[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20775-20784]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



       MAKING CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2001

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the joint resolution by 
title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 110) making further 
     continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and for 
     other purposes.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the joint 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that pursuant to 
the request of the minority whip, I will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 31 years ago, when I graduated from law 
school here in Washington, DC, my wife and I picked up our little girl, 
took all of our earthly possessions, and moved to the State capital of 
Springfield, IL. It was our first time to visit that town. We went 
there and made a home and had two children born to us there and raised 
our family.
  So for 31 years Springfield, IL, has been our home. It has been a 
good home for us. We made a conscious decision several times in our 
lives to stay in Springfield. It was the type of home we wanted to make 
for our children, and our kids turned out pretty well. We think it was 
the right decision. Springfield has been kind to me. It gave me a 
chance, in 1982, and elected me to the House of Representatives, and 
then it was kind enough to be part of the electorate in Illinois that 
allowed me to serve here in the Senate.
  I have come to know and love the city of Springfield, particularly 
its Lincoln history. I was honored as a Democrat to be elected to a 
congressional seat of which part was once represented in the U.S. House 
of Representatives by Abraham Lincoln. Of course, he was not a 
Democrat. He was a Whig turned Republican--first as a Whig as a 
Congressman and then Republican as President. But we still take great 
pride in Lincoln, whether we are Democrats or Republicans.
  When I was elected to the Senate, their came a time when someone 
asked me to debate my opponent. They said it was the anniversary of the 
Douglas-Lincoln debate of 1858 which drew the attention of the people 
across the United States. Douglas won the senatorial contest that year. 
Two years later, Lincoln was elected President.
  It seems that every step in my political career has been in the 
shadow of this great Abraham Lincoln.
  In about 1991, I reflected on the fact that in Springfield, IL--
despite all of the things that are dedicated to Abraham Lincoln, the 
State capital where he made some of his most famous speeches and 
pronouncements, and his old law office where he once practiced law, the 
only home he ever owned across the street from my senatorial office, 
just a few blocks away the Lincoln tomb, and only a few miles away 
Lincoln's boyhood home in New Salem--of all of these different Lincoln 
sites in that area, for some reason this great President was never 
given a center, a library in one place where we could really tell the 
story of Abraham Lincoln's life to the millions of people across the 
world who are fascinated by this wonderful man.
  We had at one point over 400,000 tourists a year coming to the 
Lincoln home. I know they are from all over the world because I see 
them every day when I am at home in Springfield.
  I thought: we need to have a center, one place that really tells the 
Lincoln story and draws together all of the

[[Page 20776]]

threads of his life and all of the evidence of his life so everyone can 
come to appreciate him.
  In 1991, that idea was just the idea of a Congressman, and I tried my 
best to convince a lot of people back in Illinois of the wisdom of this 
notion. I worked on it here in Washington over the years. Once in 
Congress, people came along and said: Maybe it is a good idea. There 
should be a Lincoln Presidential center. We really ought to focus the 
national attention on this possibility.
  We passed several appropriations bills in the House. Some of them 
didn't go very far in the Senate. But the interest was piquing. All of 
a sudden, more and more people started discussing this option and 
possibility.
  I recall that in the last year of the Governorship of Jim Edgar in 
his last State of the State Address he raised this as a project that he 
would like to put on the table for his last year as Governor. He told 
me later that he was amazed at the reaction. People from all over 
Illinois were excited about this opportunity. He weighed in and said 
the State will be part of this process. His successor, Gov. George 
Ryan, and his wife Laura Ryan, also said they wanted to be part of it. 
The mayor of Springfield, Karen Hasara, asked that the State accept 
from the city of Springfield a parcel of real estate so they could 
build the center.
  All of a sudden, there came together at the local and State level 
this new momentum and interest in the idea of a Lincoln Presidential 
library and a Lincoln center. I was energized by that.
  Then, of course, the Illinois Congressional Delegation weighed in in 
support of it, and we have tried now to make a contribution from the 
Federal level toward this national project, which brings together 
local, State, and Federal sources in the name of Abraham Lincoln.
  This Interior appropriations bill, of course, includes $10 million of 
a $50 million authorization for that purpose. I think that is a good 
investment and a very worthy project for which I fought for 10 years.
  I am happy to have joined with my colleague, Senator Fitzgerald, who 
offered a bill which authorized this center. He offered this bill as a 
freestanding piece of legislation. I coauthored it with him. He added 
an amendment relative to the bidding process, and that amendment was 
adopted in committee. It was agreed to on the floor. It is my 
understanding that it is now going to be sent over to the House for 
conference. I was happy to stand with him in that effort.
  But I think I would like to reflect for a moment on this project and 
to say a few words about the debate that has gone on today on the floor 
of the Senate.
  The debate seems to focus on several different aspects of this 
Lincoln center. I cannot tell that it is in the best location in the 
city of Springfield. I didn't choose that location. I believed it 
wasn't my place to get involved. The minute this Lincoln center was 
suggested, people from all over Springfield who owned real estate came 
flocking to my door and reminded me of what good friends they were and 
asked me to pick their location for the Lincoln center. I said I wasn't 
going to do it. It shouldn't be a political decision. It should be a 
decision made in the best interests of the hundreds of thousands of 
people who will come and visit this location.
  The location which they have chosen is in a good spot when you 
consider the restoration of the old railroad station from which Abraham 
Lincoln left for his Presidency, and the old State capital which was 
important in his life and to this new center. They create a campus that 
I think will be visited and enjoyed by a lot of people.
  There was also a question about the design of the center. I am no 
architect or planner. I really defer to others. I know what I would 
like. I would like to put in my two cents worth. But I am not going to 
act as an architect, a planner, or an engineer. That is really a 
decision to be made by others. It should not be a political decision.
  I think what Senator Fitzgerald said during the course of this debate 
is that the bidding process for this center should not be political 
either. I agree with him completely. I think he is on the right track.
  As he and I have said in various ways, a center that honors ``Honest 
Abe'' should be built in an honest fashion. That is what we are going 
to try to do in Springfield, IL. Senator Fitzgerald and I have been in 
agreement to this point. I believe, though, that we may have some 
difference of opinion in how we are going to progress from here.
  I, frankly, believe that trying to create a new bidding process for 
this center involving Federal rules may be difficult and may be 
impossible. What agency is going to do it? Who is going to implement 
these rules and regulations? How will this law apply? But I agree with 
him that whatever process we use--whether it is Federal, State, or some 
other means--that it should be one where competitive bidding is the 
absolute bottom line so that it is open and honest.
  That is why I asked of the Capital Development Board in Springfield, 
which I believe will be the agency supervising this bidding, for a 
letter that expressly states that this process will be done by open 
competition and open bidding. I received that letter yesterday.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                State of Illinois,


                                    Capital Development Board,

                                 Springfield, IL, October 3, 2000.
     Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Durbin: This letter is an additional attempt 
     to allay concerns that have been raised about our state's 
     commitment to competitive bidding and the efficacy of our 
     state purchasing laws. Let me assure you that all 
     construction contracts for this library and museum are being 
     and will continue to be competitively bid pursuant to state 
     law that is at least as stringent, if not more so, than 
     federal bidding requirements.
       Competitive bidding has long been the requirement for State 
     of Illinois construction contracts and was most recently 
     reaffirmed with the passage of the stricter Illinois 
     Procurement Code of 1998. Only six exemptions to that 
     provision, which are defined by rule and must be approved by 
     the Executive Director, exist:
       (1) emergency repairs when there exists a threat to public 
     health or safety, or where immediate action is needed to 
     repair or prevent damage to State property;
       (2) construction projects of less than $30,000 total;
       (3) limited projects, such as asbestos removal, for which 
     CDB may contract with Correctional Industries;
       (4) the Art-in-Architecture program which follows a 
     separate procurement process;
       (5) construction management services which are 
     competitively procured under a separate law; and,
       (6) sole source items.
       None of these exceptions have ever or will apply to the 
     library project, as they do not apply to the overwhelming 
     majority of CDB's projects.
       With regard to the federal practice of ``weighting'' 
     construction bid criteria, there is no similar provision in 
     state law, because there is only one criteria allowed--our 
     bids must be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder--
     period. While it appears to me that the federal government 
     has taken the approach that it will determine the 
     responsiveness of the individual bidders after bids are 
     received, Illinois law actually requires that process to 
     occur before bidding takes place. Construction companies are 
     required to become prequalified with CDB before they can bid 
     on construction projects. It is during the prequalification 
     process that we determine a company's bonding capacity and 
     assess their work history and level of experience through 
     reference checks--in short, their ability to perform 
     construction work.
       All bids for a construction project are opened during 
     publicly held and advertised ``bid opening'' meetings. All 
     interested constructors are informed at that time of the bid 
     amounts. There is no provision that allows CDB not to award 
     to the low bidder.
       I hope that this clarifies some of the issues that have 
     been raised. Please do not hesitate to call on me if I may be 
     of further assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Kim Robinson,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this letter was sent to me by the 
executive director of the Illinois Capital Development Board, Kim 
Robinson. I don't know Kim Robinson personally. But she writes to me in 
this letter of October 3 that there are certain exceptions to 
competitive bidding under the Illinois State law. She lists all six of 
them, and then concludes:


[[Page 20777]]

       None of these exceptions have ever or will apply to the 
     library project, as they do not apply to the overwhelming 
     majority of CDB's projects.

  By that statement it is clear to me that there is going to be open 
competitive bidding on this project.
  The point that was raised by Senator Fitzgerald earlier in the debate 
about qualified bidders is a valid one. Who will be bidding on this 
project? I do not know. Frankly, no one has come forward to me and 
suggested that they want to be bidding on this project. It wouldn't do 
them any good anyway. I am not going to make that decision. I haven't 
involved myself in the location or design. I leave that to others.
  But I hope when this happens and bidders are solicited that it is an 
entirely open process as well. I will guarantee that there will be more 
attention paid to this bid for this project in Springfield, IL, than 
probably anything in its history.
  I credit Senator Fitzgerald for bringing that attention forward. But 
let us proceed with the premise that it is going to be a transparent 
process. And let us make certain that as it progresses we will have at 
least an opportunity to assess it every single step of the way.
  I also add that during the course of his statement today my colleague 
has raised questions about previous bidding processes by Governors in 
the State of Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 10 minutes has expired.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, questions have been raised by Senator 
Fitzgerald about the bidding processes under Governors in the State of 
Illinois. For the record, there has not been a Democratic Governor in 
the State of Illinois for 24 years. So if he is suggesting that there 
have been irregularities under Governors, it is likely that they have 
not been of my political party. I can tell you without exception that I 
have never involved myself in any bidding process in Springfield by the 
State government. I have considered my responsibilities to be here in 
Washington and not in the State capital. Frankly, the people who bid on 
contracts and whether they are successful is another part of the world 
in which I have not engaged myself. I am not standing here in defense 
of any of these bidding processes, or making excuses for any of these 
processes. If there was any wrongdoing, then let those in appropriate 
positions investigate that and come to conclusions. Whether there was 
any reason for any kind of prosecution or investigation, that is not in 
my province nor my responsibility.
  I hope at the end of this debate we can remove any cloud on this 
project. This project should go forward. The Illinois congressional 
delegation supports this project. Let us demand it be open and honest, 
and then let us support it enthusiastically. Frankly, I think we all 
have an obligation to taxpayers--Federal, State, and local alike--to 
meet that goal.
  I close with one comment because I want to be completely open and 
honest on the record. My colleague, Senator Fitzgerald, during the 
course of the debate has mentioned the Cellini family of Springfield. 
The Cellini family is well known. My wife and I have known Bill and 
Julie Cellini for over 30 years. We are on opposite sides of the 
political fence. He is a loyal Republican; I am a loyal Democrat. 
Seldom have we ever come together, except to stand on the sidelines 
while our kids played soccer together or joined in community projects. 
They are friends of ours. I have taken the floor of the Senate to note 
that Julie Cellini is an author in our town who has done some wonderful 
profiles of people who live in Springfield.
  I make it part of this record today, when I came up with the original 
concept of this Lincoln center, there were three people who came 
forward and said they were excited about it and wanted to work with me 
on it. This goes back 10 years now. They included Susan Mogerman, who 
works with the Illinois State Historical Library, as well as Nikki 
Stratton, a woman involved in Springfield tourism, and Julie Cellini. 
These three women have worked tirelessly for 10 years on this project. 
I never once believed that any of them would be involved in this 
because they thought there was money at the end of the rainbow. I think 
they genuinely believe in this idea and they believe it is good for 
Springfield and good for the State of Illinois.
  I can't speak to any other dealings by that family or any other 
family, but I can say every contact I have had with those three women 
and their families about this project has been entirely honorable, 
entirely above board, and in the best interests of civic involvement 
for an extremely important project, not only to our city of Springfield 
but to the State of Illinois and to the Nation.
  I hope when this is all said and done, this delegation can come 
together, closely monitor the bidding process, do everything in our 
power to help make this center a reality, and at the end of the day I 
hope we will be alive and be there at the opening of this great center.
  I was honored a few months ago by our Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, 
to secure a spot as a member of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial 
Commission. I can think of few higher honors than to work and celebrate 
the life and accomplishments of one of the world's greatest leaders. 
The actual bicentennial will not be fully celebrated until 2009. This 
legislation is a great first step in a celebration of the life and 
accomplishments of a great President.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. I compliment my colleague, my friend from Illinois. 
Extending my time line further, I started in 1998. There are a lot of 
articles going back to the early 1980s when Senator Durbin--then 
Congressman Durbin--was working hard to get this project off the 
ground. I compliment him for his hard work over a number of years on 
behalf of this project.
  I appreciate his love for Springfield. Senator Durbin has talked many 
times at our weekly Thursday morning breakfast about his love for 
Springfield. I know that he and his wife Loretta have lived in 
Springfield for many years. I am hopeful that we can work together and 
build a wonderful Abraham Lincoln Library that will truly be a credit 
not just to Springfield but to the whole State of Illinois and the 
entire country.
  I also thank Senator Durbin for his support and the amendment he 
offered in the Senate requiring the Federal competitive bid rules. 
Senator Durbin has been very supportive and the whole Illinois 
delegation supports the project. There has simply been a difference of 
opinion as to which bidding rules should be attached.
  I did want to point out that the State code does contemplate, where 
Federal strings are attached, Federal appropriations, that State 
agencies receiving Federal aid, grant funds, or loans, shall have the 
authority to adapt their procedures, rules, projects, drawings, maps, 
surveys, and so forth, to comply with the regulation, policy, and 
procedures of the designated authority of the U.S. Government in order 
to remain eligible for such Federal aid funds.
  I think that provision would be helpful in the case of this grant or 
any other grant where the Federal Government seeks to ensure the proper 
accountability of the Federal funds.
  I compliment my colleague and thank him for his working and allowing 
me to make my views known. I look forward to continuing to work with 
the Senator this year and in following years.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank Senator Fitzgerald.
  In closing, you know your senatorial lineage is traced to Steven 
Douglas, and I checked the history of the Senate. I am afraid he is on 
our side of the aisle, and he traced himself to my seat. You have some 
distinguished senatorial colleagues who proceeded you, and I am certain 
you are very proud of them as well.

[[Page 20778]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. It is my understanding I now have 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


                            ROYALTY PAYMENTS

  Mrs. BOXER. I am pleased to come to the floor today to try to shed a 
little light, if not a little heat, on an issue that was raised by the 
Senator from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski, when he asked unanimous consent 
that we take up H.R. 2884, but substitute his amendment to that bill, 
and pass it. The unanimous consent request was made by the majority 
leader on behalf of Senator Murkowski. He came to the floor with a very 
eloquent discussion of why he believed it was important.
  I am one of the Senators--there is more than one--who objects to this 
bill. I think it is very important to state clearly on the record why. 
First, H.R. 2884 as it came over from the House does exactly the right 
thing. It reauthorizes the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and it sets up 
a home heating oil reserve. That is very important for the people of 
this country, particularly the people in the Northeast. We could pass 
that in 1 minute flat by unanimous consent request. No one has any 
problem.
  What is the problem, my friends? Senator Murkowski has essentially 
added to that bill a whole new body of law concerning royalty payments 
by the oil companies, which they owe the taxpayers of the United States 
of America. It deals with the ability of the oil companies to pay, not 
in cash--which is essentially the way they pay now--but in kind. It 
would encourage, by many of the provisions in it, the payment of these 
royalty payments in kind. In other words, Uncle Sam would become the 
proud owner of natural gas, Uncle Sam would become the proud owner of 
oil. And, by the way, Uncle Sam would then have to in some cases market 
that product.
  I don't think we are good at becoming a new Price Club. I really 
don't. My friend from Alaska says: But the Government wants to do it, 
they want to do it. They came to us; they asked us; they want to do it. 
Show me one bureaucrat in Government who doesn't want more power, more 
authority, more jobs, and I will show you a rare bureaucrat.
  The royalty payments that come into this Federal Government go to the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund. Let me be clear what a royalty 
payment is. When you find oil on Federal land offshore and onshore, you 
must pay a percentage of that to the taxpayers. It is like rent. You 
are using the taxpayers' land, the offshore areas, and you have to pay 
a certain amount of rent based on the value of the oil or gas you 
recover.
  This is an area that has been fraught with complication and 
difficulty. I frankly have found myself on the side of the consumers 
who have said they have been shortchanged by the oil companies. I 
believe that those of us who fought for 3 long years for a fair royalty 
payment did the right thing. Why do I say that? Because under the old 
system there have been lawsuits and almost in every case--I do not even 
know of any case where we did not prevail on behalf of the taxpayers.
  I hear today that the Federal Government has collected, because there 
have been some recent settlements, almost a half a billion dollars of 
payment from the oil companies. Do you know why? Because they have been 
cheating the taxpayers out of the royalty payments that they were 
supposed to make based on the fair market value. One of the ways they 
have cheated the taxpayers is to undervalue the oil. If you are in 
beginners math, you know a percentage of a smaller number will yield 
yet a smaller number. So they did not do the proper math. They didn't 
show what the oil was worth. They undervalued the oil and then they 
took a percentage of the undervalued oil and gave it to the taxpayers 
and we were shorted a half billion dollars--maybe more. That is just 
the recent settlement.
  So after 3 years of fighting--and, believe me, I had to stand on my 
feet and fight long and hard, and so did a lot of my colleagues, and I 
thank them--we were able to make sure that a fair way of determining 
the fair market value of that oil was put in place.
  In the middle of all this comes the payment-in-kind program. In other 
words, instead of paying cash, we say to the oil and gas companies we 
are going to try an experiment. We are going to try a pilot program. We 
are going to allow you to pay your royalties in kind. That is like if 
you owed the Government your income taxes and said: Uncle Sam, I'm 
short. Will you take the payment in, say, my mother's antique chest? 
That's worth about $1,000 and that's what I owe.
  By the way, we do this with no other commodity. We have checked the 
records. We say to them something we say to no one else who owes the 
Federal Government: You can pay your dues, your royalty payments, in 
kind.
  I have a lot of problems with that. A lot of my colleagues think it 
is just great. But, again, it is my experience that we do not do too 
well in the business world in government. We are better off doing our 
work here, getting that straight. Now we are going to expand. It is 
going to be Uncle Sam's Oil Company; Uncle Sam's Gas Company: Drive in 
and fill her up.
  Of course I am exaggerating; it will not be exactly that. What we 
will do is market the product and sell it and probably pay the oil 
companies to do all that marketing for us so they will get back plenty 
of money. We will wind up paying them to market their product. This is 
a very confusing matter.
  So what happens? Without one hearing in the Energy Committee, we have 
before us a substitute bill that I have objected to and others have 
objected to that would essentially say, regardless of all the work, 
Senator Boxer, that you and many of your colleagues went through to get 
a fair royalty payment, we are going to come around in the backdoor 
when nobody is looking and we are going to put in a new way to figure 
out how to pay royalties. We are going to expand this payment-in-kind 
program even before we have held one hearing on whether it even works. 
The pilot programs are going to be completed very soon, in about 3 or 4 
months, at least one of them. Another one will be done next year. What 
is the rush to pass a 5-year authorization on royalty payments in kind? 
What is the rush? Is that the way to govern? Is that the way to 
legislate?
  No other industry in America gets this chance. I say, if you read the 
substitute offered by my good friend, Senator Murkowski, you are going 
to find a few things in there that are going to raise your eyebrows.
  In the very first draft, they set up another definition of ``fair 
market value.'' I protested. They dropped it. Now it just says the 
royalty in kind has to be paid in a fair market value, but it doesn't 
define it. It doesn't do what the rule does for the in-cash payments. 
So now you have two conflicting ways, one way that is clearly defined 
if you pay in cash and one way that is open to interpretation, fair 
market value--whatever that means--for the payment in kind.
  Do you know what I see? Again, you don't have to be an expert in 
economics. I was an economics major, but that was so many years ago I 
don't pretend to be an expert. But if I say to you, ``fair market 
value,'' you are going to say, ``I think that is a willing buyer and a 
willing seller.''
  If I ask Sarah here, who has worked so hard on this, she is going to 
say: I think that is a little risky because the seller might be a 
subsidiary of the buyer. That is not arm's length. It has to be an 
arm's length agreement.
  Somebody else might say: Forget that. Let's just go to the published 
newspaper in terms of what the oil is selling for on that date.
  Frankly, that is the one I like. That is the one we use in the 
definition when you pay royalty in cash.
  The first problem is you are setting up a whole conflict here. I will 
tell you, those guys with those sharp pencils who are in the oil 
company, they are going to go for payment in kind because there is not 
any real definition. They are going to give us less oil and less value 
than we would get.

[[Page 20779]]

  So then you say to my friend, Senator Murkowski, let's at least put 
in this legislation a statement that says: Under no circumstances 
should we get less than we would get if it was payment in cash because, 
again, this money goes to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which 
is our conservation fund. We buy lands with it. We fix up parks with 
it. And the State share--because States get a share of the royalty 
payment--that goes to the California classrooms.
  Are they going to send oil to the California classrooms? Are they 
going to send natural gas?
  So we said: Look, we have to work out these problems with the States. 
In any case, we can't have less of a payment than we would have if you 
paid in cash. So we said: Will you put that in the language? ``Under no 
case will we get less than we would get if we got payment in cash.''
  Oh, no, they use the word ``benefits,'' not revenues. The benefits 
have to be equal or greater.
  I said: Wait a minute. What does that mean?
  Well, the Secretary will decide if there is a benefit.
  Let me tell you I have seen Secretaries of the Interior come and go. 
I saw one who said: Don't worry about the ozone layer leaving us. Don't 
worry about a hole in the ozone layer; just wear a hat and put on 
sunscreen. Don't worry about cancer. That was one Secretary of the 
Interior.
  So in this 5-year authorization that never had a hearing, before the 
pilot programs are through, we are leaving all this up to the Secretary 
of the Interior, whoever he or she may be.
  We have seen Secretaries of the Interior who fought on behalf of the 
environment. We have seen Secretaries of the Interior who fought on 
behalf of big oil. I am not here to give authority to the Secretary of 
the Interior to decide when it is in the benefit of the United States 
to take less than what you would get if you received a payment in cash.
  I understand from Senator Murkowski's staff that he feels strongly 
about this and he is not going to back off. He is going to file a 
cloture motion and all the rest of it. That is fine. We will stay here 
past the election because I am going to stand on my feet because I 
don't think the taxpayers ought to be ripped off again. They have been 
ripped off for years. We finally resolved the situation, and we are now 
back to square one.
  Again, I reiterate, the underlying bill that came over from the House 
is a beautiful bill.
  It deals with two things which we need to do: We need to fill up the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve and reauthorize it, and we need a home 
heating oil reserve. I will say we are told by the administration that 
they actually can act on this without this legislation, but it 
certainly would be better to have it.
  I say to my friend, Senator Murkowski--and I will not do it now in 
deference to the fact he is not here--I would like to move the 
underlying H.R. 2884 as it came over here and pass it 5 minutes a side. 
We can do it if we did not add all this royalty in-kind section to it.
  The last point I wish to make on this subject is, in the Interior 
bill that is now before the Senate, we have already taken care of this 
problem. The Minerals Management Service came to us and said: We need a 
little help with the pilot program because we really want to make sure 
we are giving payment in kind every chance. The Minerals Management 
Service wants to go into the oil business. That is great. They want to 
be the Price Club of the United States of America. So they want help. 
OK.
  We took care of them in this Interior bill. We gave them what they 
wanted. We allowed them to calculate this royalty in a way that they 
can subtract the cost of transportation, even subtract the cost of 
marketing oil. The oil companies get a good deal. Senator Murkowski 
wants a 5-year authorization without one hearing. He wanted to pass it 
by unanimous consent, no amendments, nothing.
  I may sound upset, and it is true, I am upset because I think the 
consumers get a raw deal. Every time we have a little problem with an 
energy supply, what do we hear around this place? Drill in ANWR; let 
the oil companies pay lower royalties, and meanwhile the oil companies 
are earning the biggest profits they have ever earned, causing Senator 
Pat Leahy of Vermont to come down here and propose a windfall profits 
tax on the oil companies. But it is not good enough for them to earn $1 
billion and $2 billion in a quarter--in a quarter--to have 100-percent 
profits and 200-percent profits and 300-percent profits. They have to 
pay us less in royalties. If you knew what this amount was--it is so 
minuscule compared to their profits--it would shock you.
  It is not minuscule to the child who sits in a California classroom. 
It is not minuscule to the Land and Water Conservation Fund or the 
Historic Preservation Fund, but yet here we are when we should be doing 
energy conservation, when we should be having a long-term energy plan, 
the first thing we do, because the Senator from Alaska attaches it to 
an important bill, is give a break to the oil companies again with 
these royalties in kind.
  Boy, I tell you. Maybe the Senator from Florida will be interested to 
know this. There is not any other business in America that pays in 
kind. It would be interesting if you had to pay your IRS bill and you 
said: I have a few extra things around the house I am going to send in.
  It is hard to believe we would have an authorization to really expand 
the payment-in-kind program without one hearing. I am stunned. It is 
taken care of in the Interior bill. We gave them a narrow bill. We did 
not mess with the definition of how you are supposed to pay, what you 
are supposed to pay. We did what the Interior Department wanted.
  If this is going to a cloture vote, I tell my friends, so be it. I 
have other friends on this side of the aisle who agree very strongly, 
and we are going to stand on our feet and it is not going to be 
pleasant, it is not going to be happy, but we are going to have to do 
it, and let us shine the light of truth on the whole oil royalty 
question.
  They are going to get up and say: Oh, it's the mom and pop little 
guys. Fine, let's do this for the mom and pop little guys. I will talk 
to you about that. But do not give the biggest companies--these are 
multinational corporations making excess profits--another break, and 
suddenly Uncle Sam goes into the oil business and the gas business.
  This whole issue of an energy policy is important. It came up in the 
debates, and what we heard from the two candidates was very different. 
George W. Bush had one energy policy and one energy policy alone, and 
that is more development at home. By the way, we have had a lot more 
oil development here--and I am going to put that information in the 
Record--since Clinton-Gore came in. But they want to go to a wildlife 
refuge and drill in a wildlife refuge.
  The No. 1 goal of environmentalists in this country is to protect 
that wildlife refuge. They want to drill in it, and you say: Senator 
Boxer, how much oil is in there? The estimate is about 6 months of oil. 
Period. End of quote. Forever. Some say if you got every drop out of 
it, it could go for 2 years, but that is the outside; most people think 
it is 6 months.
  To me that is a contradiction in terms. We have to figure out a 
better way. I will give you a better way. We can save a million barrels 
of oil a day--a million barrels of oil a day--if we just say the SUVs 
should get the same mileage as a car. A million barrels of oil a day, 
and yet when that comes up, people duck for cover around here.
  How have the President and the Vice President tried to have an energy 
policy? First of all, since they came in, oil and gas production on 
onshore Federal lands has increased 60 percent, and offshore oil 
production is up 65 percent since they came in, while they are 
protecting the most vulnerable offshore tracts, off California, off 
Florida, and other pristine places. We have seen a huge increase there.
  They worked to bring an additional 3.5 million more barrels per day 
into

[[Page 20780]]

the world oil market. They have taken measures to swap 30 million 
barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and this will help 
the Northeast not have a repeat of last year's home heating oil 
shortage. We know it was Vice President Gore who pushed for this, 
frankly, along with a couple of Republicans and Democrats in the 
Congress, and it seems to be working. We hope it will.
  They supported alternatives to oil and gas, such as ethanol, a 
renewable resource made from feedstock such as corn, and increasing 
ethanol use would help reduce dependence on foreign oil. It would help 
our farmers by boosting corn prices, and since ethanol can be made from 
waste, such as rice straw, waste straw, trimmings and trash, the 
greater use of ethanol can turn an environmental problem into an 
environmental benefit. In other words, it would take trash and turn it 
into energy. That is a plus.
  The other half of the administration's energy policy is to improve 
energy efficiency. I think it is very important to look at the record 
here. Having told you that if we go to the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge, we will only get 6-month's worth of oil, what is the answer? 
Let's see what the facts show.
  The administration supported a tax credit to promote alternative 
sources of energy--solar, biomass, wind, and other sources. The 
Republican Congress said no.
  The administration recommended tax credits for electric fuel cell and 
qualified hybrid vehicles. It was a 5-year package of tax credits. The 
Republican Congress said no.
  The administration advocated a tax credit for efficient homes and 
buildings. The Republican Congress said no.
  The administration recommended tax incentives for domestic oil and 
gas industries. The Republican Congress said no.
  The administration requested $1.7 billion for Federal research and 
development efforts to promote energy efficiency in buildings, 
industry, and transportation, and expanded use of renewable energy and 
distributed power generation systems. And the Republican Congress 
partially funded that program.
  The administration requested $1.5 billion for investments in energy 
R&D for oil, gas, coal, efficiency, renewables, and nuclear energy. 
What was the answer of the Republican Congress? No. And they introduced 
legislation to abolish the Department of Energy. That is a great 
answer.
  George Bush is saying we have no energy policy, and most of his party 
said: Do away with the Department of Energy. That was at a time when 
oil prices were low. They said: We don't need it. That is some policy.
  It goes on.
  The administration requested $851 million for energy conservation for 
the Department of Energy. The request was cut by $35 million.
  They requested money to continue the Partnership for a New Generation 
of Vehicles. That was cut in half by the Republican Congress.
  They requested $225 million for building technology assistance 
funding. That was cut.
  They asked for $85 million to create a new Clean Air Partnership Fund 
to help States and localities reduce pollution and become more energy 
efficient. The Republican Congress said no.
  It goes on.
  The administration recommended studying increases in the fuel economy 
of automobiles. We know that 50 percent of the cause of our energy 
dependence is automobiles. What did this Republican Congress do? It 
prohibited the administration from even studying the increases in fuel 
economy standards in a rider to the appropriations bill.
  So now we have the Republican standard bearer standing up in a debate 
saying: Where is your energy policy? There were 20 initiatives. I have 
only mentioned part of those. And they said no to the vast majority of 
them, and they said, OK, we will give you a little bit for a few.
  It seems, to me, disingenuous--and that is the nicest way I can say 
it--to be critical of Vice President Gore, saying he has no energy 
policy, when every single proposal, except maybe a couple, was turned 
down with a vengeance.
  Then, when we have a problem, our friends on the other side come down 
and say: You see the other side, they care about the environment too 
much. They will not drill in a wildlife refuge.
  I say, thank you for mentioning that because if there is anything I 
want to accomplish here in the short time that any of us has in the 
scheme of things, it is to protect this magnificent area.
  I wish we could join hands across party lines on energy. I say to the 
Presiding Officer, we have worked together in the Committee on Public 
Works. We have worked, for example, on ways to replace MTBE in a good 
way. We have worked on ways to make sure that we do not rob the States 
of their transit funds. I think we can do this. I do not think it is 
fair, however, for the candidate of the Republican Party to accuse the 
Vice President, who has proposed numerous ways, both on the production 
side and on the demand side, to resolve the problem, and say, there is 
no energy policy, when time after time after time it has been thwarted 
in this very body and in the House.
  I remember when I first went into politics--a very long time ago--we 
had an energy crisis. At that time, we realized our automobiles were 
simply gas guzzlers. I remember. They used to get 10 miles to the 
gallon, 12 miles to the gallon. I am definitely showing my age when I 
admit that. I remember that. And now we are doing better, but we can do 
better still.
  I say to you that rather than go into a pristine and beautiful 
wildlife refuge--which we really owe to our children and our 
grandchildren and their kids; we owe them the preservation of that 
area--rather than do that, we could take a few steps here that can 
really make us so much more energy efficient, that we will be proud to 
say to our children and our grandchildren that we took a few steps. We 
did not inconvenience anybody.
  Our refrigerators do a little bit better on energy use, our 
dishwashers, and our cars. I say to my own kids, who are at that age 
when they love those cars--I have a prejudice against those big SUVs 
because it is hard for me to climb into them. The bottom line is, they 
are very nice, but we can do better for our Nation and not be dependent 
on OPEC.
  Fifty percent of our problem has to do with transportation. So we do 
not have to say: Oh, my gosh, we have a problem. Drill in a wildlife 
preserve. Oh, my gosh, we have a problem. Destroy the coast of 
California; ruin the tourism industry; ruin the fishing industry; risk 
oil spills. We do not have to go there.
  We were sent here to find better ways of solving problems. Having an 
energy policy is important, but it takes two to tango. The Congress 
cannot do without the President, and the President cannot do without 
the Congress. The President proposes and Congress disposes. 
Unfortunately, they disposed of almost every single idea this 
administration had. We are suffering the consequences. So the issue is 
brought up at a Presidential debate, when people are pointing at each 
other, and we right here had a chance to do much better.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 30 minutes have expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Presiding Officer. This was a chance for me 
to explain my vociferous opposition to the substitute offered by 
Senator Murkowski and to talk about an energy policy. I appreciate your 
patience, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to take 6 minutes of the leader's time to speak as in morning 
business on the continuing resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to briefly describe my own 
thoughts on this royalty-in-kind issue.
  First, let me say, the Senator from California, and, before her, the 
Senator from Alaska, talked about a great many issues related to our 
energy situation. I do not have the time and I

[[Page 20781]]

have not come to the floor prepared to address all of those. I 
generally agree with the Senator from California that we need a 
balanced energy policy. We need to not only do things to increase 
supply, but we also need to reduce demand in this country. We have 
fallen short in that regard.
  I have proposed legislation, which the administration strongly 
supports, much of which the Senator from California referred to, that I 
believe would help us to reduce demand and also help us to increase 
production. I am sorry that we have not been able, as a Congress, and 
as a Senate, to bring that up for consideration this year. I hope we 
still can before we adjourn, but the days are growing short.
  Let me speak for a minute about the particular bill and the royalty-
in-kind issue.
  As I understand it, the action which started this discussion was an 
effort to move to H.R. 2884. This is the House version of EPCA. EPCA 
stands for Energy Policy and Conservation Act.
  That is an important piece of legislation. It reauthorizes the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It sets up a heating oil reserve in the 
Northeast, about which many feel very strongly. It does a variety of 
things. It gives the Department of Energy authority to pay above-market 
prices for production from stripper wells in order to fill the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve when the price of oil falls below $15 a 
barrel. It does other things on the weatherization grant program. It 
has some useful provisions and contains a variety of other things.
  It also contains a provision that the Senator from Alaska has 
strongly supported, and is intent upon keeping in the bill, on the 
subject of royalty in kind.
  Let me explain my thoughts on that.
  The Congress--for several Congresses now--has spent a lot of time 
arguing about, How do you determine what the royalty ought to be when 
the Federal Government allows for production of oil and gas on Federal 
lands? What amount of money is owed to the Federal Government?
  We all know it is 12.5 percent; it is one-eighth. But how much is 
that in dollars? There is a lot of litigation on that subject. There 
has been, for a substantial period of time, a lot of debate on the 
subject.
  The Federal agencies which manage our Federal oil and gas resources 
indicate that in certain circumstances they believe the United States 
has the opportunity to realize more money by actually taking its one-
eighth in royalty in kind; that is, actually taking that royalty in the 
form of oil or gas instead of receiving it in cash.
  The thought is that there is more of a benefit to the Government in 
some circumstances. Existing law authorized the Department of Interior 
to do that very thing. But under this authority, the Mineral Management 
Service, MMS, which is part of the Department of Interior, has 
conducted several very promising pilot programs on this subject of 
royalty in kind. Two of the latest of these involve Federal onshore 
oil, conducted in cooperation with the State of Wyoming and offshore 
gas in the Gulf of Mexico. Those are two examples.
  Early indications from both of these are that these pilot programs 
will result in greater revenue for the United States and for the 
taxpayer than would have been received had the oil and gas been taken 
in value, had the Government been paid dollars instead.
  As an example, the thought of the Senator from California, as I 
understood it, was that there is something unfair to the Government by 
having the Government take its oil or its gas in kind. An analogy which 
we might think about is if the Government were owed one beer out of a 
six-pack, would it make more sense for the Government to take that beer 
or would it be better for the Government to go through a lengthy 
process of trying to establish the value of that one beer once it 
considered the cost of transporting the six-pack and the cost of 
storing it and all the other things. And in some circumstances, as I 
understand it, the Department of Interior, through this Minerals 
Management Service, has determined that it is in their interest to go 
ahead and take the royalty in kind instead of trying to calculate and 
argue about the price of it.
  Based on these programs that have been in place, MMS, the Minerals 
Management Service, has determined that it could conduct a more 
efficient program, one that would be more likely to result in increased 
revenues, if it were able to pay for contracts for transporting and 
processing and selling the oil and gas it takes from Federal leases. 
Existing authorities allow the MMS to enter into contracts for these 
services but do not provide a way for them to pay except under general 
agency appropriations.
  The amendment the Senator from Alaska has offered and I have 
cosponsored grants to the Department of Interior authority to use the 
money it makes when it sells oil and gas it takes in kind to pay for 
the expenses incurred in preparing it for sale, including its 
transportation, processing, aggregating, storing, and marketing. There 
is a 5-year sunset on this.
  The amendment adds to existing law some very substantial protections 
for the Government and for the taxpayer.
  It requires the Department to stop taking royalties in kind if the 
Secretary of Interior determines that it is not beneficial to the 
United States to take royalty in that form.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes 
from the leader's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. It also requires that the Department report extensively 
to Congress on how the program is going. None of these requirements 
exist in current law. The royalty-in-kind provision in the Interior 
appropriations bill does not have these protections. This very bill we 
are getting ready to vote on in the next few days, the Interior 
appropriations bill, does grant authority to the Department to take the 
Federal Government's royalty in kind, but it does not have the 
protections that are in the amendment the Senator from Alaska and I are 
cosponsoring.
  While 1 year is better than nothing, which is the Interior 
appropriations language--the Department clearly supports that provision 
in the Interior appropriations bill--a 5-year authorization gives the 
agency enough time to actually enter into contracts it would need to 
seriously test the workability of this program.
  I wanted to clarify my own views at least as to what this provision 
would do. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act is important 
legislation. I hope we can resolve this dispute and get the legislation 
up for consideration in this Congress.
  I do support the royalty-in-kind provision the Senator from Alaska 
and I have cosponsored. It will be beneficial to the Government--not to 
the oil industry but to the Government. It would be a win/win 
situation, and I do not see it as in any way breaking faith with the 
American taxpayer.
  It would be good public policy for us to go ahead with this. I hope 
we can do so before the Congress adjourns.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I believe by previous order, I have 30 
minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am here today in support of my colleague 
from Louisiana and to express my dismay at the content of the Interior 
appropriations conference report which we are considering. Senator 
Landrieu knows better than each of us the amount of work, dedication, 
and focus it took to produce the widely and wildly supported 
legislation, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, or CARA, which has 
passed the House, passed the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, and now awaits Senate floor action.
  We have a unique opportunity before us in this session of the 
Congress: the ability to enact conservation legislation that will have 
a positive impact not just for ourselves but for our children and 
grandchildren, long after we have left this Chamber.

[[Page 20782]]

  This opportunity is in the historical mainstream of the United States 
of America. We are starting a new century, the 21st century. It is the 
third full new century that has been started since the United States of 
America became a sovereign nation.
  The first of those full centuries was the 19th century. We were led 
into the 19th century by one of our greatest Presidents, whose bust is 
above the Presiding Officer, Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson had a 
goal, a goal to acquire the city of New Orleans, which ironically is 
the home of Senator Landrieu. The purpose was to secure water transit 
on the Mississippi for American commerce, as it was developing in the 
Mississippi Valley, the Ohio Valley of the Presiding Officer, and later 
in the Missouri River Valley.
  President Jefferson suddenly had a unique opportunity before him. 
While his negotiators were discussing with the French, the then-owners 
of New Orleans, the purchase of that city, they were met with a counter 
offer. Don't just buy New Orleans; buy the entire Louisiana territory.
  President Jefferson seized this opportunity and fundamentally 
transformed the United States of America. No longer were we an Atlantic 
nation. We were a continental nation. No longer were we a nation in 
which Americans were quickly using up their original land; we were a 
nation that had an enormous new area to develop.
  America suddenly had also been saved from the prospect of North 
America becoming a battleground for European rivalries because, with 
Louisiana in hand, the United States would be the dominant force in 
North America and would not have to contend with the prospect of the 
English, the French, the Spanish, and other Europeans attempting to 
settle their long animosities on our territory.
  That was a truly bold idea, an idea that led us into the 19th century 
and has forever transformed our Nation.
  We began the 20th century with another similarly bold leader, 
Theodore Roosevelt, whose bust is just outside the main entrance to the 
Senate Chamber.
  Theodore Roosevelt had an idea that America should become a place 
which respected its natural heritage. So in his almost 8 years as 
President, he added to the national inventory of public lands an area 
that is the size of all the States which touch the Atlantic Ocean from 
Maine to Florida--an enormous contribution to our patrimony which, 
again, has served to transform both our idea of America and our access 
to America.
  We had an opportunity to start the 21st century with an idea which, 
if not of the scale of either the Louisiana Purchase or Theodore 
Roosevelt's commitments to public lands, would have been a statement 
that our generation still recognized its obligation to prepare for the 
future, as those two great leaders had done.
  That was what the Conservation and Reinvestment Act was about--to 
take a portion of the Anglo revenue, which the United States receives 
from Outer Continental Shelf drilling, and invest those funds in a 
better America for our future generations.
  I submit that this opportunity for a bold, grand idea in the 
tradition of Jefferson and Roosevelt--an idea that could have come 
close to being a legacy--is now, in fact, sadly a travesty, a mere 
shadow of what could have been. I suggest that there is no more 
inappropriate time for us to turn timid and retreat from what could 
have been. When Theodore Roosevelt became President of the United 
States in the early part of the 20th century, the United States had a 
population of approximately 125 million people. By the end of the 20th 
century, the United States has a population of 275 million people.
  The U.S. Bureau of the Census projects that by the year 2100--100 
years from today--the population of the United States will be 571 
million Americans. It is our obligation--as it was Thomas Jefferson's 
and Theodore Roosevelt's and those who supported their vision of the 
future--to begin the process of preparing for that next America that is 
going to arrive in the next 100 years. That next America has to be our 
grandchildren. They are the people who are going to make up the 571 
million Americans in the year 2100. It is possible that some of the 
young people who are here with us today may live through this full 
century and experience what that new America is going to be like. How 
well we are preparing for that new America is being tested by what we 
are doing today. I am sad to say that in the retreat from providing for 
an ongoing, significant source of funding to provide for the variety of 
needs of that new America, we are failing the next America.
  Like the occupant of the chair, I have served as Governor of a State. 
I believe one of the most lamentable aspects of this failure is the way 
in which we have treated States. States are our partners in this great 
Federal system. Probably of all the contributions the United States has 
made to the theory of government, none has been as significant as the 
concept of federalism: That we could have within 1 sovereign nation 50 
States that were sovereign over areas of their specific responsibility, 
and that in many areas those sovereignties would merge in respectful 
partnerships in order to accomplish goals that were important to the 
citizens of an individual State but also important to all Americans.
  Many of the programs that were the objective of the CARA legislation 
were in that category of respectful partnerships between the Federal 
Government and the State. For those respectful partnerships to be 
effective, in my judgment, there are some prerequisites. One of those 
prerequisites is that on both sides of the partnership there must be 
sustainability, predictability; both partners must bring to the table 
the capacity to carry out their mutually arrived at plans and visions.
  The CARA legislation, as it was passed by the House of 
Representatives--I might say by an overwhelming vote--and voted out of 
the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, had such a vision 
because it would have provided through this source of funds of the 
Outer Continental Shelf a guaranteed source of revenue to meet the 
Federal side of that respectful partnership with the States in 
everything from urban parks to historic district redevelopment, to the 
development of urban forests--a whole array of needs which our growing 
population requires.
  With that assured source of financing, there could have been some 
other things accomplished. One would have been good, intelligent 
planning as to how to go about using public funds to the greatest 
benefit. Part of that planning would have been to have set priorities 
in which people would have had some confidence. When you say 
priorities, by definition, you are telling some people they are at the 
absolute front of the line, other people are a few spaces back, and 
some are toward the end of the line.
  But if those who stand in line believe their turn in fact will come 
if they are patient and, if they do the planning that is asked of them, 
they will finally receive their reward through Federal participation in 
funding, I am afraid that what we have just done is lost that 
opportunity because of what we have in the conference report of the 
Department of the Interior. Under title VII, the land conservation, 
preservation, and infrastructure improvement title, which is offered to 
us as the substitute for CARA, we have this language:

       This program is not mandatory and does not guarantee annual 
     appropriations. The House and the Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations have discretion in the amounts to be 
     appropriated each year, subject to certain maximum amounts as 
     described herein.

  So we have no respectful partnership, and therefore we have no 
reasonable expectation that the kind of goals that were at the heart of 
the CARA program will in fact be realized. I suggest that our partners 
in the States who, from virtually every organization that represents 
State interests, had advocated passage of the CARA legislation will 
find this to be a particularly disappointing and sad day.
  In addition to the fact that we are squandering the opportunity that

[[Page 20783]]

comes with the enthusiasm of the new century, in addition to the fact 
that we are failing to meet the challenge for the new America, which 
will occupy this great Nation in the next hundred years, and in spite 
of the fact that we have acted in an arrogant and disrespectful way to 
our partners, the States, there is yet another tragedy in what is being 
proposed. That tragedy is our national parks.
  On July 25, 2000, the Senate Energy Committee passed its version of 
the CARA bill, containing what I consider to be one of its most 
important aspects--the national park protection fund. This fund would 
provide $100 million in assured, guaranteed funding for the parks for 
15 years, $100 million a year, for the purpose of natural, cultural, 
and historic resource preservation and restoration. This was a critical 
section of the bill. It was mirrored after a bill which I introduced in 
April of 1999. During our markup in the Energy Committee, I supported 
this section. I did believe that it should have included even more 
money to adequately address the needs of our national parks.
  I might say in that view that I was joined by a number of members of 
the Energy Committee who advocated a more significant commitment to the 
protection of our national parks. I am blessed to say that since this 
bill was reported by committee, we have had even another ally join in 
this effort. We have had the Republican candidate for President of the 
United States, Gov. George W. Bush. Governor Bush, on September 13 of 
this year, stated that he would commit to spend $5 billion on 
maintenance of the national parks over the next 5 years ``to renew 
these national treasures and reverse the neglect.''
  We are rejecting the advice and recommendation of the Governor of 
Texas, the Republican nominee for President of the United States, with 
this legislation because what it provides for national parks 
maintenance is only $50 million for 1 year. Fifty million dollars for 1 
year is all we are going to be voting for if we accept this conference 
report--not the $5 billion over 5 years that Governor Bush has wisely 
recommended we invest in the restoration and revitalization of the 
great national treasure of our national parks.
  The conference report today takes a tremendous step in the opposite 
direction in terms of a commitment for the rejuvenation of our national 
parks. It is wholly inadequate. I rise today to plead for our national 
parks.
  As Senator Lott said at a press conference in support of the CARA 
legislation earlier this year, even Kermit the Frog supports this bill. 
To borrow a phrase from America's favorite frog, ``It's not easy being 
green.'' It is also no simple matter maintaining the beautiful pinks 
and rich browns of Utah's canyons, the bright reds and oranges of 
Virginia's leaves in the fall, and, of course, the myriad colors that 
comprise America's Everglades. It is not easy. But it is critically 
important. It is our responsibility.
  The parks tell the story of what and who we are and how we came to 
be. They contain the spirit of America. Maintaining these national 
treasures takes commitment to conservation and environmental 
preservation. That commitment takes money--reliable, sustainable, 
predictable money--in order to be able to undertake the kinds of 
projects which are necessary to preserve our great natural and cultural 
heritage.
  There are many examples I might use to demonstrate this necessity for 
a sustained, reliable source of money to protect our heritage. Let me 
just use one that I have had the occasion to visit twice in the last 
few months; that is, Ellis Island.
  Ellis Island, as we all know, is the place through which some 15 
million persons seeking the freedom and liberty and opportunity of the 
United States first entered our country. It is a site which is seeping 
with the history of America. It is a site which is composed of about 
40-some buildings, including the first public health hospital in the 
history of the United States; it is on Ellis Island.
  You may have seen some television programs which were broadcast from 
Ellis Island that show a series of buildings which have been renovated 
to their 19th century style with brilliance and beauty. Unfortunately, 
what you do not see are the other 35 buildings in back of those that 
have been rehabilitated. When you walk through those buildings, what 
you see is some of the history of America crumbling literally before 
your eyes and feet.
  The reason for this crumbling is that there has not been an adequate, 
reliable source of funds to maintain this and many others of our 
national heritage. The superintendent of the park told me that if she 
had a reliable source of funds, she could organize a rational plan for 
the rehabilitation of these historic buildings and, at considerable 
savings to the taxpayers, commence the process of saving these 
buildings.
  What we have before us is not a bill that gives us the opportunity of 
salvation. Rather, it is a program that virtually assures the 
disintegration of Ellis Island and other invaluable parts of our 
Nation's history and culture. Today, protection of our natural 
resources and our historic and cultural resources has fallen further 
and further behind.
  Suffering takes many forms. Wildlife is suffering. In the park I know 
the best, America's Everglades and the great Everglades National Park, 
the number of nesting wading birds has declined 93 percent since the 
1930s. One study of 14 national parks found that 29 carnivores and 
large herbivores had disappeared since these parks were established and 
placed under our trusteeship and protection. Only half the islands in 
the Park Service's historic collections are cataloged.
  Often it takes an act of individual intervention in order to save an 
important national treasure. I have had the good fortune to have my 
daughter marry the son of a great American historian, David McCullough. 
David McCullough has sounded the national alarm at the disintegration 
of much of our historical and cultural treasures. One of those for 
which he sounded the alarm was the Longfellow house in Cambridge, MA. 
Not only was it the home of a great American family, it happened to be 
the home where George Washington lived when he was establishing the 
first components of the American Colonial Army that would eventually be 
victorious in the American Revolution--an extremely important site in 
American history, a site which, lamentably, was collapsing.
  David McCullough, a sophisticated person with considerable ability to 
energize action on behalf of a worthy project, went to one of our 
colleagues, Senator Kennedy, and brought to Senator Kennedy's attention 
what was happening at the Longfellow house in his State of 
Massachusetts. Senator Kennedy came to the Congress not too many years 
ago and got specific funding for the Longfellow house. Now it is on the 
road back to recovery.
  But do we have to depend upon the convergence of a historian and an 
influential Senator to save our national heritage? Are we going to say 
it is important enough that we do this on a predictable, sustained, 
professional basis? We have that opportunity with the CARA Act. We are 
about to lose that opportunity with this conference report.
  Only 62 percent of conditions needed to preserve and protect the 
museum collections within our National Park System meet professional 
standards for their protection. Considering only the park's portion of 
the CARA compromise--words which I find objectionable--but of only the 
park's portion of this alleged CARA compromise, we have nearly 290 
million reasons to oppose it. Those 290 million reasons are the 290 
million persons who last year visited our Nation's parks. That number 
grows each year as our children and our grandchildren take our place 
among the mountains, the forests, and the historic sites which comprise 
America's National Park System. The parks are more than just popular 
destinations. They are havens for more than 120 threatened and 
endangered species.
  The National Park Service also oversees a trove of historic artifacts 
that

[[Page 20784]]

represent the story of human experience in North America, some 75 
million items of our history.
  We owe to future generations, we owe to our children and our 
grandchildren, and their grandchildren, the chance to learn this story. 
We owe them the same opportunity to appreciate the majestic beauty of 
this land as we ourselves have been lucky enough to experience.
  In the words of President Lyndon Johnson:

       If future generations are to remember us with gratitude 
     rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the 
     miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the 
     world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got 
     through with it.

  We are seeing that opportunity to leave to those future generations a 
glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, we are seeing that 
opportunity unnecessarily and tragically slipping away.
  A steady diet of green will keep our natural treasures healthy well 
into the next century. We have the opportunity to do this. When the 
legislation establishing our Outer Continental Shelf drilling program 
and the royalties that would be derived was established, the theory was 
we would take the resources that we gathered as we depleted one natural 
resource, the petroleum and natural gas under our Outer Continental 
Shelf, and we would use it precisely as a means of investment in the 
future of our country by investing it in the protection of our most 
valuable natural historic and cultural resources.
  That is the opportunity that the legislation which was introduced, 
passed overwhelmingly in the House, passed by the Senate Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources--and I am proud to say with the support of 
our Presiding Officer--gave us. It is an opportunity we are about to 
fritter away.
  The CARA compromise does not achieve any of these significant goals. 
This Senate will diminish itself in terms of its appreciation of our 
American experience. We will diminish ourselves in terms of our 
political will. We will diminish ourselves as viewed by the history of 
our own grandchildren if we are to accept this compromise as being an 
adequate statement, the beginning of the 21st century of what we think 
our responsibilities to the future are.
  I urge we defeat this conference report, that we defeat this feeble 
compromise, and that we start again by bringing to the Senate floor the 
legislation which has passed out of the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources and give us an opportunity to debate it. Those who have some 
objections should offer amendments. That is the democratic way. I am 
confident it will pass and that it will be accepted by the House of 
Representatives, and signed with enthusiasm by the President, and then 
we will be worthy of the offices we hold and worthy of our 
responsibility to the American past and to the American future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. What business is before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending resolution, H.J. Res. 110, is 
under a time limit.
  Mr. GRAMS. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak in morning 
business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________