is trying 
to do something and trying to abide by a court decision that is 
impossible, that sets conditions that are impossible economically to 
meet. We are not going to spend the amount of money necessary to 
conduct these surveys. The surveys are not needed. They are not worth 
it. We either choose to deal reasonably with these issues and allow 
this President and this administration to conduct the modest harvests 
that they have thought were appropriate, or we are saying we are not 
going to have any harvest at all, and in all probability we aren't 
going to have any new recreational activities on our national forests 
as well.
  Simply stated, that is the issue: Do we trust this administration not 
to go overboard in the nature of harvesting, do we believe this 
administration to be environmentally oriented or not?
  Most of us, and I think I speak for the Presiding Officer as well as 
myself, do not think these forest plans are appropriately balanced as 
they are, but they do provide for some economically productive use of 
our forests, a productive use that is totally barred under these 
certain court decisions, whether they are correct or not correct, and 
which we allow the administration to politely and courteously either 
abide by or say no, we have a better and more balanced way of doing it.
  I think it is overwhelmingly appropriate to reject this amendment, to 
trust this administration not to go overboard in timber harvests by any 
stretch of the imagination, and to allow it to keep the promises it has 
made for a period of more than 6 years to the people of timber-
dependent communities all over the United States of America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 10 
minutes.


                           Amendment No. 1621

  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair for recognition. I misspoke earlier. I 
wish to speak to the Bond amendment, not the Robb amendment.
  The Bond amendment is another one of these legislative riders on 
spending bills. It is an attempt to change environmental policy with an 
amendment to the appropriations bill for the Department of the 
Interior. The reason it is being done this way, of course, is it avoids 
any committee hearing, any opportunity for any witnesses or public 
input.
  There are seven, eight, or nine different environmental riders that 
have been attached to this spending bill. The administration has 
indicated that unless they are removed, there is a strong likelihood 
that an otherwise good bill will be vetoed by the President because 
riders, such as the one I am about to address, go way too far.
  One might wonder why I am addressing the issue of a national forest 
in Missouri since I represent the State of Illinois. I am from 
downstate Illinois. I was born in East St. Louis, and the Ozarks are an 
important recreational area for everyone who lives in the region. It is 
not only a regional treasure but a national treasure which has been 
recognized by a designation as a national forest.
  Last year, the attorney general of Missouri, Jay Nixon, joined 
environmental groups in petitioning the Secretary of the Interior 
asking him under his authority, under the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act, to remove from access to mining 400,000 acres in the 
Mark Twain National Forest.
  Those of us who live in that region know this is an especially 
popular area of the Ozarks. The watersheds of the Current, Jacks Fork, 
and Eleven Point Rivers are in this region. Many of my friends and 
family go to the Ozarks for canoeing. They love it because of its 
pristine beauty, and they believe the attorney general, Jay Nixon, was 
correct when he petitioned the Secretary of the Interior to preserve 
this area and to stop it from being used for lead mining.
  This is Federal public land that a private company, a lead mining 
company, wants to come in and mine for profit. The Interior Department 
has the authority to say no, it is important environmentally and we 
should not allow this kind of commercial use. That is what they would 
do were it not for the amendment being offered by the Senator from 
Missouri.
  The Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, wants to remove the authority of 
the Department of the Interior to protect the Mark Twain National 
Forest from lead mining. Is this a popular concept? It probably is with 
some companies. Not only the attorney general of Missouri but the 
Governor of Missouri has written protesting this action being taken by 
this Bond amendment.
  Governor Mel Carnahan from Jefferson City, MO, has written and said:

       I believe you will agree the watersheds of the Current, 
     Jacks Fork and Eleven Point rivers are among the most 
     beautiful and pristine areas of Missouri. These crystal clear 
     streams are great recreational assets which should be 
     protected for future generations to enjoy.

  He goes on to say:

       The environmental risk of lead mining and potential for 
     toxic contamination of these pristine waterways are well 
     understood. The Interior Secretary's authority to 
     protect sensitive public lands should be preserved.

  He says to my colleague from Missouri:

       I respectfully request you withdraw your amendment.

  But that amendment has not been withdrawn. It will be voted on 
tomorrow.
  I can say further there are groups across Missouri that oppose this 
invasion of a pristine area, a watershed of the Mark Twain National 
Forest, for the purpose of lead mining. The St. Louis Post Dispatch, 
the largest newspaper in the State, has editorialized against this and 
has said, frankly, that this is an effort to allow this company to come 
in and mine an area which is of critical importance to the people of 
Missouri.
  The Kansas City Star, an equally influential paper, has come to the 
same conclusion that the Bond amendment is a mistake, a mistake which 
threatens the watersheds of the crystal clear streams of the Current, 
Jacks Fork, and Eleven Point Rivers.
  For those who believe this lead mining operation is somehow 
antiseptic and will not leave a legacy, I say they are wrong, and the 
scientific studies have proven that. We know what is going to happen if 
we allow these companies to come in and mine lead in this beautiful 
area. We know the potential for contaminating the streams. We know the 
potential for leaving behind the waste from their mining operations.
  Some might argue that it is worth it because it creates jobs, and yet 
study after study reaches the opposite conclusion.
  This is primarily a tourist area, a recreational area recognized all 
around the Midwest. To defile it with lead mining to create a handful 
of jobs for mining purposes is to jeopardize the attraction of this 
area for literally thousands of people in the Midwest and across the 
Nation. That is why it is such a serious mistake. I daresay if this 
amendment had been offered on an ordinary bill, there would have been a 
long line of people to come in and testify, not only environmentalists 
who

[[Page S10572]]

oppose the Bond amendment, but certainly those who are in authority in 
the State of Missouri, Governor Mel Carnahan, Attorney General Jay 
Nixon, as well as many other groups of ordinary citizens who believe 
this is a national treasure that should not be defiled so one company 
can make a profit.
  On the spending bill for the Department of the Interior, this is 
another one of the environmental riders designed to benefit a private 
interest at the expense of American taxpayers who own this public land, 
at the expense of families who enjoy this recreational area, at the 
expense of people who look forward to a weekend on the Current River 
because of its beauty.
  Frankly, this is a big mistake, and I hope the Senator from Missouri 
will have second thoughts before he calls it up for a vote tomorrow 
morning. I hope he will listen carefully to the leaders in the State, 
as well as the environmental groups, who are standing up for one of the 
most precious resources in Missouri.
  I hope he will join them in saying the Mark Twain National Forest and 
the watershed of these great rivers are worth protecting, worth 
preserving, and should not be allowed to be invaded by a lead mining 
company that wants to come in and mine on Federal public lands at the 
expense of this great national resource.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the 
motion to strike Section 329 of the Interior appropriations bill. This 
section is necessary to counter an extremely adverse ruling by the 
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which has just been described by my 
colleagues, as well as a preliminary injunction recently handed down by 
Judge Dwyer in the U.S. District Court.
  The case before Judge Dwyer involves the implementation of the 
Clinton-Gore Northwest Forest Plan, which was unveiled in 1993. At the 
time, President Clinton said that it ``provides an innovative approach 
for forest management to protect the environment and to produce a 
predictable and sustainable level of timber sales.''
  The real travesty here is that the supporters of Section 329 are 
trying to fulfill the commitments made by this Administration in 1993, 
and we are now doing so over the objection of the Administration.
  The Northwest Forest Plan was supposed to be the Clinton 
Administration's historic compromise between timber harvesting and the 
environment. For National Forests covered by the Plan, timber harvests 
were reduced by 80 percent. Apparently, that wasn't enough for those 
who want no timber harvests, because they are again challenging 
implementation of the Plan in Court.
  While Judge Dwyer issued a preliminary injunction against the sales 
directly challenged in the case, the effect of his August 2, 1999, 
ruling is much broader.
  The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management have made a 
decision not to award any previously-auctioned sales until the lawsuit 
is resolved. Further, the agencies do not plan to offer any additional 
sales until their supplemental EIS on survey and manage is completed 
and approved.
  While the Forest Service claims this will be completed by February of 
2000, history tells us that this EIS will be appealed and litigated. In 
fact, the Forest Service hasn't produced a region-wide EIS for the 
Northwest for 10 years that hasn't been litigated.
  The current or planned sales affected by Judge Dwyer's ruling contain 
about 500 million board feet of timber. Since there will be no future 
sales until the EIS is completed, the total volume affected could be 3 
times that high.
  Further, because many of these sales have already been awarded, if 
they are enjoined and operations are delayed, or if the government is 
forced to cancel these sales, the government will be potentially liable 
for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.
  Because so little volume has been sold to date, and is therefore 
available to purchasers, the injunction of this volume will lead to 
immediate mill closures, increasing the government's liability for 
damages.
  The issue in this case involves the Administration's implementation 
of one part of the Clinton-Gore Forest Plan, concerning surveys for 77 
rare species of fungi, lichens, mosses, snails, and slugs, and for a 
small mammal called the red-tree vole. Six years into the 10-year plan, 
the agencies still do not know how to conduct surveys for 32 of the 
rare species.
  None of these species is threatened or endangered. Although these 
surveys are only one piece of the Plan, the consequences of the case 
are potentially enormous.
  The real fallacy of the survey and manage requirement is that we are 
only going to survey on those lands where ground-disturbing 
activities--such as recreational improvements and timber sales--are 
planned. In the National Forests covered by the President's Plan, this 
amounts to about 12 percent of the total forest base that is still 
available for multiple use.
  This is not going to tell us about the overall health of these 
species, since we aren't going to be looking for these species in the 
remaining 88 percent of the land base.
  Unfortunately, it could also apply to needed forest restoration 
activities such as prescribed burns and reforestation on other selected 
parts of the forests, thereby delaying these activities and increasing 
their costs.
  It is unfortunate that the Clinton-Gore Administration ever included 
this provision in the Northwest Forest Plan.
  But having done so, it is a travesty that the Administration's 
failure to effectively implement the plan has resulted in another 
injunction that will further erode our timber communities.
  With respect to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, it 
requires surveys for all ground-disturbing activities.
  This means not only timber sales, but recreation improvements and 
forest management activities. Some preliminary cost estimates put the 
nationwide implementation of the Eleventh Circuit court ruling at $9 
billion. It is a Trojan horse rolled in by candidate Clinton to destroy 
an industry.
  Therefore, we should make the public policy decision that we will 
allow forest managers to use the best available commercial data in 
amending or revising resource management plans, as Section 329 
stipulates.
  This is the standard for data under the Endangered Species Act.
  The language in Section 329 does not preclude the Secretaries of the 
Interior and Agriculture from gathering additional data.
  It simply gives the Secretaries more discretion to meet land 
management objectives in a timely manner.
  Section 329 is designed to give the Clinton administration officials 
exactly the flexibility in land management that they argued for in 
court.
  I am deeply saddened that in the face of the economic crisis about to 
be visited on my constituents, the President isn't 100 percent behind 
retaining this language.
  This isn't an agonizing choice for me at all. If I have to choose 
here between surveying for red tree voles or keeping hundreds of 
Oregonians employed in family-wage jobs, I will vote for families.
  I know that there are those who don't think the language in Section 
329 is the best language possible.
  I will commit to work with my colleagues and the Administration to 
see if we can improve this language. But I will strongly oppose efforts 
to strike it.
  I urge anyone who has a National Forest in their State to support 
retention of Section 329.
  If the Eleventh Circuit Court ruling is ever applied nationwide, we 
will have tied the hands of professional land managers with an 
expensive, time-consuming and ineffective requirement.
  I believe my colleague from Virginia has the best of motives, but I 
only wish he could go with me to rural Oregon and see the human 
consequences of what he proposes.
  I began my political career in 1992 running for a rural seat in the 
Oregon State Senate. It was the same election year that now-President 
Bill Clinton sought the Presidency. I watched as an opponent of his 
campaign with admiration for the skill with which he came to my State 
and reached out to those in the rural communities and made some very 
dramatic promises, some promises which he said would protect

[[Page S10573]]

the environment and ensure a sustainable harvest of timber.
  He carried my State. He carried your State, Mr. President, with these 
same promises because a lot of people wanted to believe in him.
  I have noted with great interest that recently the President --and I 
applaud him for this--has gone to rural Appalachia. I don't know 
whether he went to parts of the State of the Senator from Virginia. I 
know he went to West Virginia, and he decried poverty levels that are 
lamentable and awful. But there are parts of my State as a result of 
his forest policies which are in worse shape than those he visited in 
Appalachia.
  I rise today with a lot of emotion in my heart because I think the 
truth has not been told and promises have not been carried out.
  I have recently come from a town hall meeting in Roseburg, OR, where 
people are finally looking at oblivion because their jobs are directly 
dependent upon the sales that have now been enjoined by Judge Dwyer in 
the district court of the Ninth Circuit.
  I hope I can reach the heart of every one of my colleagues because 
this stuff matters in human terms. I wish they would have a more honest 
approach and say: We don't want any more harvest of timber; let's shut 
it all down. At least that would be honest. This isn't.
  I wish they could see the kids in John Day, OR, who go to school 4 
days a week because they can't afford to open the school for 5. I want 
my colleagues to understand what they are voting for. If you distill 
this down, this is about pitting a survey of fungus, snails, and slugs 
against children and families who need streets and schools.
  Now, lest you think the last pine tree in Oregon is about to go down, 
I am sorry to disabuse you. You can't stop timber from growing in my 
State. We went to the CRP area not far from where I live. There are 
wheat fields that formerly were in wheat that were left to go to 
nature, and there are Ponderosa trees going up everywhere. They are 12 
feet high now.
  I know what the New York Times says. I know what the Washington Post 
says. But like some of my colleagues, they have never been to my State. 
They have never looked into the eyes of the schoolchildren who, 
frankly, don't have an adequate education because the Federal 
Government made promises to them and their county officials and their 
school officials that are being denied to them in a very dishonest and 
disingenuous way.

  I am angry. It is not right. It is not right to go win an election 
and then supposedly put up a program that is to provide for the 
environment, to provide a sustainable yield, and then through 
subterfuge make sure it doesn't happen, when you have a year to go in 
your term, when you are decrying poverty elsewhere in this country, but 
you are creating it in my backyard.
  I don't think the Senator from Virginia would offer this motion to 
strike if he could go with me to Roseburg, OR. It has been a long time, 
has been a lot of heartache, a lot of pain, but it is getting old. It 
is almost over. Here you and I are defending the President's plan, 
trying to help him live up to his promises. I want the American people 
to know that the Clinton-Gore forest plan, at the beginning at least, 
was honest enough to say: The traditional harvest you have had, we are 
going to cut it by 80 percent, by 80 percent. The reality is, it is not 
even 10 percent of what is delivered, and now what we are seeing is 
there is going to be nothing delivered.
  That isn't right. A sustainable yield of 20 percent is all that was 
promised, and yet even that apparently is another mirage.
  Well, I know the President wishes we didn't have to do a rider, but 
it is the only tool left because we are running out of time. Your 
proposal is for a year to allow the Federal courts to allow these sales 
to go forward. Without the Clinton-Gore forest plan, these sales would 
be fine; these meet the Endangered Species Act, but somehow in the 
creation of this plan, they have put in a survey system that isn't 
economical. It isn't going to happen. It isn't even necessary. It is a 
fraud. It is a way to undermine their own promises.
  Well, history tells us this is not going to happen now. I regret to 
tell the people of rural Oregon that the Clinton forest plan is a 
failure to them.
  Another irony. I heard my colleague from Virginia say he read a 
letter from the Forest Service about their new-found position on this 
issue. Why didn't they argue that in court? If it was an argument to be 
made a month ago, why isn't it still a good argument. They have 
reversed course. Why? Is it only about politics? I think people are 
sick of that. I think people are ready to be told the truth, and they 
thought they had been told the truth by the President, at least when it 
came to his forest plan. I regret to tell them that apparently they 
have not been.
  What is at stake? In Judge Dwyer's ruling, about 500 million board 
feet of timber. By the way, to my colleagues on the other side, if you 
think by killing the forest industry in this country you are somehow 
saving the environment, you are the best friend the Canadians and the 
New Zealanders have ever had because the U.S. demand and use of timber 
is not going down. It is going up. We have just exported those jobs. So 
we pat ourselves on the back that we somehow have taken care of our 
forests, even though it is growing at record rates and subject to 
catastrophic fire. Even though we pat ourselves on the back, we are 
pillaging our neighbors' land.
  I am simply saying, the promise of the President to have a 
sustainable harvest and a good environment are possible, but it isn't 
possible with this. We are trying to help the President make it 
possible.
  I am saying what is being asked for by the courts now, as required by 
the Clinton-Gore forest plan, is a survey for 77 rare species of fungi, 
lichens, mosses, snails, slugs, and for a small mammal called the red 
tree vole. Well, the agencies don't know how to conduct these things. 
They don't even know some of these species. The amount of land that is 
at issue is 12 percent of 100 percent of the land, so 88 percent of the 
land is not going to be surveyed, only the area where they are digging 
around. No one contends that any of these things are endangered at all. 
What is endangered is rural people, creating a new Appalachia with 
chronic poverty. We are doing it in my State while he decries it in his 
State. That isn't right, not when they have been promised something 
better.
  I conclude my remarks by pleading with my colleagues not to put in an 
artificial requirement that we will not fund, which is not necessary 
and which can be adequately provided for, by the way you described it, 
by giving to the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture the power 
to do what they already do under the Endangered Species Act, by giving 
them that power and allowing these things to go forward and keeping 
some promises. Why don't we keep some promises around here?
  I want my colleagues to know this is about a survey versus families. 
It is about snails and slugs versus streets and schools. I ask you to 
oppose the motion to strike this amendment. What is being done here is 
wrong. It has human consequences, and we in this Senate ought to be 
bigger than that.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from Montana is 
recognized.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I listened with interest to the impassioned 
plea of my friend from Oregon. Last week, we sold a lumber mill in 
Montana. Darby Lumber went down because they could not get logs. Mills 
are hauling logs in from Canada, 500 miles, and it is like my friend 
from Oregon said--we are decimating our neighbors' lands because we 
have not had the nerve to be honest with the American people.
  To give you an idea, up in the northwestern part of Montana, we are 
growing about 120 million board feet of lumber a year. The Forest 
Service makes plans to harvest about 19 million board feet. The truth 
is, America, we will be lucky if we harvest 6 million board feet.
  Opposition to section 329 flatly contradicts previous positions taken 
by the environmental community and this administration on the best 
methods for protecting wildlife. Section 329 would restore to the 
administration the authority to plan and account for wildlife 
protection by surveying habitat--a method employed for over two decades 
and that has been approved by seven Federal courts, including three 
circuit

[[Page S10574]]

courts of appeal. The recent Eleventh Circuit decision contradicted 
this consensus judicial opinion and would require the agency to provide 
protection to wildlife by counting--not once but twice--the number of 
members of each of 20 to 40 management indicator and sensitive species 
before undertaking any ground-disturbing activities in our national 
forests--be it timber harvesting, be it watershed restoration, be it 
trail building, be it maintenance, or be it for the prevention of fire. 
I guess this is one reason you can't run a pretty good ranch or a 
pretty good farm that depends on renewable resources by a committee, 
for the difference of opinion on how we should do things. If left to 
that, we would never get in a crop. America would never have a 
substantial, sustaining supply of food.

  The emphasis the Forest Service has placed on habitat availability 
instead of counting the members of individual species is exactly the 
policy advocated by the environmental community. I wonder, at this time 
when they change the policy, what is the motive here? What is the 
motive? Is it us against them? I don't think so. I don't know of 
anybody who stands in this body to decimate the environment. But I 
wonder, of all the fires that are burning in the West today, if a 
little management on fuel buildup could not have prevented some of 
those. But somebody thought a mouse was too important that we can't 
disturb the land, and it burns.
  Virtually every environmental organization has insisted the law be 
reformed to address habitat protection and away from narrow species-by-
species focus. Indeed, the provision in the Endangered Species Act that 
the environmentalists most frequently quote in both the Senate and the 
House, and in Federal courtrooms across the country, is the first 
phrase in the statement of purpose in section 2(b):

       The purposes of this Act are to provide a means whereby 
     ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened 
     species depend may be preserved.

  Now, we can argue on philosophy, but I think we are arguing on 
politics, and what is at stake is families. Also, what is at stake is 
the forest itself. I invite the Senator from Virginia to go with me 
this weekend. I will take him up in the Yak, where we have infestation 
of the pine beetle, dying trees, and a forest that would just shock 
him. It would absolutely shock him to his shoes. He would be 
devastated, looking at that forest. Yet the environmental community has 
made up its mind that we are not going to harvest; we are going to let 
it burn. I don't think that is why the Senator from Virginia wore the 
uniform as long as he did, to protect that kind of mismanagement of the 
country he so loves, or even the people he so loves.
  The administration has been even more adamant in insisting on a 
habitat approach to wildlife protection. That is what they told us when 
they first came to office. It has championed two land management 
concepts--ecosystem management and biological diversity protection--
that rely entirely on methodologies which concentrate on habitat rather 
than individual species. Certainly, ecosystem management is a fancy way 
of saying habitat management. I don't have very many of those fancy 
words; I have to write them down.
  But it is funny what you can see from horseback. Sometimes you can 
see over tall mountains and tall buildings and over very high-minded 
ideas that don't work. They have never worked; they never will work. 
So, too, when biological diversity is considered, conservation 
biologists insist on treating habitat as the source of wildlife and 
plant diversity and resist focusing on individual species. They have 
always done that.
  We have embraced that philosophy and that approach. That means we can 
do something about managing our land in the highest standard of 
environmental protection and still harvest the crop with which the God 
above has so blessed this country.
  Finally, the capstone of this administration's wildlife policy is the 
habitat conservation planning and incidental take, permitting it is 
conducting with private landowners helping them provide habitat for 
endangered species.
  How can a man stand here and even talk about endangered species when 
you have only one crop that you get paid once a year for and you see 
wolves killing right out of your own pasture not 300 feet away from 
where you live? And there is not a thing you can do about it.
  Does anyone want to go out and face that man and tell him and his 
family, well, we have some folks that like to hear that yipping and 
howling? After they get done with their kill, they will go across the 
creek, which is only about 400 yards, and they will lay there and they 
will rest until they get hungry again. That is almost unbelievable to 
me.
  That is what we are talking about here. We are talking about 
something that doesn't work. We are talking about people who are very 
smart and very intelligent but have little or no wisdom--higher than 
thee, elitist--who prevent men and women who were born of the soil, 
born of the land, worked the land, and will die and go back to the 
land. I guess one could say we are all just circling the brink because 
that is where we are going to go. Maybe you never know how that is 
going to turn out.
  Despite the solid momentum away from attention to single species and 
toward consideration of habitats, we now see the very advocates of this 
approach criticizing it in their attacks on section 329. I wonder how 
they will feel when they are successful in stripping 329 from the bill 
only to discover that the U.S. Forest Service--one of the first 
agencies to adopt a habitat approach to wildlife protection--must now 
abandon it to follow the expensive--in fact, it is too expensive. We 
know that the money will never be appropriated. So it will not be done. 
It is an outdated process of counting individual members of one species 
after another, like I said, not once but twice. I am just asking that 
we have an attack of common sense--just common sense, everyday common 
sense that the rest of America uses every day just to subsist.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor to visit with my 
colleague from Virginia who has offered an amendment to strike section 
329 of the Interior appropriations bill. I am pleased that he is on the 
floor. I am extremely pleased that he listened with great attention to 
the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from Montana, and that he will 
listen to this Senator from Idaho whose State is 63 percent owned by 
the Federal Government and whose policy as to how those lands are 
managed is determined on the floor of the Senate by this Senator, the 
Senator from Virginia, and others.
  I listened to the Senator this afternoon as he offered his amendment 
to strike section 329. I must tell you that I listened with a degree of 
frustration, certainly in no disrespect to the Senator, but to what I 
sensed was a lack of understanding of what has brought us to this issue 
and why the Appropriations Committee found it necessary at this moment 
in time to speak out and to clarify public policy that the Senator from 
Virginia is trying to undo.
  The Senator from Montana, the Senator from Oregon, myself, and others 
from large public land and forest States have grown tremendously 
frustrated not by just this administration but by public policy that 
puts all of us at odds. That arguably does not provide the kind of 
environmental protection many of us would like and that would allow the 
balance between environmental protection and under that important 
umbrella the effective use or utilization of our resources like timber.
  So we had a judge in the Eleventh Circuit who probably really has 
never been West, nor does he understand the West, make a ruling on a 
ground-disturbing activity of the Forest Service on its lands and say 
that you haven't studied thoroughly enough how that activity 
contributes to the demise of a plant, a fungus, a slug, a snail, or an 
exotic animal. This judge went against decades of science, and even 
nine court decisions that had largely said the Forest Service was doing 
an adequate job in its overview of the endangered species 
responsibility under the Endangered Species Act through an 
environmental impact study.
  The Senator from Oregon was talking about the judge's decision in the 
Eleventh Circuit being picked up by the

[[Page S10575]]

judge in the Ninth Circuit, and without any real consideration, just 
arbitrarily spreading across the pages of his decision: Well, if it is 
good enough in the Eleventh Circuit, it is good enough in the Ninth.
  Ironically, in the Ninth Circuit, what the Senator from Oregon was 
talking about was the most comprehensive, above the level of science 
that has been practiced, reviewed, and mandated under the President's 
own forest plan. There was a comprehensive effort between the Forest 
Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine 
Fisheries that all aspects of the disturbance would be studied before 
these timber sales or other activities would go on.
  As a result of that, I think it is tremendously important for the 
Senator from Virginia to understand--I serve on the Appropriations 
Committee--we did not attempt to do anything extraordinary. We just 
tried to say in public policy that what the judge in the Eleventh 
Circuit had done, what the judge in the Ninth Circuit was doing, and 
what a judge in Texas has already picked up on is really outside 
science.
  A committee of scientists empowered by this Secretary of Agriculture, 
Dan Glickman, just this last year reported back to the Department of 
Agriculture and to the U.S. Forest Service that the science they were 
using that the judge in the Eleventh Circuit knocked down was the right 
science--that you use indicator species, that you didn't need to get 
out on the ground and count every plant, or animal, or microorganism.
  It was unnecessary to do this to determine the kind of impact that a 
``Ground disturbing activity'' would have on the ground. But it was 
very important for the state of the science involved to use the 
indicator species concept that had been used and upheld in nine 
different court decisions as the right approach.
  I guess what I am saying to the Senator from Virginia tonight is how 
long do we fight? How long do we see this kind of conflict that stops 
all kinds of activity before the Senator from Virginia is willing to 
stand up with the Senator from Idaho and do what is our responsibility, 
and that is crafting sound public policy that disallows the courts and 
the judges from being the public land managers of our States.
  Yet the Senator from Virginia tonight says: I want the judge to 
decide.
  But he didn't really quite say it that way, and it would be unfair. 
What he is saying is, let the process continue to go forward.
  I am extremely disappointed that the chief of the Forest Service is 
not in the gallery tonight saying to the Senator from Virginia: You 
shouldn't be doing this.
  What the Senator from Washington, Mr. Gorton, put in this legislation 
allows the Forest Service to continue to do what the courts and a team 
of scientists said is the right thing to do: That is, when you are 
doing these surveys use the appropriate science, the indicator species, 
in making the determination as to how to mitigate for a surface-
disturbing activity. However, the chief of the Forest Service isn't 
here tonight nor was he willing to stand up and speak out loudly.
  What this administration I think is saying, and I trust that it has 
to be as reasonably disturbing to the Senator from Virginia as it is to 
this Senator from Idaho, is continue to work through the court process. 
We think we can work this out.
  Ironically enough, their working it out means they have already lost 
3 lawsuits, they have already lost 3 times. They are still saying: 
Trust us, we know how to work it out.
  Even the forest plan that the President himself staked his public 
land reputation on is in the tank out in Oregon, Washington and 
northern California. Thousands of people will be out of work this 
winter because this President wouldn't stand up and ask his chief of 
the Forest Service to fight for what he originally said he thought was 
right.
  He says: Let us work through the court process.
  How long will it take? We don't know. A year, until after the next 
election? Possibly.
  What is most important for the Senator from Virginia to understand is 
that what is in 329 is not outside the law. Let me read the language:

       The Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service shall 
     use the best available science and commercial data in 
     amending and revising resource management plans for and 
     offering sales, issue leases or otherwise authorizing or 
     undertaking management activities on, land under their 
     respective jurisdiction.

  Where does the language come from? Not out of the mind of the Senator 
from Washington who is the chairman of the Interior appropriations 
subcommittee. It comes out of endangered species law. It comes out of 
the act itself. It is the operative language that drives the Endangered 
Species Act. It is not new language. It is not new law.
  Then we go on to say,

       Provided that the Secretaries may at their discretion 
     determine whether any additional information concerning 
     wildlife resources shall be collected prior to approving any 
     such plan, sales, lease or activities.

  Full discretion to the secretary, to the managing agency. Not new 
law. Empowering them to do the right thing with their scientists and 
their expertise. That is what we are doing. We are empowering Bill 
Clinton. We are empowering Mike Dombeck, the chief of the Forest 
Service. Yet they are saying, just work this out through the courts. 
What if they lose the fourth time and it is a year from now and nobody 
is in the mills and nobody is working and thousands of people are out 
of work in Oregon, Washington and northern California?
  Or should we talk for just a few moments about the activities on the 
George Washington and the Jefferson National Forests in the home State 
of the Senator from Virginia? Not much timbering in his home State, but 
there is a lot of ``people'' activity, a lot of trails, a lot of 
management and road building. Flood control in the Cascade National 
Recreation Area, a contract involved with repair and construction of 
four bridges and relocation of portions of the trail and stone 
structures and retaining walls. All of it is surface-disturbing 
activity; all of it because someone didn't like it, a lawsuit is filed, 
and a judge stops it because the Forest Service doesn't know how to do 
these kind of things.

  No, not at all. Because the Forest Service didn't examine whether 
repairing an old trail wall disturbs a lichen or a moss on the wall of 
stone that was originally put there by man himself. That doesn't make 
much sense, does it? But that is exactly what striking section 329 will 
do.
  I wish the Senator could stand up and say let's abide by science, 
let's not play this out in the courts anymore. Let's empower the chief 
of the Forest Service and the assistant secretary of agriculture and 
the President himself. I don't find myself on the floor of the United 
States very often defending this President. I don't think he has had 
good public land policy. But in one area where he really tried, now he 
himself will not even defend his effort. His chief of the Forest 
Service is trying to avoid the pressure by environmental groups who see 
this exactly the way the Senator from Oregon spoke to it this evening: 
A way to turn the forest off.
  They will not only stop logging, they will turn your forests off. 
They will attack any surface-disturbing activity, even if it is a 
trail, a trail head, or a campground that may facilitate the very 
citizens of the State of Virginia who enjoy their public lands and 
their two national forests.
  As the Senator from Virginia knows, in the mid-1970s we passed the 
National Forest Management Act. That was to direct the most 
comprehensive review of every forest in the United States. From that 
was to come a management plan and a way to execute that plan. The 
Senator from Virginia knows as do I that he and I and the taxpayers 
spent nearly a quarter of a billion dollars developing those plans. It 
was the most comprehensive land-planning exercise in the history of the 
world. We developed computer models. We looked at every aspect, every 
watershed, all of the character and the nature of this public land. It 
was right that we did so. Our forests now operate under those plans. 
Every activity was viewed through a grid that determines whether they 
are endangering a species of any kind. That is what I spoke to a few 
moments ago. However, that whole effort cost a quarter of a billion 
dollars, or near that.
  What the amendment of the Senator would do, and if the courts were to 
win--not the policy makers that we

[[Page S10576]]

were elected to be, but a judge, an appointed judge who does not know 
one thing about the forests in Oregon or Idaho because he is reviewing 
an activity in a forest in the State of Georgia, he is saying get out 
there on your hands and knees with as many scientists as you can muster 
and count and look at every little tidbit.
  The Senator from Oregon went through that litany of mosses, snails 
and critters tonight. It is estimated, just estimated, that to do that 
kind of an evaluation on an acre-by-acre basis across the landscape of 
the public forests of our country would cost 5, 8, or $9 billion 
dollars. The Senator from Virginia knows, as do I, we will not 
appropriate that money. That kind of money doesn't exist and that kind 
of money should never be spent on this kind of activity. The scientists 
who are good scientists--not judges, and not environmentalists who want 
to see the world shut down--are saying that the standards and the tests 
and the indicator species and the work that is being done today is 
thorough, adequate and responsible. Yet the amendment of the Senator 
denies that because that is the exact language that was put in this 
section of the appropriations bill.
  Why is it important we do it now? We heard from the Senator from 
Oregon. I have been to John Day and I have been to Roseburg. Those are 
mill towns. Those are little communities with millions of acres of 
public timber land around them. The people who live there make their 
livelihood from logging. It has changed some because logging has 
diminished dramatically in those areas.
  But what the action of the Senator from Virginia is doing, if he is 
successful, is it turns off those timber sales, nearly 500 million 
board feet of timber that would keep those mills operating through the 
winter and into the spring. Because no longer do we operate on a 3-year 
pipeline, they call it, where you have timber adequate in the pipeline 
for a 3-year period. That ended with the Clinton administration. Now we 
are on nearly a timber sale by timber sale basis.
  Yet, remember the reduction in timber sales that the Senator from 
Oregon talked about? We are not talking about cutting anywhere near 
previous levels. We have an 80 percent lower cut in 8 years. And even 
that which this President said was adequate, right, responsible and 
environmentally sound, a judge now arbitrarily has taken away. So that 
is why we are on the floor this evening. This is one of the most time 
sensitive amendments, directly relating to jobs and people's well-
being, that is in this legislation.
  Let me close by one other analysis. I was in one of my communities, 
Grangeville, Idaho County, Idaho, a big county right in the heart of my 
State, with 70-plus percent, 80 percent public lands. In one of those 
communities they started their school year with no hot lunch program. 
Why? Because a huge portion of their budget came from timber sales, the 
Twenty-Five Percent Fund. The Senator may be familiar with it. For 
every tree that is cut, the counties and the schools got 25 percent of 
the stumpage fee. We are not cutting trees in that area anymore, even 
though there are millions of acres of trees there. As a result, the 
school had to decide whether to have an athletic program or hot lunch 
program for the kids. They are struggling, taking donations from the 
community to have hot lunches. I don't know whether that's happening 
anywhere in Virginia, taking donations to have a hot lunch program to 
feed kids. But the Senator's amendment has an impact on that kind of 
caring event.
  I wanted to personalize this because I don't think, when the 
amendment to strike came to the floor, there was an understanding of 
the immediacy of the impact of this kind of decision. It was just some 
neat environmental vote that we would have because that is what a lot 
of the environmental community wants. This is a test vote of some kind.
  It is not a test vote on anything other than a political idea. It 
does not bear out consistently good policy because we have good policy 
in this area. We have scientists from around the world saying we do it 
better than anyplace else. Yet a judge simply said no, you don't. You 
don't do it the way I think it should be done, and therefore I want you 
to do it differently.
  That is the crux of the debate. There are all kinds of opinions 
around it. But I must say, to an administration that has three times 
lost this battle in court, for them to step up now and say, trust us, 
let's work it out, without an alternative plan, with the idea we will 
work it out and get to the point and they lose another lawsuit and we 
are 12 months down the road and the people in Roseburg or John Day are 
not back to work?
  It is not impacting my State at this moment. But here is what happens 
in my State. It is like a West Virginia-Virginia relationship. If they 
are not cutting trees in Oregon, even under the President's plan, and 
these mills are deprived of trees and people are out of work, that mill 
operator comes into Idaho looking for timber sales. He bids up the 
price well beyond where it ought to be, takes a timber sale out of 
Idaho, puts those logs on a truck and heads them west over the Cascades 
into Oregon just to keep his people working.
  So my mill in Orofino, or a place like that, is with less timber at a 
time when we are hardly cutting any timber. And we have simply pitted 
one against another. That is not good policy either. But ultimately 
that is what can happen and that is what will happen in my State, even 
though this judge's decision at this moment does not impact us.
  But failing Congress' ability to establish and clarify this policy 
issue, some group will file a lawsuit and argue on the premise of the 
judge from the eleventh and the judge from the ninth circuit, that 
those kinds of effective studies were not done on a given disturbing 
activity in my State. Then it will apply further into my State.
  Those are the issues. I hope our colleagues are listening tonight. I 
understand we will debate this tomorrow some, but we will vote on it.
  To reiterate, I oppose the amendment by Senator Robb that would 
remove Section 329 of the Interior Appropriations bill. This effort is 
misguided and I strongly urge my colleagues to understand the need for 
this Section if our national forests are going to continue to function. 
The Section simply clarifies that despite recent circuit and district 
court decisions, the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior maintain 
the discretion to implement current regulations as they have been doing 
for nearly 2 decades.
  During the past two decades, nine separate court decisions have 
backed the way the Forest Service has been conducting their surveying 
populations by inventorying habitat and analyzing existing population 
data.
  On February 18, 1999, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals 
determined that the Forest Service must conduct forest-wide wildlife 
population surveys on all proposed, endangered, threatened, sensitive, 
and management indicator species in order to prepare or revise national 
forest plans and on all ``ground disturbing activity''--not just timber 
sales. Never before has such an extensive, and frankly impossible, 
standard been set by the courts.
  Another ruling on August 2, 1999, in Federal District Court in 
Seattle, on a similar case, jeopardizes the President's Northwest 
Forest Plan, and has already begun to stop most if not all ground 
disturbing activity in the Northwest.
  These rulings result in paralysis by analysis. It would require the 
Forest Service to examine every square inch of the project area and 
count every animal and plant--even every insect--before it approved any 
activity.
  The cost to carry out such extensive studies--studies which have 
never been required before--could be approximately 9 billion dollars. 
How do we do this? Because the Forest Service does contract for 
population inventorying on occasion. A population trend survey requires 
two studies. If we extrapolate from the $8,000 cost of one plant 
inventory, we reach $38.1 million for the 864,000 acres within the 
Chattahoochee National Forest where this decision originated. If 
applied to the 188-million acre national forest system, the cost 
reaches $8.3 billion.
  We appropriate roughly $70 million for forest inventory and 
monitoring. Are we prepared to shift the $9 billion necessary for this 
new standard? If not, this recent interpretation forces the Forest 
Service to shut down until the Agency can apply the new standard.
  The purpose of Section 329 is not to change the court decisions or 
set a

[[Page S10577]]

new, lower standard. It is simply to clarify that the existing 
regulation gives the discretion to the Forest Service and the BLM when 
determining what kind of surveys are needed when management activities 
are being considered.
  Some of my colleagues would argue that this is an issue for the 
authorizing committees to deal with. I agree. This is an issue that 
absolutely should be dealt with by those committees. They need to 
determine whether the agencies have been correctly interpreting their 
regulation for the past 17 years. They need to determine whether it is 
sufficient to inventory habitat, rely on existing population, consult 
with state and federal agencies and conduct population inventories only 
for specific reasons.
  But I argue that the appropriations process should not be made to 
bear the burden while the authorizing committees study the question. 
All section 329 does is to preserve, for the next year, the status quo 
as it existed on April 8, 1999. Otherwise, our already limited 
resources will be further overwhelmed if we are required to fund this 
new standard.
  I urge you to oppose this amendment and support sensible management.
  We are appropriating roughly $70 million for forest inventory 
monitoring this year. There is only $70 million in the Federal budget. 
Yet it is now estimated that this will literally cost us billions of 
dollars if the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Idaho cannot 
stand up and look some of our radical friends in the eye and say: That 
is not good policy. You are not the policymaker and your lawsuits and 
your judges are not either. We are. We were elected to craft policy. 
The Senator from Virginia and I are responsible only if we take that 
kind of leadership position.
  That is the kind of leadership position that Senator Gorton took in 
the appropriations bill. He did not go outside the law and he did not 
go outside practice. He mandated and requested the Forest Service of 
the United States act responsibly, under the Endangered Species Act, 
and gave them the guidelines to do so. That is what section 329 does.
  That is leadership. Falling back into the arms of the judge and 
simply seeking the will of the courts is not. I hope my colleagues 
would join with me tomorrow and oppose a motion to strike.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, first let me address my colleague and friend 
from Idaho, who is one of the four Senators who have spoken against 
this amendment on the floor and tell him first of all I appreciate the 
sincerity of his remarks and the concern he shows, and his colleagues 
have shown, for those who face economic hardship because of any 
decision that might be impacted by the Federal Government. I would have 
to say in particular, with respect to the distinguished Senator from 
Oregon talking about some of the people in communities which he has 
visited, the same phenomena has occurred to all of us at one time or 
another. All of us truly feel the intense pain that those families 
suffer. In many cases that suffering comes to them because of 
activities that have been taken in terms of Federal trade policy, 
sometimes because of innovation in various manufacturing techniques, 
modernization of equipment--lots of reasons that long and established 
communities are adversely affected. Any of us who do not relate to that 
and have a sense of compassion--we may disagree on a particular item at 
a particular time, about what is the best way to approach a particular 
challenge that we face, but I don't think any of us lack compassion for 
those families or want to be in a position where we are doing anything 
that hurts more than helps. In this particular instance, I would have 
to say one of the comments made by my friend from Oregon was ``let 
science decide.'' That is really what is at issue here.
  We see the issue differently. But in this particular case, science 
has determined at this point, and the board of scientists the 
distinguished Senator referred to has suggested, that there are means 
of establishing the health of the forest that will require indicator 
species measurement. None of the decisions require counting all 
species, every single species. In fact, the only species I am aware of 
that is measured in terms of every single member of the species is the 
Condor count. That is a truly endangered species. I know of no other. 
There may be.
  In any event, we are talking about doing something. The reason these 
cases were decided the way they were and other cases were decided 
differently is because the rules that had been established, the plan 
that had been established by the Forest Service, and that they had 
agreed to follow, wasn't followed.
  The Northwest forest plan came about in very large part because of 
the timber wars, the very difficult situation that every Member of the 
Northwest delegation of this body remembers.
  As a result of the compromise that was entered into, opened up some 
logging--I recognize the 80-percent factor the Senator from Idaho and 
others have used--at least some logging was conducted and the gridlock 
that had existed prior to that time did not continue. They have been 
operating under this provision, the Northwest Forest Plan since that 
time.
  I have heard repeated references to costs that are clearly beyond 
anything anyone associated with the Forest Service, BLM, the Interior 
Department, or the Agriculture Department would consider possible, or 
can even understand frankly, because we have claims of $5 billion to $9 
billion, and no one in the administration is talking about anything 
that would cost anything in that range.
  The essence of the court decisions were on a very limited scope. The 
court said, if you tell us that this is the plan you want to put into 
effect, that you agree to put into effect, then the least you ought to 
do is try to follow that plan.
  The problem in the Eleventh Circuit, if my memory serves me 
correctly, was with 32 of the 37 species, absolutely nothing was done. 
The court is in the position of saying, we will give great deference to 
the Forest Service, to other administrative agencies, to regulators, to 
anyone else who is involved, but you cannot simply do nothing and 
expect us to simply say it is OK not to pay attention to your own rules 
and regulations.
  That is what both of the cases are about, and that is what 
distinguishes the cases which trouble the Senators from the Northwest 
from the other cases.
  In the other cases, the judge was able to rule in such a way that the 
logging could continue, whatever land disturbing operations could 
continue. We are not talking about a situation where every single 
species, some of which none of us could identify if we were given a 
chart of all the species involved because they are so rare, had to be 
counted. That is what indicator species are for, to simply be able to 
track in some limited way some species as an indication of how all the 
species are faring under various changes that might affect those 
particular forests or those particular areas. That is really all we are 
saying.
  In this particular case, the Forest Service, BLM, the Interior 
Department, the Department of Agriculture, and the heads of those 
agencies have said that section 329 is likely to cost a great deal more 
money, is not likely to do exactly what they purport to address but 
have exactly the opposite effect.
  In this particular case, the Agriculture Department, the Interior 
Department, the BLM, and the Forest Service make it very clear that 
what is proposed is more likely to be counterproductive, but that is 
beside the point. They are acknowledging that a standard has been 
recognized by the Eleventh Circuit case and that they did not meet that 
standard. They believe they should be held to the standard, and that is 
what they are prepared to do. That is what adaptive management practice 
is all about. This is not the kind of absolute foreclosure that my 
friends on the other side have represented it as.
  Plans are underway right now to address the challenges that were put 
to the management agencies by both decisions. I submit the concern for 
the Ninth Circuit case is considerably greater on the part of my 
friends from the northwestern part of the United States than the 
Eleventh Circuit.

[[Page S10578]]

  Nonetheless, the decisions simply said to the Federal agency 
involved: If you say these are the rules that you are going to follow 
and you agree these are the rules that should be followed, and the 
scientific community has said this is the way we can make the rational 
assessments and achieve the kind of balance that we are looking for, 
then you ought to do that.
  I share the frustration. There is always an enormous frustration 
factor when you are dealing with a situation that seems to be beyond 
the control of those who are most affected by it. I am particularly 
sensitive to the State of Idaho where so much of the land is owned by 
the Federal Government, owned by the people of the United States, and 
that makes this forum for decisionmaking so much more important, in 
many cases, than it is for other States where the percentage of our 
total land, the percentage of our total economic activity is less 
affected by decisions that are made right in this particular Chamber.

  The bottom line again is simply if the agency agrees to a particular 
course of action, if the action is rational, and reflects the fact we 
are not using the forest just as a place where logging can be carried 
out, but where recreational and other environmental elements are 
valued, then that one activity must be balanced against the others.
  In this particular case, a rational approach has been devised. It is 
flexible. It is being addressed at this particular moment. An 
additional environmental impact statement is in the process of 
preparation.
  The only real change that will come about from where the law is now, 
the only real change is whether or not the public ought to have an 
opportunity to participate and comment on the process. That is the only 
real change that would be brought about by this particular rider, other 
than attempting to legislate on an appropriations bill, thus bypassing 
the administration, regardless of what party is in power, and bypassing 
the legislative process, bypassing the authorizing committee to which 
these arguments could be addressed.
  I am not at all insensitive to the concerns that have been raised by 
my colleagues who represent this particular area. Indeed, I want to 
work with them and the Forest Service, the BLM, the Interior 
Department, and the Agriculture Department to see if we cannot find 
ways to address the specific problems that those communities, 
particularly those that have no other opportunity for economic 
activity, are faced with at this particular time.
  The way to do it is not to put an environmental rider on an Interior 
appropriations bill which bypasses the Federal administrative process, 
bypasses the legislative process, and simply attempts to write into law 
something that has not been approved by either section and which is, 
indeed, actively opposed by representatives for both.
  Mr. President, I see no one else who I believe wishes to address this 
particular matter. We will have an opportunity to provide closing 
arguments tomorrow before this is taken up.
  I do not believe we have asked for the yeas and nays. I request the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment and 
to express my concerns regarding the increased bureaucratic burden it 
would place on the backs of America's rural communities. This amendment 
would require the Forest Service to conduct forest-wide wildlife 
population surveys on all proposed, endangered, threatened, sensitive, 
and management indicator species in order to prepare or revise national 
forest plans, and in every area of each national forest that would be 
disturbed by a timber sale or any other management activity. Such a 
requirement would put a virtual freeze on all Forest Service activities 
and would serve as a death knell for rural economies.
  For more than fifteen years, the Federal Government has been at war 
over how to manage our Western lands. The result has been 15 years of 
gridlock that not only locks up public lands and threatens the health 
of our national forests, but it also locks up rural economies which 
have suffered from dramatic economic disruption.
  Economies in rural communities are not like economies in more urban 
settings. Rural economies cannot make the kind of rapid adjustments 
that are available to more populated areas. When a timber company of 
about 50 people goes out of business in rural America, even though its 
number of employees may seem small under urban standards, those fifty 
employees can make up 20 to 30 percent or more of the local work force.
  Just as important, however, is the impact that this kind of amendment 
will have on the future of forest health. The biggest threat facing 
America's forests today is the overriding threat of destruction by 
catastrophic wildfire. This threat is particularly strong in the West 
where our nation receives very little annual rainfall.
  Without a proactive forest health program that thins out the ever 
increasing vegetation from our forest floors, we are only setting 
ourselves up for disaster.
  Haven't we learned anything from the debate over the Wilson Bridge? 
When local communities decided to improve the Wilson Bridge along the 
infamous Washington Beltway they learned near the end of their process 
that they had to go back and complete a full blown EIS. Because of this 
regulatory requirement, the Wilson Bridge now will not be built for 
another two or three years. In the meantime, traffic will continue to 
back up and it will take longer and longer to navigate around our 
nation's capitol. This kind of regulatory gridlock never used to happen 
on the East Coast, but it has been a common occurrence in the West. I 
can guarantee you, however, that these kinds of regulatory activities 
will continue until we receive regulatory relief and learn that 
increased regulation does not necessarily mean we are protecting the 
environment.
  If we are seriously going to protect our environment, we need less 
regulation and more proactive programs particularly on our national 
forests. The worst thing we could do, then, is add to the gridlock and 
adopt this kind of amendment.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for and 
cosponsorship of Senator Robb's amendment to remove the Section 329 
rider from the Interior Appropriations bill. This rider would undermine 
sound science in wildlife management in my state and across the nation. 
It would suspend U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 
requirements to research and monitor certain wildlife populations, 
integral requirements that the agencies themselves adopted as early as 
1982. I strongly support this amendment and believe that we should 
remove this rider.
  Section 329 attempts to overturn a recent court case, Sierra Club 
versus Martin, issued by the 11th Circuit, which confirmed the 
agencies' duties to monitor certain wildlife species in order to make 
credible and well-informed management decisions. The 11th District 
Court unanimously ruled that the Forest Service was not properly 
performing its responsibilities to inventory ``rare'' species in the 
Chattahoochee and Oconee National Forests as mandated by its own Forest 
Management Plan. The court's decision does not expand monitoring 
requirements, but merely ruled that the absolute failure to collect any 
data or implement any monitoring of indicator and sensitive species was 
not legal.
  Monitoring the health of ``indicator'' and ``sensitive'' species is 
both sound science and good wildlife management. Indicator species act 
as proxies for other wildlife in the forest. That is why monitoring of 
indicator species was included in the 1982 implementing regulations of 
the National Forest Management Act and is included as an integral part 
of forest management plans adopted by the agencies. If we ignore what 
is happening to these ``indicators,'' we are ignoring the impacts on 
the whole forest. Collecting new and important data is the only way to 
ensure that our land mangers are using the most up-to-date and accurate 
scientific information. By limiting decisions to ``available'' science 
as this rider would dictate, Section 329 turns a blind eye to the 
information we need to make the best possible management decisions.
  I understand that some argue the best ``available'' definition is the 
same

[[Page S10579]]

rigid standard set forth by the Endangered Species Act. While true, 
this is a complete misrepresentation of the law's intent. The intent of 
best ``available'' information for Endangered Species is to encourage 
swift listings of animals so that we avoid risking the extinction of 
such animals. Associating this definition with determining the status 
of animals in a National Forest section scheduled for timber harvesting 
runs completely contrary to the intent of the Endangered Species Act 
version which is to protect species. Applying this definition when 
making forest management decisions risks the habitat and future of both 
``sensitive'' and ``endangered'' species by not having accurate and 
current data upon which to make these decisions. Each forest manager 
will be without guidance and our national lands will be managed 
according to the whims of individuals rather than the interests of the 
public.
  In my own state of Georgia, National Forests provide a refuge for 
black bear, migratory songbirds, native brook trout, and an incredible 
diversity of aquatic species. Some of these species are already listed 
under the federal Endangered Species Act. Many more may be listed in 
the future if we ignore the warning signs. The smart, economical 
approach is to monitor and conserve ``sensitive'' species before they 
reach a crisis state and are listed on the endangered species list. By 
avoiding such listings, we have the maximum amount of flexibility and 
the costs of conservation are low. Unfortunately, Section 329 
discourages land managers from doing just that.

  I understand that, in reaction to the court decision, the regional 
forester for the Chattahoochee and Oconee National Forests is amending 
its forest management plan and this rider completely short circuits 
that process. Amending the Forest Management Plan is the proper method 
for handling these kinds of issues. It allows for Public Comment and 
Participation and also allows for Sound Science to be utilized and 
reviewed. The Forest Service has stated that this rider, ``Overrides a 
Federal Court Ruling, agency regulations, and resource management plans 
that require the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to obtain 
and use current and appropriate information for wildlife and other 
resources before conducting planning and management activities.'' Note 
the language that resource management plans require the agencies to 
obtain and use current and appropriate information. It does not say, 
see what data you can scrounge up and use that.
  Considering the Senate's recent debate on Rule 16, it is clear that 
this rider is attempting to legislate on an Appropriations bill. I 
believe that contentious authorizing language such as this should have 
the benefit of a full review by the authorizing Committee which has 
jurisdiction over these matters. These important decisions should not 
be done through an environmental rider on an appropriations bill.
  In closing, it is clear that the Forest Service's own National Forest 
Management Act regulations require monitoring of certain, but not all, 
resident wildlife to ensure that land managers are using the most up-
to-date and accurate scientific information in their decisions. Now, I 
understand that every single species of plant and animal cannot and 
should not be documented in these inventories. However, I believe that 
in order to protect species from becoming threatened and endangered, 
the Forest Service must employ effective measuring techniques which 
will provide accurate estimates. These estimates are critical to making 
sound management decision. I believe that this rider short circuits 
both the Senate's ability to provide proper oversight and the Forest 
Service's process for amending forest management plans.
  I urge my colleagues to remove this rider and vote in favor of this 
amendment. I thank my colleagues and yield the floor.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, seeing my friend from Texas on the floor, 
knowing that she has plans to address another of the pending 
amendments, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I do intend to address the issue of my amendment, but 
first I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted 
to William Eby during the pendency of the Interior appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1603

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, as was unanimously consented to 
earlier in the evening, Senator Gorton requested that all of the 
arguments on the Hutchison amendment be put together. So I ask 
unanimous consent that my remarks be put following the Boxer remarks on 
the Hutchison amendment, which I think is the next in line, in order to 
keep them in the same area so that they will follow along.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I do want to address some of the 
issues and some of the facts that were misstated by the Senator from 
California because I think it is very important that the Record be set 
straight. I attempted to correct the Senator from California while she 
was speaking, but she preferred to continue to speak, so I want the 
Record to be very clear on some of these important facts.
  First, the Senator from California and the Senator from Illinois made 
much of the testimony of a former executive from Arco who had 
testified, they said, under oath that oil companies had in fact 
misstated and actually tried to hide the value of the oil and not pay 
their fair share in oil royalties to the State of California and the 
City of Long Beach.
  In fact, I am very pleased that they brought that up because the case 
has actually been settled just in the last couple weeks. In fact, the 
Senators from California and Illinois mentioned that several oil 
companies had settled because they, for whatever reason, did not want 
to go forward with the costly litigation. But Exxon decided not to 
settle, and the Arco employee did testify in the Exxon case, under 
oath, that the oil companies were misstating the value of the royalties 
they owed to the State and to the City of Long Beach.
  This case went to a jury, a jury in California of 12 citizens. The 
jury found that the Arco employee was not credible. The jury of his 
peers determined that the Exxon Corporation had not cheated the 
taxpayers of California or the City of Long Beach, and they threw out 
that suit from Long Beach and the State of California. Exxon showed 
that it had not undervalued its oil. This was a suit for $750 million.
  So the Arco executive who testified under oath was in fact 
discredited in the court, and the jury found that the Arco executive 
was not persuasive. I say that because so much was made of it, as if 
the case had gone the other way. But 12 citizens in California got 
together and the jury verdict was in favor of Exxon.
  But having said that, I have said from the very beginning that the 
lawsuits are not an issue. If any oil company did not value correctly 
under the present law or regulations, they ought to pay. So it has 
never been an issue. You would think, from the rhetoric of the Senator 
from the State of California, that this amendment had something to do 
with companies not paying their fair share under the present law. 
Nothing could be further from the truth.
  In fact, what we are talking about is changing the valuation of oil 
royalties. We are talking about unelected Department of Interior 
employees, who have no accountability, usurping the rights of Congress 
to set tax policy in this country and affect oil jobs to a huge extent.
  The fact of the matter is, what we are trying to do with the 
amendment, with the Hutchison-Domenici amendment, is we are saying we 
want it to be fair, we want to continue the moratorium until the 
Department of the Interior has a fair valuation that accedes to the 
wishes of Congress, because Congress makes the laws. That is the 
prerogative of Congress. That is the responsibility of Congress. And it 
is further the responsibility of Congress to stand up when they 
delegate authority to a Federal agency to make a rule and that Federal 
agency does not do what Congress intended for it to do.
  Only Congress can step forward and say: No, we did not intend to 
raise oil royalty rates the way you intend to do it, so we are going to 
put a moratorium on your rule until you do an oil royalty

[[Page S10580]]

rate that is simpler, fairer, will be right for the citizens of our 
country and right for the oil industry that is very important to this 
country. So that is what we are talking about today.
  I did not like the tone of the rhetoric that ``oil is bad,'' that 
``big oil is worse,'' that ``everything about oil companies is bad.'' I 
thought I was back in the 1960s when it seemed that ``business was 
bad.'' Well, business is people. Business is jobs. Business is people.
  My heavens, why wouldn't we want business to be successful in America 
so that we have jobs in America? Sometimes when I hear people talking 
about the ``big bad oil companies,'' I think: Do you want more foreign 
oil, more foreign jobs, rather than American jobs and American revenue?
  I think we have a choice here. Those ``big bad oil companies'' are 
the basis of the California teacher retirement system pension plan. 
They are a very important part of the stability of retirement for 
California teachers, and Texas teachers, for that matter, and probably 
Illinois teachers as well, because the big oil companies have been a 
stable source of dividends for maybe 100 years.
  I don't know when the big oil companies first started, but they have 
been good citizens for our country. They are the basis of pension plans 
and retired people's security all over our country, and they do create 
thousands of good jobs.
  So I do not think we have to beat up on oil companies. They are part 
of our economy and they are part of the security of our country. And, 
oh, by the way, since 1953 they have paid more than $58 billion for the 
right to drill on the people's land--$58 billion in oil royalty 
payments.
  If they did not pay their fair share, I want them to pay their fair 
share. So talking about settlements and lawsuits is not really an 
issue, even though a jury of their peers in California did find that 
Exxon had not cheated in any way.
  That isn't the issue. The issue is, we want them to pay. In order for 
them to pay a fair share, they need to be able to know exactly what 
they owe, and that is why we hope the MMS will simplify the regulation. 
In fact, the MMS refuses to even abide by its own previous rulings. So 
an oil company that is trying to do the right thing goes to a previous 
ruling on how oil is valued in a particular place, in a particular way, 
and the MMS says: No, we are not going to be bound by what we did in 
another case.
  That walks away from the value of precedent that is the hallmark of 
our judicial system and the regulatory system in our country. In most 
instances, the IRS most certainly abides by its previous rulings. They 
give opinion letters that people can rely on so they can pay their fair 
share of taxes. Courts set precedents with rulings every day so people 
will know what the law is and what they must do to comply. Not the MMS. 
They have one opinion here and one opinion there. Congress asked them 
to make it simpler, and they have gone far beyond what Congress 
intended. It is our responsibility to make sure they do what is right 
for the taxpayers of America. That is what the Hutchison-Domenici 
amendment will assure they do.
  This is not an industry that has had an easy time in the last year 
and a half. In fact, oil prices have been lower than ever in the 
history of our country, adjusted for inflation, $7, $8 a barrel, a lot 
of that because of the glut of imported oil on the market. We have lost 
half a million jobs in the oil industry in the last 10 years. We are 
importing 57 percent of the oil in our country. If we have bad oil 
royalty principles, it also affects natural gas, which is the most 
important substitute fuel in many of our coal burning areas. Natural 
gas is much cleaner, better for the environment than coal. So when you 
start tampering in a negative way with the oil royalty rates, you also 
are going to affect the price and availability of natural gas, because 
natural gas, of course, is a byproduct of drilling for oil. If you 
discourage our American companies and our American people from being 
able to get our own oil resources, you are also cutting back on our 
supply of natural gas. That could be dangerous to our economy and 
dangerous to the people who live in our country who depend on natural 
gas to heat their homes.
  I think it is important we put this in perspective. It is important 
we look at what we are talking about. Senator Boxer said the new rule 
would only affect 5 percent of the oil companies, and it would be just 
the big oil companies. She said she supports small oil companies. Well, 
I hope she will, because if she will, she will support the Hutchison-
Domenici amendment because it is the Hutchison-Domenici amendment that 
will keep our small producers in business after the devastating effects 
of low oil prices from the last year.
  In fact, every single oil company is affected. There are 2,400 
producers with Federal leases. Only 70 of them are not classified by 
the SBA as small businesses. All 2,400 are opposed to this new rule 
that will require them basically to pay taxes on their costs. The small 
oil companies that the Senator said she would support are very opposed 
to her position. They are for the Hutchison-Domenici amendment because 
they don't want a new rule that would second-guess sales of oil at the 
wellhead and make fuzzy exactly when the oil should be valued. They 
don't want a new duty to market and incur the costs of marketing and 
selling the product and bear the cost without any allowance. They are 
very concerned about this.

  If Senator Boxer believes that the small oil companies are against 
the Hutchison amendment, I hope she will talk to them. They will assure 
her that this is going to put one more chink in their ability to create 
jobs and continue to drill oil and natural gas in our country, rather 
than choosing to go overseas where it is much cheaper to do it and 
where you don't have to pay as much as we pay in America.
  I hope very much that she will reconsider, knowing that all of the 
small companies are affected by this new ruling.
  I will read from some of the letters of people and groups that are 
supporting the Hutchison-Domenici amendment.
  People for the USA writes:

       Dear Senator Hutchison: We support your fight to simplify 
     the current royalty calculation system. On behalf of 30,000 
     grassroots members of People for the USA, I want to thank you 
     for your diligent efforts to bring common sense to royalty 
     calculations on Federal oil and gas leases. Energy Secretary 
     Bill Richardson has suggested that domestic oil field workers 
     look to opportunities overseas. Senator, an administration 
     that talks about kicking American resource producers out of 
     the country has a badly skewed set of priorities.

  That is signed by Jeffrey Harris, Executive Director.
  The National Black Chamber of Commerce writes:

       Dear Senator Hutchison: The efforts of MMS are, indeed, 
     ludicrous. Collectively the national economy is booming and 
     the chief subject matter is ``tax reduction,'' not ``royalty 
     increase,'' which is a cute term for tax increase. What adds 
     salt to the wound is the fact that despite a booming economy 
     from a national perspective, the oil industry has not been so 
     fortunate and is on hard times. We need to come up with 
     vehicles that will stimulate this vital part of our economic 
     bloodstream, not further the damage.

  That is signed by Harry Alford, President and CEO, National Black 
Chamber of Commerce.
  Citizens for a Sound Economy:

       The 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act included moratorium 
     language concerning a final crude oil valuation rule, with 
     the expectation that the Department of Interior and industry 
     would enter into meaningful negotiations in order to resolve 
     their differences. Unfortunately, more time is still needed 
     for government and industry to reach a mutually beneficial 
     compromise.

  It is signed by Paul Beckner, President.
  Citizens Against Government Waste:

       Passage of this provision in the Interior Appropriations 
     bill will provide the time necessary for the MMS and the 
     industry to reach a fair and workable agreement on the rule 
     benefiting both sides.

  It is signed by Council Nedd II, Director, Government Affairs, 
Citizens Against Government Waste.
  Frontiers of Freedom:

       In a misleading letter dated July 21, 1999, detractors of 
     the Hutchison-Domenici amendment allege it will cost 
     taxpayers, school children, Native Americans and the 
     environment. That is not so. It is time to set the record 
     straight. This amendment does not alter the status quo at 
     all. This amendment says to Secretary Babbitt, spend no money 
     to finalize a crude oil valuation rule

[[Page S10581]]

     until the Congress agrees with your proposed methodology 
     for defining value for royalty purposes.

  That is signed by Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax 
Reform; George Landrith, Executive Director for Frontiers of Freedom; 
Patrick Burns, Director of Environmental Policy, Citizens for a Sound 
Economy; Fred Smith, President Competitive Enterprise Institute; Al 
Cors, Jr., Vice President for Government Affairs, National Taxpayers 
Union; Jim Martin, President, 60 Plus; David Ridenour, National Center 
for Public Policy Research; Adena Cook, Blue Ribbon Coalition; Bruce 
Vincent, Alliance for America; Chuck Cushman, American Land Rights 
Association; and Malcolm Wallop, Chairman of Frontiers of Freedom.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                          Frontiers of Freedom

                                     Arlington, VA, July 30, 1999.
     Re Supporting the Hutchison-Domenici Amendment (a Moratorium 
         on the Proposed Oil Valuation Rule which Prevents 
         Unauthorized Taxation and Lawmaking by the Department of 
         Interior).
     Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
     United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510
       Dear Senator Hutchison: We are writing to express our 
     support for the Hutchison-Domenici amendment to the FY 2000 
     Appropriations bill. The Hutchison-Domenici amendment 
     prevents the Department of the Interior from rewriting laws 
     and assessing additional taxes without the consent of the 
     Congress. This role properly rests with the legislative 
     branch, not with unelected bureaucrats.
       In a misleading letter dated July 21, 1999, detractors of 
     the Hutchison-Domenici amendment allege it will cost 
     taxpayers, schoolchildren, native Americans, and the 
     environment.'' That is not so! It's time to set the record 
     straight--this amendment does not alter the status quo at 
     all. This amendment says to Secretary Babbitt: Spend no money 
     to finalize a crude oil valuation rule until the Congress 
     agrees with your proposed methodology for defining value for 
     royalty purposes.
       We contend that a mineral lease is a contract, whether 
     issued by the United States or any other lessor, as such, its 
     terms may not be unilaterally changed just because a 
     government bureaucrat thinks more money can be squeezed from 
     the lesser by redefining the manner in which the value of 
     production is established. What royalty amount is due is 
     determined by the contracts and statues, and nothing else. 
     For seventy-nine years the federal government has lived 
     according to a law that established that the government 
     receives value at the well--not downstream after incremental 
     value is added. The bureaucrats at the Interior Department 
     are in effect imposing a value added tax through the 
     backdoor.
       Bureaucrats are saying that value should be measured in 
     downstream markets hundreds of miles from one's lease, or 
     based upon prices set in futures trading on the New York 
     Mercantile Exchange, both of which routinely attribute higher 
     value than exists at the ``wellhead.'' If bureaucrats had it 
     their way, they would assess a tax all the way to the 
     gasoline, ignoring the costs associated with bringing oil to 
     that pump. If Congress intended this, they would have said so 
     in the law.
       This is nothing short of a backdoor tax via an unlawful, 
     inequitable rulemaking which Secretary Babbitt says is 
     necessary because of ``changing oil markets.'' But, we think 
     his real result and that of his supporters such as Senator 
     Boxer, is to cripple the domestic petroleum industry, and 
     drive them to foreign shores and advance their goal of 
     reducing fossil fuel consumption. This is why they falsely 
     claim that green eyeshade accounts somehow are impacting the 
     environment.
       The outcry on behalf of schoolchildren is particularly 
     hypocritical. Senator Boxer and Rep. George Miller are 
     responsible for a mineral leasing law amendment in the 1993 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act which reduces education 
     revenues to the State of California by over $1 million per 
     year--far more than the Department's oil valuation rule would 
     add to California's treasury (approximately $150,000 per year 
     as scored by the Congressional Budget Office). So really, who 
     is harming schoolchildren's education budgets? The oil 
     industry provides millions and millions of royalty dollars 
     each year for the U.S. Treasury and for State's coffers.
       The ``cheating'' which Sen. Boxer and others allege is 
     unproven. Reference to settlements by oil companies as proof 
     of fraud is improper. When President Clinton settled the 
     Paula Jones lawsuit his attorney admonished Senator Boxer and 
     her fellow jurors to take no legal inference from that 
     payment. We agree. As such, oil company settlements cannot be 
     given precedential value. Who can fight the government 
     forever when the royalty dollars they have paid in are used 
     to fund enormous litigation budgets?
       Lastly, two employees of the federal government who were 
     integral to the ``futures market pricing'' philosophy 
     espoused in the Department's rulemaking have been caught 
     accepting $350,000 checks from a private group with a stake 
     in the outcome of False Claims Act litigation against oil 
     companies. Ironically, the money to pay-off these two 
     individuals for their ``heroic'' actions while working as 
     federal employees came from a settlement by one oil company. 
     The Project on Governments Oversight (POGO) last fall 
     received well over one million dollars as a plaintiff in the 
     suit. Shortly thereafter POGO quietly ``thanked'' these 
     public servants for making this bounty possible. The Public 
     Integrity Section of the Department of Justice has an ongoing 
     investigation. We find it unconscionable the Administration 
     seeks to put the valuation rule into place without getting to 
     the bottom of this bribe first. The L.A. Times recently drew 
     a parallel with the Teapot Dome scandal of the 1920's, but 
     who is Albert Fall in this modern day scandal?
       The Department's rule amounts to unfair taxation without 
     the representation which Members of Congress bring by passing 
     laws. If Congress chooses to change the mineral leasing laws 
     to prospectively modify the terms of a lease, so be it. It 
     should do so in the proper authorizing process with 
     opportunity for the public to be heard. A federal judge has 
     recently ruled the EPA has unconstitutionally encroached upon 
     the legislature's lawmaking authority when promulgating air 
     quality rules. We are convinced the Secretary of the 
     Interior, in a similar manner, is far exceeding his authority 
     unilaterally by assessing a value added tax.
       Let Congress define the law on mineral royalties. We 
     elected Members to do this job, we didn't elect Bruce Babbitt 
     and a band of self-serving bureaucrats. Support the 
     Hutchison-Domenici amendment.
           Sincerely,
         George C. Landrith, Executive Director, Frontiers of 
           Freedom.
         Patrick Burns, Director of Environmental Policy, Citizens 
           for a Sound Economy.
         Fred L. Smith, Jr., President, Competitive Enterprise 
           Institute.
         Al Cors, Jr., Vice President for Government Affairs, 
           National Taxpayers Union.
         Jim Martin, President, 60 Plus.
         Grover G. Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform.
         Chuck Cushman, Executive Director, American Land Rights 
           Association.
         Bruce Vincent, President, Alliance for America.
         Adena Cook, Public Lands Director, Blue Ribbon Coalition.
         David Ridenour, Vice President, National Center for 
           Public Policy Research.
                                  ____

         Rio Grande Valley Partnership, International Chamber of 
           Commerce,
                                       Weslaco, TX, July 23, 1999.
     Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hutchison: On behalf of the Board of Directors 
     of the Rio Grande Valley Partnership, I want to thank you 
     once again for your leadership to prevent the Minerals 
     Management Service on the U.S. Department of Interior from 
     finalizing its new oil royalty regulations.
       Until Congress is assured that they will be fair, the new 
     regulations must work for government and for producers, and 
     not result in litigation, as the proposed regulations would. 
     Uncertainty and litigation just add delays and costs to 
     producers large and small, and to the federal government, and 
     that can make domestic oil and gas production from federal 
     lands less competitive, adversely affective jobs in Texas and 
     other producing areas and reducing royalty revenues to the 
     federal government.
       Please continue your lead in the fight to stop the Minerals 
     Management Service from making new rules final until they 
     solve the host of problems pointed out by oil producers, 
     large and small.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Summers,
     President/CEO.
                                  ____



                                           People for the USA,

                                        Pueblo, CO, July 27, 1999.
     Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hutchison: On behalf of the 30,000 grassroots 
     members of People for the USA, I would once again like to 
     thank you for your diligent efforts to bring common sense to 
     royalty calculations and payments on federal oil and gas 
     leases.
       In their efforts to balance environmental protection with 
     economic growth through grassroots actions, our members (not 
     just those in Texas) always notice and appreciate strong, 
     common sense leadership such as you have shown.
       We support your fight to simplify the current royalty 
     calculation system. It is already a burden on a struggling 
     domestic oil and gas industry, and the Minerals Management 
     Service proposal simply adds insult to injury. Royalty 
     calculation is not, as Interior Communications Director 
     Michael Gauldin remarked, ``an issue to demagogue for another 
     year.'' With 52,000 jobs lost in just the last year?
       Worse, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson has suggested that 
     domestic oilfield workers look to opportunity overseas. 
     Senator, an Administration that talks about kicking American 
     resource producers out of the country has a badly skewed set 
     of priorities.
       We appreciate what you are doing to straighten them out, 
     and will back you up at the grass roots any way we can.
       Again, on behalf of thousands of hard-working American 
     resource producers, thank

[[Page S10582]]

     you. If you have any specific suggestions as to how we can 
     assist you, feel free to contact me any time.
           Respectfully,
                                                Jeffrey P. Harris,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                         National Black Chamber of


                                                      Commerce

                                                   August 5, 1999.
     Re: MMS Royalties
     Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
     Senator, State of Texas, Rm. 284, Senate Russell Office 
         Building Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hutchison: The National Black Chamber of 
     Commerce has been quite proud of the leadership you have 
     shown on the issue of oil royalties and the attempt of the 
     Minerals Management Service's, Department of Interior, to 
     levy eventual increases on the oil industry.
       The efforts of MMS are, indeed, ludicrous. Collectively, 
     the national economy is booming and the chief subject matter 
     is ``tax reduction'' not ``royalty increase'', which is a 
     cute term for tax increase. What adds ``salt to the wound'' 
     is the fact that despite a booming economy from a national 
     perspective, the oil industry has not been so fortunate and 
     is on hard times. We need to come up with vehicles that will 
     stimulate this vital part of our economic bloodstream, not 
     further the damage.
       We support your plan to re-offer a one-year extension of 
     the moratorium on the new rule proposed by MMS. We will also 
     support any efforts you may have to prohibit the new rule. 
     Good luck in giving it ``the good fight''.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Harry C. Alford,
     President & CEO.
                                  ____



                                  Citizens for a Sound Economy

                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 1999.
       Dear Senator Hutchison: The 250,000 grassroots members of 
     Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) ask you to oppose any 
     attempts in the Senate to strike the provision in the 
     Interior Appropriation bill that delays implementation of a 
     final crude oil valuation rule.
       The current royalty system is needlessly complex and 
     results in time-consuming disagreements and expensive 
     litigation. The Minerals Management Service's (MMS) new oil 
     valuation proposal is, however, deeply flawed and would have 
     the ultimate effect of raising taxes on consumers.
       The 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act included moratorium 
     language concerning a final crude oil valuation rule with the 
     expectation that the Department of the Interior (DOI) and 
     industry would enter into meaningful negotiations in order to 
     resolve their differences. Unfortunately, more time is still 
     needed for government and industry is required to reach a 
     mutually beneficial compromise.
       CSE recognizes this need and opposes any attempt to halt 
     the moratorium, or curtail efforts to bring about a simpler, 
     more workable rule.
       Thank you for your attention and efforts, and for your 
     continuing leadership in this important matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Paul Beckner,
     President.
                                  ____

                                      Council for Citizens Against


                                             Government Waste,

                               Washington, DC, September 10, 1998.
     Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
     United States Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hutchison: On behalf of the 600,000 members of 
     Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, we 
     respectfully ask you to oppose any efforts in the Senate to 
     strike the provision in the Interior Appropriations Bill that 
     delays the implementation of a final crude oil valuation 
     rule, unless a resolution between MMS and industry can be 
     reached. The Minerals Management Service (MMS) proposed new 
     oil valuation rules that would eventually raise taxes on 
     producers. The rulemaking effort has involved several 
     revisions to the original proposal, but remains ambiguous, 
     unworkable, and would create even greater uncertainty and 
     unnecessary litigation.
       Passage of this provision in the Interior Appropriations 
     Bill will provide the time necessary for the MMS and the 
     industry to reach a fair and workable agreement on the rule, 
     benefiting both sides. The taxpayers have a vested interest 
     in this issue, because the rule proposed by the MMS would 
     lead to an unnecessary administrative burden for both the 
     government and the private industry as auditors, accountants, 
     and lawyers attempt to resolve innumerable disputes over the 
     correct amounts due.
       Please take this opportunity to prevent the current 
     proposed rule, which benefits no one, from being implemented. 
     We urge you to oppose any amendment to strike the provision 
     for delay of final valuation rule in the Interior 
     Appropriations Bill as it reaches the floor for debate in the 
     full Senate this week.
       We wish to thank you for your efforts in this matter. Your 
     continued commitment and integrity in the promotion of 
     efficiency and accountability in the federal government is 
     sincerely appreciated. If I can be of further assistance, 
     please do not hesitate to contact me.
           Regards,
                                                  Council Nedd II,
                        Director, Government Affairs & Grassroots.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have heard the Senator from 
California throwing around numbers such as this has cost the taxpayers 
of America $88 million already, or $60 million already. And I pointed 
this out to her. I ask unanimous consent that the Congressional Budget 
Office estimate be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  FY 2000 INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES--S. 1292, AS REPORTED, PROPOSED
                            FLOOR AMENDMENTS
                      [Budget account--in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Pending      Proposed     Difference
              No.              -----------------------------------------
                                  BA     O      BA     O      BA     O
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1603--Hutchinson Oil valuation  .....  .....     11     11     11     11
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this shows there would be a proposed 
difference in income of $11 million. In addition to putting that in the 
Record, I want to say that we have offset that $11 million. I have to 
say I think it is ludicrous that you would say we think that in the 
future you won't get $11 million and, therefore, we need to make up 
that proposed lost revenue for a tax that has not even been put in 
place. Nevertheless, that was the ruling we were given, so we did 
offset with $11 million. But it is ridiculous to say that you have to 
offset the tax that hasn't been put in place because you don't know 
what businesses are going to pull up stakes and say: It is too 
expensive to drill with this kind of royalty rate. We are going to go 
overseas and we are going to take our jobs with us.
  So I am not sure that it would be $11 million, or anything at all. My 
hunch is that we are going to lose jobs and we are going to lose 
income, and the schoolchildren of this country are going to suffer 
because the oil business has not yet recovered from the crisis.
  Mr. President, on that note, I have to also say that I think it is 
very important that when we are talking about a proposed rule that 
hasn't been put in place and we are already saying how much will be 
missed, clearly, there is no concept of how business can work and make 
a profit and continue to create jobs. So I am concerned that if we 
raise this royalty valuation, which is a tax on the oil industry, at a 
time when many of them are on their knees anyway, we are not going to 
have income of $11 million, or $60 million, or anything else. In fact, 
I think we are going to go into negative income, which is exactly what 
has happened in Texas in the last year and a half, where schools have 
had to shut their doors and close down and consolidate classrooms 
because they could not make their budget because of the oil income not 
coming in. We lost $150 million just in the last year in oil royalty 
revenue in Texas alone. So this is not the time to raise rates.
  Let's talk about the kind of taxes. We are talking about fairness. In 
fact, we are talking about what we tax. Today, the oil is valued as it 
comes out of the ground, after it has been cleaned up and is ready to 
be sold. You take out the contaminants and it is clean and that is 
where it is valued. But what the Government and MMS are proposing to do 
is say, no, we want you to go out and get a buyer for the oil and incur 
the cost of buying; and then we want you to put it in a pipeline and 
take it to where it is going to be picked up by the buyer, and we are 
going to value it there. That is taxing the cost. That just doesn't 
make sense. That is like saying to McDonald's, whatever you spend in 
advertising, we are going to tax you that amount. We are going to tax 
you on your advertising for McDonald's hamburgers.
  Mr. President, that concept will not fly. It doesn't happen in any 
other industry. Whenever would the Government expect taxes on expenses? 
It just doesn't make sense. But sometimes I think people I hear arguing 
on the Senate floor have never been in business. If you have never been 
in business and have never met a payroll, then you don't really 
understand how hard it is to make a profit and create new jobs and do 
right by your employees. I have been in business. I have met a payroll. 
I know how hard it is, especially in a small business. And when the 
prices are $7 or $8 a barrel and the costs are $14 a barrel, you can't 
stay in business very long. And if you can't stay in business very 
long, there are a lot of people and families who don't have jobs; and 
if you have to lay off people

[[Page S10583]]

who are working at the well, then you also have to lay off people in 
the oil fields service industry and the oil supply industry because you 
aren't going to need the supplies if you are not drilling. And if it is 
too expensive to drill in America, you are going to go somewhere else, 
and you are going to create jobs in a foreign country.

  Mr. President, I guess the last thing I will say in refuting the 
arguments I heard from the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from 
California is that it always seems the tack is to say, well, they don't 
really care about this issue; they are supporting big oil because big 
oil has contributed to their campaigns. I don't go around looking at 
whether trial lawyers give to other Senators and, therefore, they don't 
vote for tort reform. I don't accuse people of not representing the 
interests of their States. Of course, I have oil workers in my State. I 
hope I am supported by people who work in my State and live in my 
State. But I would not do anything that would hurt the people of my 
State. The idea that that is connected to campaign contributions I just 
think is cynical, and I don't think it adds integrity to the debate.
  You gauge that against a most incredible statement when you accuse 
people who want to keep jobs in America, who want fair pricing, fair 
taxing, and fair payment of taxes--you accuse people of having some 
kind of other motive, and then you pick up a magazine called Inside 
Energy and the Department of Interior communications director says on 
November 2 of 1998, regarding the Hutchison-Domenici amendment that 
would require them to have a fair valuation:

       We are sticking to the position we have taken. It gives us 
     an issue to demagog for another year.

  Mr. President, I think we have heard a lot of demagoguery on this 
issue. I have heard the most outrageous debate and arguments that I 
have heard on just about any subject on this issue, trying to make it 
seem as if oil companies that are being sued are somehow connected to 
whether or not we have a fair royalty valuation, trying to mesh those 
issues. That just does not make sense. It does not add to the debate. 
But to have the kind of demagoguery that we have heard on the floor and 
then to have the Department of the Interior admit that what they want 
is an issue to demagog, I have to say I think the Los Angeles Times 
editorial proves they did get a demagoguery editorial. I think some of 
the network television bought into it. I think there has been some very 
unfair coverage because we are talking about Congress standing up for 
its right to tax. If Congress doesn't stand up, who will? Who is 
accountable at the Department of the Interior? It is a matter of 
fairness.

  I am not going to walk away from that responsibility. I know what I 
am doing is right because I know we can have fair taxes of royalty. We 
are talking about an industry that paid $58 billion in the last 40 
years in royalty rates. They have given a lot back to this country. 
They have given jobs. They have paid royalty rates. I want them to pay 
fair royalty rates. I would never stand up and say they shouldn't, or 
if they haven't that they shouldn't be fined. I think they should. But 
we are talking about people. We are talking about jobs. We are talking 
about the American economy. We are talking about retirement plans that 
depend on stable oil companies and the oil industry.
  I think fair taxation is the responsibility of Congress. That is what 
the Hutchison-Domenici amendment will assure--fair taxation intended by 
Congress.
  We will have some more debate on this. I certainly hope in the end my 
colleagues will not be susceptible to rank demagoguery--to rhetoric 
that is harsh and not in any way fair. It may be fun to ask questions 
back and forth on the Senate floor indicating that people's motives are 
not the right motives or are not pure, but that doesn't add to the 
debate. It is our responsibility to make policy. We are going to do it.
 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Interior Appropriations bill 
funds critical programs that are vital to the protection of our 
nation's land and natural resources and supports federal programs for 
Native Americans, as well as several energy and agriculture programs.
  I commend the managers of this bill for their efforts to keep 
spending in this bill within budget limitations as required by the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Unfortunately, I can still find in this 
bill and the committee report approximately $216 million in low-
priority, unauthorized or unrequested spending that has not been 
considered in the normal merit-based review process.
  In the usual fashion of appropriations bills and reports, little 
explanation is provided as to the merit or national priority of various 
projects receiving earmarks. We are left to imagine the reasons that 
certain projects, such the Bruneau Hot Springs Snail Conservation 
Committee or goose-related crop depredation projects in Washington and 
Oregon, are deserving of a $500,000 earmark each.
  I am sure these projects are significant to the communities that 
would benefit from these directed funds. But we are unfairly singling 
out projects of parochial interest, rather than evaluating other more 
equally deserving projects that could be more significant to the 
protection of our land, forest or energy resources nationwide.
  Not only do we undermine the value of our legislative process by this 
type of arbitrary spending, we betray the confidence of the American 
people who rely on our fair and equitable judgement to fund those 
projects of greatest need and priority. Instead, we reward their faith 
by choosing to provide $1 million of taxpayer funds to rehabilitate a 
bathhouse at Hot Springs National Park in Arkansas. I question the 
necessity of fixing up a public bathhouse when federal school 
facilities for Indian children are in a deplorable state of disrepair 
and ill maintenance.
  In a similar fashion, $1 million is earmarked to support the Olympic 
Tree Program being developed by the Salt Lake Olympic committee. While 
our country takes great pride in hosting the international Olympics 
events, I find it difficult to fathom why we would expect the American 
people to accept the expenditure of a million dollars for this purely 
aesthetic purpose.
  This bill also continues a disturbing trend of including legislative 
riders that, if enacted, will make substantive changes to current law 
and regulations. By using the appropriations process as a policy 
hammer, we are circumventing a fair and deliberative legislative review 
of the need for such changes. We also shortchange the interested public 
by eliminating their opportunity for input and participation.
  I have heard from many interested parties who decry the inclusion of 
riders that will extend grazing permits without completion of due 
environmental analyses and a provision that overturns an administrative 
legal opinion regarding the amount of land that can be used for mining 
claims. I know that these are important issues in my state of Arizona, 
yet I am precluded from fully representing the interests of my 
constituents when legislative riders such as these are attached to an 
appropriations measure that must be passed within a very short 
timeframe with little to no opportunity to make changes.
  Just yesterday, the Senate voted to restore Rule XVI which makes 
floor amendments of a policy nature out of order on an appropriations 
bill. I supported restoration of this Rule. Ironically, this Rule only 
applies to floor amendments. I believe very strongly that it should be 
applied to committee actions where a small minority of the Senate can 
act to include legislative riders on an appropriations bill without 
even consulting the relevant authorizing committees. I believe the Rule 
should be expanded to cover committee actions.
  Mr. President, ensuring the protection of our nation's resources and 
meeting federal trust obligations to Native Americans are among our 
most important duties. With this type of shameful waste of taxpayer 
dollars and inappropriate legislative mandates on an appropriations 
measure, we are betraying our responsibility to spend the taxpayers' 
dollars responsibly and enact laws and policies that reflect the best 
interests of all Americans, rather than the special interests of a few.
  Unfortunately, due to its length, this list of $216 million of 
earmarks and objectionable provisions in S. 1292, and its accompanying 
Senate report, cannot be printed in the Record. However, the list will 
be available on my Senate webpage.

[[Page S10584]]



                          ____________________