Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much.

Mrs. BOXER. I want to make a point in response, and I can do it, and raise a question for the Senator from Wisconsin, because he still controls the time.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, may I be heard on this point of order? I ask unanimous consent that I may be heard on this point of order.

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. Once more, I tell the Senate, the reason I have taken the Senate's time on this is twofold. First, it seems to me an amendment such as this does not belong in the Interior bill. In essence, it is a very major policy change. Oil companies sign an agreement with the Federal Government that, when they have the privilege of drilling on Federal lands, be it onshore or offshore, they pay a percentage of the fair market value of the production to the Federal Government. This is very important because in the Federal Government we use that for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is so important for our environment, historic preservation, national parks, et cetera. The States use their share to put the funds right into the classroom. If this amendment is approved, if cloture is invoked and the amendment is approved, the Land and Water Conservation Fund will lose $66 million. Because of this rider, which the Senator from Texas has put on these bills on three prior occasions, the Treasury has already lost $88 million. Mr. President, we badly need those funds for those important purposes of the environment and education. What the Senator's amendment does is stop the Interior Department from collecting the appropriate amount of royalties. How do we know we are not getting the appropriate amount of royalties? We have whistleblowers who have come forward and have told of a scheme to defraud the United States of America of the due amount of royalties. Just last month, a few weeks ago, Chevron agreed to settle a case on royalties, $95 million. This is a headline from the Wall Street Journal: Chevron to Pay $95 Million to End Claim It Shortchanged U.S. on Royalties. The companies are settling these claims at an unbelievable rate--$5 billion has already been settled by seven States. Twenty-five percent of these companies are cheating us, and they don't have a leg to stand on. They don't want to go to court. Therefore, they are settling. What we know, for example, is that in one of the recent suits that was filed, the United States of America has joined two whistleblowers-- and this is the first time this has ever been made public--outlining seven schemes by the oil companies to cheat Uncle Sam, cheat the taxpayers out of the money. We have heard of the seven wonders of the world, and we have heard of the 7 years war and the seven seas and seventh heaven and the 7-year itch and 007 and many 7s, but we have never heard of the seven schemes of the oil companies until now. In essence, all seven schemes have one goal; that is, to show that the value of the oil is less than what it really is. I think it is time to put an end to this. The USA Today headline says it all: It is Time to Clean Up Big Oil's Slick Deal with Congress. Reading directly from the article: Imagine being able to compute your own rent payments and grocery bills, giving yourself a 3 percent to 10 percent discount off the market price. Over time, that would add up to really big bucks. And imagine having the political clout to make sure nothing threatened to change that cozy arrangement. This amendment offered by my friend from Texas allows the oil companies to continue this cozy arrangement whereby they decide, these 25 percent of the oil companies, what they are going to pay the Federal Government. In every case, it is below the fair market value. This $66 million, as I said before, could do a lot of things. We could hire 1,000 teachers with it, or put 44,000 new computers into the classroom, or buy textbooks for 1.2 million students, or provide 53 million hot lunches for schoolchildren. So let us not think, when we have this vote, it is a free vote. This cloture vote is very important. The Senator from Texas just about mustered enough votes. She doesn't have one vote to spare. If just one of my colleagues would hear my plea, stand up and say no to this cloture, we could stop this thievery in its tracks. That is what it is--out-and-out thievery. We need the funds for the functions of government. We need the funds for the people of the United States of America. I urge a ``no'' vote on cloture.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before it counts on my time, I ask the Senator from Texas if she wants to begin the debate or finish the debate.

Mrs. BOXER. The Hutchison rider has been agreed to many times in the dead of night in the committee. But the Senate has never had time to explore all that it means. It is a tough debate going on here. I think it is good because, again, it shows, in many ways, the difference between the two parties, who stands for whom, where we come out. I thought comments of the Senator from Wisconsin about the role of campaign contributions to the political parties, as he pointed it out, was germane. We may have a vote about that later. He is simply pointing out a fact that has been noted in the USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, which is that, in fact, campaign contributions taint this debate. Even if everybody is pure of heart and pure of soul in this Senate--and I pray that is the case--there is an appearance here. It doesn't look right when you realize that 5 percent of the oil companies--mostly big oil--are not paying their fair share of royalties. We show it right here on the chart. The cost of the Hutchison amendment would represent $66 million that would otherwise go to the taxpayers, to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the national parks, historic monuments, and to the States to go into the classrooms. So it is very important that when these decisions are made, they are being made by the pure of heart because you have a situation where the oil companies are not paying their fair share--5 percent of the oil companies--and the people are therefore not getting their fair share to go into the classrooms and the national parks. Therefore, we want to make sure the decision is based on the facts, not on campaign contributions. I thought the Senator from Wisconsin was absolutely brilliant in his discussion and laying down the facts that show these campaign contributions. I hope if we do have a vote on whether that is germane, we will, in fact, find that the Senator from Wisconsin can continue his remarks because I think it goes to the heart of the matter. So just to show why I have taken the time of the Senate on this, I want to look again at this chart, which I call ``Big Oil's Big Rip Off.'' Because of this rider, we have lost $66 million from the Treasury--excuse me, we have already lost $88 million from the Treasury. Under this amendment, we lose another $66 million. That would mean if this amendment passes, the total cost of the oil rider will be $154 million to the taxpayers. I find it really interesting--a couple of things that the Senator from Texas now says--that if we collect the fair share of royalties, we will see an increase in gasoline at the pump. Let me tell you why I find that really interesting. We have debated this issue for many years now, and we have heard every argument being used. It always changes. The first argument as to why we should not allow Bruce Babbitt and the Interior Department to collect a fair amount of royalties from the oil companies was that oil companies are being fair. Why, we are not cheating; we are paying the fair share. They argue that. That didn't fly. The newspapers didn't buy it. Nobody really bought it. So the next argument is, well, maybe there needs to be a clarification. Maybe what we are paying isn't exactly right. We don't admit that, but let's have a clarification. But we need more time. So let's not allow the Interior Department to decide this matter now; let's buy some time. OK. Then they went to the third issue because that didn't fly very well anymore. The third excuse was that we haven't had enough public comment period on the rule. But go ahead and again open up public comment, and we will be glad to pay our fair share. Well, there were 17 meetings held, and then they opened up the public comment period again. We have heard every excuse in the world, bar none, as to why we should not be collecting the $154 million that is due taxpayers. The latest one is: Oh, oh, you better not allow Bruce Babbitt to go after those royalties because your prices will go up at the pump. Well, we know for a fact--if you look at the amount of money this means to the oil companies--it is a tiny percentage. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this point a chart that shows what these royalties mean to the big oil companies.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator from Texas. I do look forward to this debate. We have, for the first time, a debate about this particular rider to an appropriations bill on the Senate floor, finally. (Mr. BUNNING assumed the chair.)

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mrs. BOXER. Absence of a quorum. Absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER. I am so pleased the Senator is taking us back to the basics of this amendment which, as he pointed out, has essentially been offered to the Interior appropriations bill on three previous occasions in the committee on which he serves, the Appropriations Committee. We have tried to fight it in that committee only to be outvoted basically on a party-line vote. This is the first time, I know my friend is aware, we have had a vote on this in the Senate. I underscore and ask a question of my friend. My friend points out there is a problem with some of the oil companies, that they are not paying their fair share of royalties, and the Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, wants to make sure everyone pays their fair share. Is my colleague aware that 95 percent of the oil companies are doing the right thing? I want to make sure he understands the problem lies with 5 percent of the oil companies that are ripping off the people. I hope he responds to that, and I have an additional question.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend. I know he gets this completely. I also want to make sure he knows and that he puts into his remarks the fact that as a result of these three prior riders the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, has put on these bills, we have already lost to the Federal Treasury $88 million. Is my friend aware of it? And is my friend aware what this particular amendment will do to add to that $88 million? I see he has a terrific chart which explains it all. I yield to him for an answer.

Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield on that point?

Mrs. BOXER. Since my friend from Wisconsin is here, I will retain the remainder of my time and yield for him.

Mrs. BOXER. My friend hits again on an issue that I think we should explore because under the rules of the Senate we have up to 30 hours for debate on this Hutchison amendment. I do not know if it will take 30 hours, but it will take some time because it is important that the light of day shine on this. My friend from Illinois has hit on a really important point that, in essence, the scandal is the nature of this. I wonder if my friend could comment on the perception people in this country have that if you are big, if you are powerful, if you give millions of dollars in contributions, you can get your way in something as obvious as this. Why do I say obvious? The New York Times did a story on this just 2 days ago. I thought the opening lines were very important. I wonder if my friend read them. I think he did. It said: Oil companies drilling on Federal land have been accused of habitually underpaying royalties they owe the government. Challenged in court, they have settled lawsuits, agreeing to pay $5 billion. The Interior Department wants to rectify the situation by making the companies pay royalties based on the market price of oil, instead of a lower price set by the oil companies. The author asks: A simple issue? Not in the United States Senate. We have a simple, straightforward issue. If the Senator or I or any of the people watching this debate around the country didn't pay their fair share of taxes, believe me, they would have a knock on their door from the IRS. Here they have a knock on the door from the Senate. They say: It's OK; we will defend it. I ask my friend whether he feels the power of this special interest is playing a role in this? Not just to pick on them--I know my friend has taken on the tobacco companies time and time again--but I want my friend to comment on the perception of people in this country that this Senate and this Congress does the bidding of the special interests over the bidding of the people we are supposed to fight for and represent. He can tie it into any issue he wants, but I think it is an important part of this debate.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague very much, the Senator from Illinois, for his comments. He has proven, once again, a very important point around here; that is, that he speaks for the people, all the people. I think the primary issue in this amendment is, for whom do we stand up and fight? The oil companies, the tobacco companies, the special interests, they are strong. I know Senator Feingold, who has spoken before, has been very eloquent on the point of the power of the special interests in this country. They have the ability to really make things come out the way they want. On the other hand, this is supposed to be a government of, by, and for the people, which sometimes gets shut out. There isn't an occasion I can recall in all the years I have served with my dear friend from Illinois, Senator Durbin, not an occasion when he didn't stand on the side of what was right. That is a pretty strong statement. But I know when he gets up and speaks against the Hutchison amendment, it is because he is as outraged as I am that the people are being forgotten by the Senator from Texas, and the very powerful are being represented. Why did I take so much of the Senate's time on this? Because I feel so deeply that when you see people being hurt, you have to stand up on their side. Now, a newspaper in California said, well, it is only $600,000 a year to California. First of all, that is incorrect. It is $600,000 a year as their share of the royalties; but when more money gets put into the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the State of California gets back 10 percent of that. So it is really millions of dollars. Mr. President, I would like to ask my friend, Senator Feingold, at approximately what time he would like to be heard on this.

Mrs. BOXER. I just got unanimous consent to speak. So I would take that, and I thank my friend. I want to make a point in support of Senator Feingold's amendment to campaign contributions, but I want to do it in a way that I think is very objective. If you look at the New York Times article--he should make sure he looks at this New York Times article as well--I say to all of my friends, the title of this article is ``Battle Waged in the Senate Over Oil Royalties by Oil Firms.'' The essence of the article goes to the heart of what my friend is saying. It goes to the heart of the issue of campaign contributions. So I surely believe the Senator from Wisconsin is in full order to connect this amendment to the number of contributions that oil companies give, and I think his comments are on point and in order. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what is the order?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Hutchison, for working so well with me so we can, in an orderly way, get this vote. I want to say to my friend from Florida before he leaves the floor that I know he has more to say on this, and that he has raised issues that are so important to this debate. First, he raised the issue of process. He raises the point that this amendment doesn't belong here. It certainly does not. As a matter of fact, originally it was stripped from the bill, and it came back in a rather clever way. I give my colleague credit for passing the test. But it is making appropriations on a bill. My colleague makes that point. Second, he makes a very important point on the substance. This issue about whether a royalty is a tax, he knows. He is on the Finance Committee. If this was a tax, he would be dealing with it. He himself raises a crucial issue that was given short shrift by my friend from Texas, and that is, why are we here? Who do we fight for? And shouldn't it be for our children, our grandchildren, and their children? I think he says it in very sweeping terms. He also points out very clearly the specific problems that we face in the shortfall of our national parks, and the fact that these funds, when collected from the oil companies, go into the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I thank the Senator. I also want to thank Senators Durbin, Feingold, Reid, Wellstone, Dorgan, Levin, Harkin, Kennedy, Daschle, Byrd, Akaka, Cleland, and Conrad for yielding me time. This has meant a lot to me personally. But it also is telling that Senators would take their time and come to the floor to speak from their heart. And they did. I believe at the end of the day we have shown that the facts are on our side. I believe we have the arguments on our side that have been made by the consumer groups. I think the people who care about the environment are on our side. The legal precedents and settlements are on our side. Most of the States that are affected by this are on our side. I have read them into the Record. So if it is about States rights, we have the Record. The former oil executives under penalty of perjury and putting themselves on the line testified that we are right, and that there has been not one scheme but seven schemes to defraud the people of their money from royalties. I think we have proven that we have the arguments on our side. I am happy that we had this debate. To me, this is what the Senate should be about, and one of our colleagues from Oklahoma denigrated this debate. He said it didn't fit the Senate. He said that, in a way. I think this debate is important for the Senate. But I want to wind up by picking up on a statement made by the Senator from Montana. He is a good debater. And he ``gets with you.'' I like to hear him. What he said in the debate was basically, to me and the people on my side, ``Get a life.'' He said, ``Get a life.'' I want to talk about my life for a minute. I want to talk about what my professional life is about. I want to assure the Senator from Montana that I have a life. As a Senator, what I try to do with my life is to find purpose in it by fighting for the people of my State and the people of this country by taking their side against the special interests when I believe the special interests are wrong. If I believe the special interests are right, I will fight for them, if they are on the side of the people. I said earlier, and I will repeat now, there are two sides to this debate on this amendment. There are. The oil company has one side and the people have the other. I stand on the side of the people. So I have a life. I try to make my life about justice. My colleagues could have a different view of justice. I respect them tremendously if they do. But, to me, this is a matter of justice. Why do I say it? I say it because we know something bad is going on when two former oil executives filed a lawsuit and described very clearly the seven schemes by the oil companies to defraud the taxpayers. Quoting from them, they say: There is a nationwide conspiracy by some of the world's largest oil companies to short change the United States of America of hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. That is not the Senator from California. It is not the Senator from Massachusetts. It is not the Senator from Florida. It is two former oil executives who spell out the seven schemes of the oil companies. We know that there have been settlements all over the country--$5 billion worth of settlements by seven States. Why would these oil companies be settling all over this country? In Alaska, for $3.7 billion; in California, for $345 million. It goes on-- in Texas, for $30 million. The State of Texas brought suit. The State of Texas sued the oil companies. And guess what happened. The oil company didn't want to go to court. They settled for $30 million; New Mexico, for $6 million. It goes on. Now these oil companies are settling because they know they don't have a leg to stand on in court because they signed an agreement to pay royalties at fair market value. The Mineral Management Service at the Department of the Interior caught them. They want to fix the problem. This is the fourth time this Senate is interfering in that. I love this Senate too much to see that happen. It is the oil companies versus the people. I want to be on the side of the people. I think this has been a very good debate. We have covered all the issues very well. I want to thank the media for getting involved. We have seen some very strong stories in the last few days on this. I think the original editorial written by USA Today is still the best. USA Today said: ``Time to clean up Big Oil's slick deal with Congress.'' Those are tough words. Those are ugly words. I am sad to say, I agree. We can clean it up today. We can vote against this amendment and clean it up and have a good editorial. Wouldn't Members love to see an editorial tomorrow, ``Congress cleans up its act, tells the oil companies to pay their fair share of royalties.'' I would be excited to see that headline. I don't think we will see it. This issue will not go away as long as my colleagues and I are here. I think it is clear. The editorial says the taxpayers have been getting the unfair end of this deal for far too long. Congress should protect the public interest. That is what this is about. We have heard every argument in the book: The Interior Department is terrible, Mineral Management is terrible, people in the Interior Department are terrible. Everybody is terrible. Everybody is terrible. The people who are causing the trouble, the 5 percent of the oil companies that are not paying their fair share, are robbing this Federal Treasury of almost $6 million per month. That is a lot of money. Ask any constituent what they would do with $6 million a month, and they would have a pretty good list. Sad to say, this money that is not going into the Treasury because of this amendment could have gone to the classrooms of the States, could have gone into the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and been spent on the kinds of things Senator Graham, Senator Durbin, and many of our colleagues have pointed out need attention. We are coming to the end of this debate. I urge my colleagues, in the name of fairness and justice, to vote against the Hutchison amendment. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, could I ask what the order is in speaking? I thought the time belonged to the Senator from Wisconsin, and that it was his chance to continue his remarks.

Mrs. BOXER. The Senator from Wisconsin got time to make a speech when he has the floor, and he has an hour's worth of time. I would ask for a ruling as to who asked for time.

Mrs. BOXER. That is fine with us.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, who has the time?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, who has the time?