Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I don't think the Senator from Texas can rewrite the rules of the Senate. It is my understanding the Senator from Wisconsin has time. He has now been interrupted three or four times in what I consider to be a crucial presentation which gets to the heart of this amendment. I hope he can continue his remarks until the Chair has made a decision.

Mrs. BOXER. Regular order.

Mrs. BOXER. The list that is going into the Record shows all of the big oil companies and what this really means for them. It is so small that these royalty payments, in some cases, can't even be measured. They are so minuscule, they can't even be measured. The largest one is .07 percent of their revenues. So to stand up here and say your oil prices are going to go up is ludicrous. It is completely a new argument that absolutely holds no weight. Even if they were to pass this on, it would not even be a penny a gallon. It would not even be a mill. Let's face it; this isn't anything about higher gas prices because it doesn't even impact these companies. This isn't about any of that. It is about fairness; it is about justice. How do we know that it is about fairness and justice? The whistleblowers who work for big oil have testified. Let me tell you about something I have not even mentioned before in this debate. Recently, there was a lawsuit filed on behalf of two whistleblowers from big oil, and the lawsuit is quite compelling. It is so compelling that the Justice Department actually joined in as a party to the lawsuit. I know we have heard many seven schemes. We have heard of the Seven Wonders of the World; the Seven Years' War; Seven Brides for Seven Brothers; the Seven Seas; Seventh Heaven; Seven Days of the Week; Seventh Inning Stretch--which is what we could probably use right now-- Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs; Lucky Number Seven; Dance of the Seven Veils; the Seven Year Itch. How about even this biblical one: Forgive your enemies 70 times 7; Seven Hills of Rome; the Magnificent Seven; Seven Days in May; the Seven Percent Solution. There is even a book called ``The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People''; Seven-Up. We have heard of 7-Eleven stores; Seven Samurai; Double-O Seven; there is even Seven Sleepers of Ephesus. So we have heard a lot about sevens in history, and today on this floor of the Senate I am going to talk about another seven. This isn't a pretty one. This isn't a movie. This isn't a song. This isn't a saying. This is a lawsuit, a lawsuit that outlined the seven schemes of the oil companies--the seven schemes of the oil companies to defraud the taxpayers. I am going to speak to you from this lawsuit. I am going to read to you right from this lawsuit. Before you fall asleep and think it is boring, it is not boring. These are two whistleblowers, former ARCO executives, big boys in the echelon, who cleansed their souls. This is what they said in a lawsuit under penalty of perjury: Causes of action alleged herein arise from a nationwide conspiracy by some of the world's largest oil companies to shortchange the United States of America of hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues known as royalties. Let me repeat that because this is the crux of what is before us today. Two whistleblowers from the highest echelons of the big oil companies stated under penalty of perjury that there is a ``nationwide conspiracy by some of the world's largest oil companies to shortchange the United States of America of hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues known as royalties.'' What does this amendment do? Why am I taking the Senate's time? I want to shine the light of truth on this issue. The Department of the Interior knows this scam is going on, and they want to fix it. What we have before us is an amendment to stop the Interior Department. You can see from the poster by my good friend from Texas. Now the argument is: Turn your sights on the Interior Department; they are corrupt. This is a new argument about trial lawyers. I haven't heard that one before. I guess they keep taking a poll to see who is popular, and then they try to argue with us because they cannot argue with us on the merits. I think it is also very interesting because the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Wyoming tried to stop Senator Feingold from talking about the oil company contributions. They are coming up with the trial lawyers. I find it is interesting. That is fine. I don't mind that. I wouldn't gag any of my colleagues. They can say whatever they want because the issue here is clear. It is stated in a lawsuit: There is a nationwide conspiracy by some of the world's largest oil companies to shortchange the United States of America of hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue known as royalties. That is not a statement by trial lawyers; that is a statement under penalty of perjury by two former employees of big oil. Let's see what else they say. They say: There is a pattern and a practice of carefully developed and coordinated schemes targeted to defraud the United States of America of its lawful share of royalties owed by the defendants, the oil companies, for crude oil produced in United States owned or controlled land. In English language, it means that when these oil companies drill on lands that belong to the people of the United States of America, land of the United States, either onshore or offshore, they are not paying their royalties. To continue: The oil companies' unlawful conduct is continuing in nature and these major oil companies operating in the United States have underpaid oil royalties to the United States by calculating the royalties based on prices less than the total consideration actually received by the oil companies. In English language, these royalties are not being based on the fair market price, which is what they have to be, according to the lease they sign. Let's take a look at that lease they signed because I think that is pretty telling. The Senator from Texas keeps referring to a royalty as a tax. A royalty is not a tax. A royalty is paid subject to an agreement. When oil companies drill on lands that belong to ``we, the people,'' they have to pay something for it. It is a privilege, and they have to pay something for it. The ``something'' that they pay for is the subject of this debate. The Department of the Interior says--and these whistleblowers say-- that 5 percent of the oil companies are cheating and 95 percent are doing the right thing. They are paying the fair market value--their royalty is based on a fair market value--but 5 percent of the companies that are cheating us are not. We know that to be the case. So let's look at the agreement that the oil companies signed. They signed an agreement that says the value of production for purposes of computing royalty on production shall never be less than the fair market value of the production. It further says gas of all kinds, except helium, is subject to royalties and that, for purposes of computing, the royalty from this lease shall never be less than the fair market value of production. That is the subject of this debate. Five percent of the oil companies are not paying the fair market value. Let's look at some of the companies and the posted prices. Whistleblowers have told us that these oil company executives sit around and plan to defraud the people. It is all in this lawsuit, and it is reflected in this chart. If you track the market price of oil-- right here we have done that-- from July 1997 to June 1998, just to give you an example, this blue line is the market price. How do we know the market price? It is listed in oil publications every day. We know what it is. It is really definable. If you track that market price compared with this red line, which is the ARCO posted price--in other words, that is the price ARCO decided to pay royalties on--what do you see? You see a differential of about $4 per barrel. Sometimes it is less--$2. But it can go up to $4 or $5 in difference. What does that mean? It means that the taxpayers are being defrauded by this amount in the middle, in between the two. Do we have another oil company? It just doesn't happen in ARCO. I don't want to say it just happens in ARCO. Here we have another oil company. We track the market prices and the posted prices. Isn't it amazing? Why is it this way? Because these companies are cheating the Government. They are not paying the royalties based on the blue line, which is the market price, which they have to, according to the agreement they signed. This isn't about taxes, my friends. This is a royalty agreement. They are paying the royalty based on the red line, and the taxpayers are getting ripped off. You may say, well, what is $4 a barrel with $2 to $4 on a regular basis? It is a lot. Let me tell you what it is. We are not talking about peanuts; we are talking about real dollars. Let's talk about that. This amendment that is before us today, on which the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, got 60 votes--just the amount she needed, and not 1 vote to spare to bring this amendment to the floor--is about real dollars, $66 million. What can you do with $66 million? By the way, that is only 1 year. If this continues, we are looking at $1/2 billion pretty soon, and $1 billion after that. Let's take 1 year for this particular amendment, $66 million. We could have hired 1,000 teachers with that. We know we need more teachers in the classroom. These royalty payments, when they go to the States, are used in the classroom. Anyone who talks about how we need more money for education, we could hire 1,000 teachers with the $66 million. Maybe you don't want to hire teachers. Maybe you want to improve the schools. We can put 44,000 new computers in the classroom with $66 million. That is just this year. Or we can buy textbooks for 1.2 million students. Have you ever looked at some of the textbooks in our public schools? When I was a kid and I got a textbook--it was a long time ago; I plead guilty to that--when we opened up a textbook in those happy days, it smelled clean and fresh. It was clean and fresh. It was ours. Today, some of the textbooks have writing; they are old; they are falling apart. What kind of message is that? I could be challenged: Why is the Senator from California talking about schools, textbooks, and teachers? Easy. The money we would get if we defeat the Hutchison amendment could buy 1.2 million students new textbooks. If you want to do something for the safety net with that $66 million, we could provide 53 million hot lunches for schoolchildren, lunches that have more than ketchup, I might say; lunches with nourishment, nutrition. We know a lot of our kids need that. When these oil companies sit around and plot to defraud the government--and we have it here, under penalty of perjury, that that is what they do with seven schemes. We have the schemes outlined. Later in the debate I will get into exactly what are the seven schemes. Essentially, all seven are schemes to lower the value of the oil that is pumped from Federal lands. They have intricate ways of doing that. It is spelled out right here. I will read a little more from this complaint. These whistleblowers, who were former executives high up in the chain of big oil, say: . . .they have knowledge of the unlawful conduct, including the schemes and the practices alleged herein, which include the oil company's misrepresentation and underpayment of oil royalty payments to the United States. They go through the schemes. Does anyone want to challenge the authenticity of these charges from these whistleblowers, former oil executives, who say they have ``direct knowledge that this is going on.'' They call it ``conspiratorial activities'' to cheat the United States out of its royalty income by deflating the base price of oil upon which royalties are to be paid. This is thievery. People say: Why are you taking the time of the Senate, Senator Boxer? It is because I love this place too much to see us put our imprimatur on this scheme. Let's read directly from the Platt's Oil article that shows exactly what one of these executives said under penalty of perjury. This is an article that appeared over the summer of this year in an oil company report. This isn't from the New York Times. We have gotten a good article from the New York Times. We have gotten good articles from USA Today and the Los Angeles Times. We have gotten good articles in South Dakota; we have gotten good articles in Michigan. All of those editorials are saying Senator Boxer is right. This is from an oil company newspaper, so it should have total credibility with all who take the oil company's side. I will read this article entitled ``Retired ARCO Employee Says Company Underpaid Oil Royalties.'' A retired Atlantic Richfield employee has admitted in court that while he was the secretary of ARCO's crude pricing committee, the major's posted prices were far below the fair market value. Let me repeat that. An oil company executive who worked in this area said that the ``posted prices''--that is, the price that the oil company paid the royalty on--was ``far below the fair market value.'' Let's look at the chart again. He is saying the amount they paid their royalties on--remember, the royalty is a percentage, about 12 percent if it is onshore, 12 percent of the fair market value. They did 12 percent of their made-up posted price. He is not anonymous. This man has a name. He has put his good name out there. He has said under penalty of perjury in court that what he says is true. Harry Anderson is his name. He testified this month in an ongoing suit, and he said he was a witness to the inner workings of ARCO. According to court documents, Anderson testified that the primary purpose of the crude pricing committee was to set the posted prices for the mid-continent, Alaskan and California crudes. In other words, it was his job to decide what was the posted price. On that posted price, they would pay their royalties. Whatever Mr. Anderson and his friends decided was that fair market value called the posted price, that is on what they would pay the royalties. This chart shows consistently these prices were below the market price listed in the paper. Could this be an accident? No, because he said ARCO's postings were within 15 to 30 cents per barrel of the others, and at least $4 to $5 below what was accepted as fair market value for crude. What he said was all of the majors were doing this. This 5 percent that we say are doing the wrong thing were within a few cents of each other, and all of them, according to him, were $4 to $5 below the fair market price. That is even more than we said, $2 to $4. He says in a certain period of time they were $4 to $5 below market price. Under penalty of perjury, a man with the inside knowledge of what was going on, said that ARCO and the other ``posters''--meaning the posted price people--never raised the posted price to the market value. We see that is true. We plotted the market price during that period and here is the posted price. He says all of our calculations, all the public information on refined values relating to California crudes say the fair market value was well in excess of the posting. That is another way of putting it: The fair market value was well in excess; it was more than the posted prices that they put down. He said, and this is really interesting, he was: . . . not being truthful 5 years ago when he testified in a deposition that ARCO's posted prices represented fair market value. So the man admits that he wasn't truthful before in court. He is cleansing his soul and he is now telling the truth. He goes on to say, and this is chilling, in explanation for why he lied about the fair market value: I was an ARCO employee. Some of the issues being discussed were still being litigated. Listen to this. He says: My plan was to get to retirement. We had seen numerous occasions where the nail that stood up got beaten down. What does that mean? Someone who had the courage to stand up in the face of the higher-ups and tell the truth that they were cheating taxpayers got beaten down. Harry Anderson said that. It is pretty chilling. He goes on. He said: The senior executives of ARCO had the judgment that they would take the money, accrue for the day of judgment, and that's what we did. What does he mean by that, ``take the money'' and wait ``for the day of judgment?'' What he means is they would lie about the value of the oil, not give the true market value, pay less of a royalty, pocket the money, and wait for the judgment day. Maybe the judgment day is here, I say to my friends. Maybe if this Senate has some courage, we can stop this fraud today. We will not be stopping it if we approve the Hutchison amendment, I will say that. Mr. Anderson said he was afraid he would lose his retirement if he didn't go along with the game. Mr. Anderson said the other executives said: What the heck, we'll just lie about this and we'll wait for the judgment day. That is a translation of what he said. He goes on to say even more chilling things. He goes on to say: I would not have been there in any capacity had I continued to exercise the right they had given me to dissent to the process during the discussion stage. Let me repeat that: I would not have been there in any capacity had I continued to exercise the right they had given me to dissent to the process during the discussion stage. In other words, Mr. Anderson is saying if I blew the whistle, I would be gone. If I did not go along with this scheme--and we now know seven schemes--that he would be gone. He says further: Once we made our decisions, the ranks closed. So they sat around, decided to wait for the judgment day, and people like Harry Anderson who were afraid for their retirement went along with the scheme. Then he says: Once we made our decision we closed ranks. That was the deal. He says further: I did not get to be a manager and remain a manager being oblivious and blind to signals. What an ethic. What an ethic. Where is the corporate responsibility, when they have someone who is honest in their ranks and he is afraid to talk because he will get fired, he won't get his retirement? When he talks up about how the company underpaid oil royalties, he is finished. So he doesn't talk up. And he is feeling guilty and he is carrying this on his back. He comes clean in a lawsuit where he just says: I was afraid of losing my job if I told the truth. We are going to protect that kind of behavior by the oil companies by voting for this amendment? I pray not. I pray not. I really hope some of the folks who voted for cloture to bring this debate to a close will join me on the substance of this thing. I have never in all my years in politics--and I have been in politics so long I am embarrassed to tell you that I was elected the first time in 1976. I have seen a lot of things. I have seen issues that were cloudy. I have seen issues where the line between right and wrong was fudged. They say every issue has two sides. This one does. The oil companies versus the people. That is the two sides. The Interior Department wants to make sure the oil companies pay their fair share so the people get their fair share. We will show you the money again; the money, what is at stake here. If we do not vote down the Hutchison amendment, the people of America will have lost $154 million. Let's suppose you do not even like to spend it on national parks; you don't want to spend it in classrooms. How about paying down the debt? I will bet a lot of folks think that is a good idea. But, no, if we vote for the Hutchison amendment, we lose a cumulative $154 million. I want to read into the Record a letter I just received from the Consumer Federation of America. First, I want to say a word about the groups that have really worked hard to defeat this Hutchison amendment. I just told you before there are two sides on this amendment: the oil companies versus the people of the United States of America. I believe that in my heart. We have over 50 groups that are helping us defeat this amendment. Every one of them is worthy of mention, but I do not have time at this point to mention them all, so I will mention some of them: The American Association of Educational Service Agencies--they know they are being robbed of education funds by this amendment. They oppose it. The American Association of School Administrators, the American Federation of Government Employees, the American Federation of Teachers--they have to be in the classrooms with the books that don't measure up, without computers. They want to fight for this. They are against the Hutchison amendment. American Rivers, Americans for Clean Energy, the Arkansas State Lands Commission, the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Clean Fuels Foundation, Common Cause. Common Cause understands what is at stake here. They agree with Senator Feingold when he stood up-- and they tried to gag him when he said there is a tie-in between this amendment and the campaign finances where big special interests like the tobacco companies, the oil companies, you name it, have an incredible amount of influence. Again, even if everyone was pure of heart it looks terrible to see the special interests win on these. The Better Government Association is with us, the Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners, the Consumer Project on Technology--they know they need technology in schools--Defenders of Wildlife. It is an incredible list. The Friends of the Earth, the Gray Panthers--they are the elderly. They understand we need to support our parks and our kids and our schools; the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. I am just on the M's, and this goes all the way to the W's. I want to comment on one of the organizations that has worked so hard with me and others on this, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, U.S. PIRG. They have worked very diligently talking with colleagues, and we have kept this fight alive because of these people. We have kept this fight on the front pages of some of the newspapers because of these people. Hopefully, tonight we will see it on TV. The Washington State Lands Commissioner; the Wilderness Society; the Wisconsin Secretary of State and Chair, Board of Commissioners of Public Lands--this is an incredible list. I left out the N's and the P's, and I will have to get back to them later. Today, I have a new letter from the Consumer Federation of America. Let me read it. This is one of the foremost consumer groups in the country. I have to say it is now headed by a beloved colleague, Howard Metzenbaum, who served here as the voice of the consumers for so long, the voice for the people who do not have a voice, the voice for the people who have to get up in the morning and go to work, the people who cannot afford to send their lobbyists here and the people who cannot afford campaign contributions. What does he say in this letter? The Consumer Federation of America joins you in opposing the Hutchison-Domenici rider to [this bill]. [The organization] is concerned about the decline in accountability of many corporations to the needs and concerns of consumers, communities, and national interests. This rider is a case study in this lack of accountability, not to mention an unjustified subsidy by the taxpayers to the [big] oil companies. According to the Department of Interior, eighteen oil companies have consistently undervalued the cost of oil drilled on federal land to avoid paying [their royalty payments] of about $66 million a year. He goes on to say we have already lost $88 million and that this amendment of Senator Hutchison will, in fact, delay the Department of the Interior--even a better word--``prohibit the Department of Interior from finalizing their regulations'' to require the oil companies to pay their royalties based on the fair market price of the oil, not on a lower price established by the oil companies themselves. Howard Metzenbaum said it as straight as one can. They are paying royalties on their made-up price rather than on the market price. He goes on to say that the Consumer Federation of America opposes this rider for two reasons. One: The undervaluation of oil drilled on Federal land amounts to nothing more than corporate welfare. The practice represents an unjustified subsidy, especially to the larger oil companies that are in a position to reap huge returns from oil drilled on Federal land. Second: Taxpayers must pick up the tab for this subsidy, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars a year. He goes on to say: The Consumer Federation of America applauds you for your efforts to insure that taxpayers receive a fair return from federal oil sales. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record, along with a list of groups that are, in fact, opposing the Hutchison amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we are in quite a situation here, and I am going to go through some of the charts I have not gone through up to this time. When we talk about the money we will lose because of the Hutchison amendment--and I find it ironic we are doing an appropriations bill to appropriate money for the various functions therein, including national parks, including very important functions, such as preserving historic monuments--we realize we are losing $66 million, and I told you that money can go pretty far. It will affect many States. My staff has been extraordinary in terms of all the research and all the work they have put into this issue. I thank Jodi Linker, Matthew Baumgart, and the rest of my staff, and Liz Tankersley and Dave Sandretti who helped us. When you are hit with an issue such as this and you know you have an uphill battle, it takes a good staff to keep on keeping on, to keep on keeping up with the issues, and they do. I am so grateful to them. Today I have a new chart. It shows the 11 most endangered historic sites in America. What is very interesting about this is that these buildings qualify for Federal funds to preserve them. As we go into the next millennium, we start thinking about our heritage, our great Nation. One of the things we have to do is restore these incredible monuments to our history. There are 11 of them. They desperately are seeking, not Susan, but funding. They must have funding because they are old and they will otherwise fall apart. I was at one such monument. It is not 1 of the 11 great ones. It is a small one. But it is in a little town north of my home, Sonoma County. It is a round barn. I never really knew what a round barn was, but it is famous. In the 1800s, they used to take the horses and run them around in this barn. We only have a couple left in California. This one is falling apart. It needs a few dollars. So when people say $66 million, let's look at these 11. The Senator from Illinois is here, and I point out to him that one of these endangered landmarks, as I remember, is in Illinois. I wonder if he realizes--and I know he does--that some of this funding that would otherwise go to the Interior Department and we are not going to see if the Hutchison amendment is adopted could go to help one of the monuments in his State, which is the Pullman Administration Building and factory complex, in Pullman, IL, which dates back to 1890. All of these are very endangered. We see one in Rochester, NY, the Monroe Theater. We see one in Louisville, KY, a beautiful place called Robinswood. We see one in Cleveland, MT, Lancaster, PA, barn shadow, ``Lost Barn.'' We see the Allen Auditorium in Alaska and, in my own State, the incredible Angel Island Immigration Station through which many of our ancestors came. In New York State, there are four national historic landmark hospitals. There is one in Hudson Valley. It is a beautiful one. One is in Baltimore, west side of downtown Baltimore, Chinatown. It is endangered. I say to my colleagues, when we are fighting against this amendment, we are, in fact, saying it is not fair for 5 percent of the oil companies to do the wrong thing, to defraud the people of the United States of America of their money; it is wrong to do that. There are other uses for this money. We believe even if all those uses did not have support, paying down the debt would be better than allowing this big ripoff to continue. Mr. President, I yield the floor and retain my time. Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senate yield on that point?

Mrs. BOXER. I appreciate the Senator's outrage on this. It is incredible. Some of our colleagues have come up and said things privately such as: I can't believe you're attacking these oil companies. I want to make a point and make sure my friend saw this. I read from a complaint that was filed by two whistleblowers from big oil--ARCO, as it happens. In their words--these are not words from the Senator from Illinois or words from the Senator from California, who has been told she doesn't know what she is talking about. If I don't, I believe people who have worked in the oil companies for many years. I want to make sure my friend has heard this. I am going to read to him a little piece of the introduction to this complaint and ask him if he has read it before, and even though he might not have, if he could comment on it. This is an introduction to a lawsuit being filed by two whistleblowers. These are two people who worked for ARCO, big executives in ARCO, who had in their heart, I think--these are my words, not theirs--the need to tell the truth about what went on inside those corporate walls. This is what they say. They say: [There was] a nationwide conspiracy by some of the world's largest oil companies to shortchange the United States of America of hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues--known as royalties--derived from the production of crude oil . . . They go on to say: [There was] a pattern and practice of carefully developed and coordinated schemes-- They outline seven schemes-- targeted to defraud the United States of its lawful share of oil royalties . . . They go on to say: ``This is an ongoing conspiracy.'' So I ask my friend this direct question: about his outrage he exhibits on this floor. Isn't there a reason for anyone with a set of eyes and a brain to match to be outraged when not just one whistleblower but two and three and four and more people who got high- paid salaries admit that they sat around and defrauded the taxpayers, and that this amendment would allow that outrage to continue--does that not reflect my friend's views?

Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield for a final question and perhaps retain the remainder--I would like him to speak again --I wanted to make a point. There is a chart up there on the Long Beach jury verdict where Harry Anderson, one of the most important whistleblowers, was quoted. That isn't even a case about Federal royalties. This debate, I want to point it out, is about Federal royalties. The one case they ever won was based on State royalties. You don't have to pay your State royalties based on fair market value. I thank my friend.

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator from Nevada yield to me for a question?

Mrs. BOXER. Because I think it dovetails with the Senator's question about the States. I say to my friends from Massachusetts and Nevada, maybe some Senators on this floor do not care about this, but the States do care about this. The States have sued the oil companies because of this continuous undervaluation of these oil royalty payments. I say to my friend, it is outrageous that we do not fix this problem today. The States have sued to the tune of $5 billion because they need this money. What we will do, if this amendment is agreed to, I say to both of my friends, is continue this undervaluation, continue these lawsuits where the States have to sue, rather than allow Secretary Babbitt and the Interior Department to fix this problem. I am so glad the Senator has yielded to my friend from Massachusetts. I wanted to know if he was aware of these valuations and if he would ask unanimous consent to have these facts printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. BOXER. It is my understanding that Senator Wellstone was going to be here at 4. He has yielded the extra time until 4:15 to the Senator from Michigan. I want to engage him in a couple questions, if there is no objection, and then at 4:15, we will go to Senator Domenici or Senator Hutchison's person of choice.

Mrs. BOXER. Go right ahead and make a UC request.

Mrs. BOXER. I agree, if we can say after the Senators have spoken then we go to my designee for a period of up to 30 minutes. Is that all right, since the Senator is going to have the next hour?

Mrs. BOXER. That is fine.

Mrs. BOXER. We are winding down.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, understanding the Senator from Michigan now has about 9 minutes remaining, I want to ask him a couple of questions. First, I thank him very much for his contributions to this debate. I know my friend from Michigan is very meticulous. He was interested in finding a specific case to point to where oil was drilled on very similar lands very close to each other where the oil companies listed different market prices. He asked the Interior Department for that. It was a struggle to get it, and he got it. I say to my friend, if he can hold up the ARCO chart, I want to try to translate what he has taught us in the specifics to the more general, which is this: Does my friend from Michigan not conclude, after his presentation, there is convincing evidence that a small percentage of the oil companies--namely, those that are integrated and wind up having the first point of sale essentially with themselves-- have been consistently undervaluing the price of the oil on which they pay their royalties, and that, in fact, what happens then is that the taxpayers who, as my friend has pointed out, own this land, it belongs to the people of the United States of America, thereby get cheated by that differential? And that is explained on the chart. In other words, the market price is continuously higher than the oil company's posted price, the price on which these 5 percent of the companies pay the royalties. Is that not a fair summary of what is happening?

Mrs. BOXER. I know my friend needs to run off. I ask unanimous consent that I can finish up this portion of my time, and at 4:15 go to Senator Hutchison, if there is no objection.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend, again, as he runs off to a very important meeting, and say he is so right. A royalty is not a tax; it is an agreement. It is a payment made by oil companies that have the privilege of drilling on the property which belongs to the United States of America. Those funds go to the Federal Treasury. Part of them go to the State treasury, and they are used for environmental purposes and for purposes of education. I would like to complete my time that remains at this point-- reserving the remainder that I have. I have a long time left. I do not intend to use all of that time. I hope soon we will have a chance to make an agreement when this would come to an end, this whole debate. We are not there yet. We are finding out how many colleagues want to come over. But there was a comment made on the floor about the Senator from California by a few of my colleagues. I do not mind them saying whatever they wish. I do not have any desire to stop them because I can take care of myself. But I want to respond to the statements that were made. The point we have been making consistently on our side is that when the oil companies do not pay their fair share of royalties, the Treasury is robbed of funds that are necessary for the environment and for education. My colleagues said--particularly Senator Craig said; and he did not give me the chance to respond, so I want to respond now-- that Senator Boxer here is complaining that the oil companies aren't paying their fair share of royalties, and yet she leads the fight against offshore oil drilling in her State--which, by the way, I am extremely proud he mentioned--and she does not want to cut down our trees--which I am very happy to mention because I think that is our heritage. The point is, that is not what this is about because this Senator from California wants a strong California economy. What that means is, you preserve the forest, you preserve the beautiful redwood trees, you preserve the beautiful environment. Because if you allow indiscriminate and additional offshore oil drilling--we have plenty going on right now. How many leases? Forty leases are being drilled. If we allow more, it destroys our economy. Tourism is our No. 1 important economic resource, so if we destroy that, we are done for. So by my fighting to limit offshore oil drilling, by my fighting not to allow indiscriminate cutting down of beautiful old-growth trees, I am, in fact, preserving the economy and increasing the revenues that go to my State. What are we left with? We are left with what the oil companies have to pay for the offshore oil tracts that they are drilling and the onshore oil tracts that they are drilling currently. This isn't an argument about new drilling. This isn't an argument about new cutting down of trees. This is an argument about the status quo. We have many leases in California that are being drilled. We expect the oil companies to be good public citizens. We expect the oil companies to pay their fair share. The good news is that 95 percent of them are paying their fair share. Good for them. They are good corporate citizens. They are doing the right thing. There are about 777 oil companies that are doing the right thing, that are paying the fair market value. Unfortunately, there are about 44 companies that are not. The Hutchison amendment, which is supported by the Senator from New Mexico, and many others, allows those 44 companies to continue to underpay this royalty payment. It is time to put a stop to this, my friends. I hope we will do that. I am not very hopeful, in essence, that this will happen, but maybe some people listening to this debate will have a change of heart, and maybe in the vote we will get into the 40s today. Maybe that will send a signal that this is a tough call. I see my friend from New Mexico has come to the floor, and under the unanimous consent agreement, my friend from Texas now has full right to give her time to anyone she wants at 4:15. So I yield the floor and get it back at 5:15. I thank my colleagues for their patience. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not, I thank my colleague. It has been a long day, and we are about to end this. Will that take us to 6:10 or 6:15?

Mrs. BOXER. I will not object.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I believe under the agreement I have the time now for 30 minutes; is that correct?

Mrs. BOXER. I think we can get this done. Let me start.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I voted against cloture on the Stewart nomination because the process that brought us to this vote has, to date, prevented the Senate from even considering the nominations of several other judicial nominees who have been waiting far longer than has Mr. Stewart. Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon, two nominees for the 9th Circuit, have both been reported by the Judiciary Committee and have been on the Senate Executive Calendar since July. But, more important, their nominations have been pending in the Senate for years--2 years in the case of Ms. Berzon and three years for Judge Paez! It is patently unfair to ignore these fine nominations while moving forward on the Stewart nomination. I have no problem with Mr. Stewart, as far as I know. But this is an important process question, and I simply had no choice but to vote no on cloture on Stewart until we are assured of also moving ahead with those nominations which have been pending far longer.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I seek recognition because my comments follow on the same topic as the Senator from Utah, who I know wants very much to have a juvenile justice bill. But as I listened to his comments, I fear that perhaps we are not headed in the right direction with that legislation. Yesterday, I know that all of us were shocked, as all Americans were, to hear about a gunman walking into the back of a church in Ft. Worth, TX, killing six people, wounding seven, and then killing himself. I have a very simple message for my colleagues. If you can't feel safe from gun violence in the sanctuary of your church, where can you feel safe? On Tuesday, in a story in my home State, not even widely reported, a man walked into the West Anaheim Medical Center and killed three hospital workers because he was grief stricken that his mother died in that hospital. He went on the hunt for particular nurses. If you can't feel safe from gun violence in a hospital in America, where can you feel safe? What seems like yesterday is actually a couple of months now when in the Los Angeles region of California a crazed man walked into a Jewish center where there was a child care operation and shot his weapon. I will never forget the picture of the police holding the hands of that tiny little toddler as they tried to escape from the situation. These are memories that are imprinted in our minds. If we don't do anything about it in this Senate, we do not deserve to call ourselves the Senate, let alone the greatest deliberative body in the world. I feared, as I listened to the comments of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he seems to be saying that if we insist on modest gun control measures that are already in the Senate version, somehow we are playing politics. I want to say right here in the most straightforward way I can that it is not playing politics to say we should keep guns out of the hands of criminals and people who are mentally disturbed and out of the hands of children. That is not playing politics. That is doing what needs to be done in America in 1999 going into the next century. The modest gun control measures that we passed on this floor of the Senate--those modest measures that the Vice President cast the tie breaking vote for--are common sense and close the gun show loophole that allows criminals and mentally unbalanced people to walk into a gun show and immediately get a weapon. It is common sense to stop that. Senator Lautenberg's amendment would do so. Senator Feinstein's amendment on banning the importation of high- capacity ammunition clips which are used in semiautomatic weapons-- common sense. Senator Kohl's amendment requiring that child safety devices be sold with every handgun--common sense. My own amendment asking the FTC and the Attorney General to study the extent to which the gun industry markets to children--common sense. The Ashcroft amendment making it illegal to sell or give a semiautomatic weapon to anyone under the age of 18--that is all we did in that bill. Yet we have the chairman of the Judiciary Committee out here talking as if, my goodness, those measures were political. Listen. I don't think the American people can stand this anymore. In closing my remarks, I am going to mention some of the shootings that took place in 1999. January 14, office building, Salt Lake City, Utah, one dead, one injured; March 18, law office, Johnson City, Tennessee, two dead; April 15, Mormon Family History Library, Salt Lake City, Utah, three dead, including gunman (who was shot by police), four injured; April 20, Columbine High School, Littleton, Colorado, 15 dead, including the two teenage gunmen, 23 injured; May 20, Heritage High School, Conyers, Georgia, six injured; June 3, grocery story, Las Vegas, Nevada, four dead; June 11, psychiatrist's clinic, Southfield, Michigan, three dead, including the gunman, four injured; July 12, private home, Atlanta, Georgia, seven dead, including the gunman; July 29, two brokerage firms, Atlanta, Georgia, 10 dead, including the gunman, 13 injured; August 5, two office buildings, Pelham, Alabama, three dead; August 10, North Valley Jewish Community Center, Los Angeles, California, five injured (Postal worker killed later); September 14, West Anaheim Medical Center, Anaheim, California, three dead; and, just last night, September 15, Wedgwood Baptist Church, Fort Worth, Texas, seven dead, including gunman, seven injured. That is a partial list. We have to do something. We have the opportunity. What are we waiting for? I have to say that if we cannot vote out these modest gun control proposals which are common sense, and if we cannot pick up some votes from the other side of the aisle, including the President who is sitting in the Chair, if we can't do that, we should be ashamed to go home and say we did the people's business. Thank you very much.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President. For the benefit of my colleagues, I will be finished in 5 minutes.