Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to highlight the points the Senator from Illinois raised and try to give the view of the majority on those points because I think there are some clear differences. I appreciate the working relationship that Senator Durbin and I have had on this committee. In the main, we have agreed on this bill. I think the very positive parts of the bill that I outlined earlier were agreed to and enhanced by our ability to work together. I do also want to thank the members of his staff, Terry Sauvain and Marianne Upton, for working with our staff, Mary Beth Nethercutt and Jim Hyland. I think our disagreements have been very open and honest. I will address the points the Senator made. I think it should be understood why we are doing some of the things that are called riders in this bill. The District of Columbia belongs to every American. This is our Capital City. Every American taxpayer pays for the upkeep of the city. We all point to this city, hoping that it represents the best that America is. The buildings in this city rival any, anywhere in the world. I am proud of the city. That is why, when I was chosen to be the chairman of the D.C. Subcommittee, I readily agreed because it is important to my constituents in Texas, just as much as it is to the people who live here full time. I think we do want to have standards that every American believes are the right standards for our Capital City. Let me take the points that Senator Durbin said he believes the President may veto the bill over because these points are in disagreement. First, the needle exchange program. Yes, it is true we do not allow for Government funding or city funding of needle exchanges for clean needles for drug abusers. Barry McCaffrey, the drug czar of the United States, who is the President's appointee, said the following about clean needle exchanges: [General McCaffrey has] strongly objected to needle exchange programs. In his words: The problem is not dirty needles, the problem is heroin addiction. The focus should be on bringing health to this suffering population, not giving them more effective means to continue their addiction. One doesn't want to facilitate this dreadful scourge on mankind. That was in the Orlando Sentinel on March 13, 1996. Janet Lapey, in the New York Times magazine, said this was probably not in the best interests of the people who are suffering from addictions. We do put a lot in the District budget to help people with drug addictions. We try to take the hard line on drug addiction so people who are doing criminal acts in addition to using drugs, some of which also are criminal acts in themselves, do not prey on innocent citizens. In most of the drug needle exchange programs it has been shown that it has increased the use of illegal drugs. I think it would be a tragic mistake in our Capital City to have a federally funded or locally funded needle exchange program that gives any indication that we want to foster this habit. We want to help these people get off drugs, not make it easier for them to do it with clean needles. Second, on the issue of marijuana, it is true this bill does ban legalization of marijuana in the District of Columbia for any purpose. I think it is important that we not have this become a haven for marijuana use, even for medicinal purposes, because I don't think we should take an illegal drug and allow it to be legalized in our Capital City. The majority on the conference committee agreed. Last but not least, the other issue I think we have a legitimate disagreement on is the voting rights in the District. In the District of Columbia, the people do elect a city council and a mayor. We work with them because the Federal taxpayers do fund a good part of the District of Columbia budget. I think because this is our Capital City and because it was provided that the city not be in a State, but, rather be overseen by Congress in our Constitution, that most certainly we need to take those steps. But the issue of having two Senators and a Congressman from the District of Columbia should not be decided in a D.C. appropriations bill. That is banned, using city funds for that purpose. I stand by that. Mr. President, I think the time has expired.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to bring to the Senate floor the conference report making appropriations for the Government of the District of Columbia for fiscal year 2000. The conference report endorses the District's $5.3 billion operating budget and its $1.4 billion capital budget, as adopted by the mayor, the District council, and the financial authority. The conference report appropriates $429.1 million in Federal funds. In fact, having worked out this legislation with the House, the conference report is actually $18.3 million more than the President's request. This is a good bill for the residents of the District of Columbia and for the people of America, whose capital this is. Let me list some of the positive provisions. For education, we have provided $17 million in funding for a new and unique tuition program that will allow D.C. students to pay instate tuition rates at universities. The District is home to only one public university. This legislation will allow D.C. students the opportunity to attend universities outside the District of Columbia without having to pay exorbitant out-of-State tuition rates. This is a major advancement for D.C. students. We have also provided equal funding for charter schools in the District of Columbia. Charter schools are holding great promise to improving education in the District. Just this week, I visited the Edison Friendship Charter School, less than a mile from the Capitol. This is a school that has school uniforms, teaches Spanish in kindergarten, provides take-home computers by the third grade, and every student there has doubled their test scores in 1 year. There are 700 students in the school, with 900 on the waiting list. I have to tell you, that was one of the most fun experiences I have had, seeing those bright, inquisitive kids who really love where they are. I asked one young girl, as I walked in, if she liked the school, and she said, `` `Like' is not the right word.'' I said, ``Do you love this school?'' She said, ``I love it.'' Good education in the District is possible. We just have to allow good parents, teachers, and principals the flexibility to provide it without the top-down interference of the entrenched bureaucratic rule. This conference report also addresses the issue of crime in the District. No one doubts that there is a drug problem in the District. At the request of Senator Durbin, our bill provides an extra $1 million for the District police to wipe out open-air drug markets in the city. The conference report also provides funds for drug testing people on probation in the District. We know from studies that when people on probation return to drug use, they also return to criminal behavior. This bill will get them off the streets if they flunk the drug test. Another important part of the bill is continuing on a path of fiscal discipline for the city. The city's finances used to be a disaster. In fact, it was the reason the control board was created. There was a time when the city's debt was rated ``junk'' status by the bond-rating agencies. With the leadership of Mayor Anthony Williams, the control board, and the city council, working together, this situation has changed dramatically. I want to keep it that way. In fact, I want to make it better. The city's bond rating is still the lowest rank of investment-grade quality. I think it can be higher. The conference report provides that the District budget maintain a $150 million reserve--a true rainy day fund. We have also required the District to maintain a 4-percent budget surplus. But we have provided the flexibility above that surplus to pay down the debt and spend more on services, should the District have funds. The triple combination of a strong reserve, a surplus budget, and the requirement above that surplus that half must go for debt reduction and half for increased spending will increase the bond rating of the District and reduce debt costs in the long run. The economic revitalization of this city is also an important priority for me. For years, the city has lost population and many areas of the city have fallen into disrepair. In this conference report, I have included a program that I believe will be helpful for the District--a $5 million fund to be used for commercial revitalization. I have introduced legislation similar to this in Congress for other cities, and I believe it will provide an incentive to rebuild and refurbish blighted areas in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, helping clean them up and make them more safe for the children and people who live there. For the environment, the conference report provides $5 million to clean up the Anacostia River. It has been a polluted river. Cleaning it up will be a significant environmental advancement for the people of the District. Finally, the conference report includes a provision that will allow the D.C. Superior Court to spend $1.2 million in interest from its fiscal year 1999 appropriation to pay the District's defense attorneys for indigents. Payment to these attorneys was halted by the Superior Court this week. Until the conference report is signed into law by the President, these attorneys will not be paid salaries they have earned representing the District's indigent clients and children. The administration has signaled Congress that the President could veto this bill because of certain riders. I hope the President will look at all of the provisions and realize that all of the so-called riders have been part of past D.C. appropriations bills he has signed. This is a good conference report. It supports and strengthens the Mayor's new administration. It supports the council's tax cut provisions. It funds the District of Columbia Resident Tuition Support Program and it adds $18.3 million over and above the President's request for the District. It does not allow the legalization of marijuana, it does not allow needle exchanges, and it does not allow city expenditures to sue the United States for voting rights for Senators and Congress representatives. I think it is a good bill. I hope the President will not choose to veto the bill because it doesn't allow for the legalization of marijuana and needle exchanges. I urge my colleagues to support this conference report so the District will have the funds in time to begin the new fiscal year. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to clarify the intent of one provision within the bill. As we all are aware the Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to reduce the levels of sulfur in gasoline and diesel fuel. I note that the bill before us recognizes this new proposal and urges the Department of Energy to continue research on biocatalytic desulfurization technologies to assist the refining industry in meeting these new requirements. Was it the Committee's intent that the Department continue to support the ongoing gasoline biodesulfurization project in the Industries of the Future program in an effort to ensure that the technology is available to the refining industry to meet the new EPA rules?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume consideration of the Bryan second-degree amendment regarding the forest system budget at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday. By previous consent, a vote on the pending Bryan amendment will occur at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow. Further amendments to the Interior appropriations bill are expected throughout tomorrow's session. Therefore, Senators can expect votes throughout the day in anticipation of completing action on the bill. In light of today's cloture vote on S.J. Res. 33, the Senate will have limited debate on the resolution with a vote on final passage during tomorrow's session at a time to be determined by the two leaders. For the remainder of the week, the Senate is expected to begin consideration of the transportation appropriations bill.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following convention transmitted to the Senate on September 13, 1999, by the President of the United States: Tax Convention with Slovenia, Treaty Document No. 106-9. I further ask unanimous consent that the convention be considered as having been read the first time, that it be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed, and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the list of conferees for the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill be modified to add Senator Leahy.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: Executive Calendar Nos. 211 and 212. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I submit for the Record the very people who are affected are from the home State of the Senator from California, the small producers, the independents who do not have the luxury of big margins. They are very much affected and very concerned about this rule and what it would do to somebody who has a contract, who says: Pull your truck up and I will sell you 1000 barrels of oil. Here is the price, $12 a barrel. And the Government says: No, we will not accept the $12 a barrel, even though they are picking it up right there. That is exactly what the MMS rule does. So every independent is affected and it is the independents who are having to lay people off in this industry because the oil prices have been so low over the last year that they have not been able to stay in business. Do you know what happens when somebody shuts down? Every family that is dependent on employment from that small producer no longer has a job, and they may live in a place where it is not easy to find another job. The big oil companies just chose to move overseas where they know what the regulatory environment is. They know it is stable. They do not want to create foreign jobs, but that is what they are forced to do because it is so hard to do business in the United States and especially when an unelected bureaucracy is able to change the taxes in the middle of a contract. That is just not the American way. I am very proud the people of the Senate spoke clearly tonight, very clearly; 55 Members of the Senate voted to make the tax policy in this country. Congress did hope we could simplify oil royalty rates. We asked the Mineral Management Service to come forward with a simplified system so everyone would know exactly what the price would be to drill on Federal lands. Simply, they have failed so far in the proposed rule. This is the diagram of what will happen if this rule goes into effect against the wishes of Congress that we simplify it so oil companies will know what they owe without question. By the time you go through all of this, how could anyone know for sure what they owed? Furthermore, the MMS will not allow the ruling for one company on oil royalty rates and the basis for those rates to apply to any other person who is drilling, unlike the IRS, which will give you a ruling letter so you will know this is the precedent, this is the way the IRS will treat this particular fact situation so anyone else with the same fact situation can rely on the precedent and can give IRS that ruling document and know they will be treated the same. That is not the case. The MMS refuses to be bound by the precedents they set themselves, even if the facts happen to be the same. That is not sound policy. That is not fair treatment for the taxpayers and the people doing business and creating jobs in our country. The Senate has clearly spoken. The question is, Will the Senator from California let the majority rule? Will the Senator from California say 55 Members on both sides of the aisle have voted for Congress to set tax policy and to require the oil companies to pay a fair price for drilling on public lands? That is the question. The Senate has voted 55, with 5 Members missing--according to the votes that have been taken it will be 60 votes if everyone is here and voting. So we have the vast majority to invoke cloture, and the question is, Will the Senator from California do the honorable thing? She said earlier in this debate she wanted fair treatment of this amendment. Fair treatment means an up-or-down vote on the amendment. So the question is, in the face of the overwhelming majority of the Senate who want to do the right thing, who want fair taxation of our oil and gas industry, will she let the majority rule? She said, in the Congressional Record on September 9: Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee for being so gracious in preserving my rights. My friend from Texas and I feel equally strongly on the point, just on different sides. I think each of us wants to have justice done on the amendment. If the Senator from California will stick with her commitment that we would have justice done on the amendment, she will allow the majority to rule. The majority has heard the debate on this issue; they have seen through the rhetoric; they have seen that lawsuits are not a part of making a fair rule. They have seen it is the responsibility of Congress to set policy because we do have accountability. We are accountable to the people. So if the Senator from California means to do justice by the amendment, as she stated on September 9 in the Congressional Record, she will let us have an up-and-down vote on this amendment and let the majority rule in the Senate.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think it is very clear that the Senate has seen through all of the rhetoric, through all of the hyperbole, and they have made the right decision on this amendment. I am very proud tonight that if everyone had been here we would have had 60 votes for cloture. As it is, we had 55 votes. The clear will of the Senate is to do the right thing on this issue--not to be led down a path, bringing up issues that are unrelated in order to make a point that isn't relevant to what we are talking about today. The Senate voted, overwhelmingly, to come to closure and take control of the tax policy of this country. After all, if the Senate doesn't make the tax policy along with our colleagues in the House, are we going to let unelected bureaucrats make decisions that will affect our economy, the jobs of thousands of people, possibly sending them overseas for foreign jobs instead of American jobs? Our Senate colleagues tonight said the Senate of the United States is going to speak on oil and gas tax policy. We spoke very clearly that we want a 1-year moratorium. We hope MMS will do the right thing in giving a simple and fair tax that will be paid by the oil companies for the right to drill on public lands. That is the issue here. There has been a lot said tonight. First of all, the quote was made from a USA Today article saying that this would be like a lessee saying: I'm not going to pay $500 a month for this apartment; I'm going to pay $400 a month even though I agreed to pay $500 a month. Actually, it is just the opposite. The oil companies have a contract with the Federal Government. They have met all the criteria that the Federal Government has put down in order to drill on Federal lands. What the Senator from California has asked that we do is to allow the Mineral Management Service to raise the rent on the apartment in the middle of the month. They are breaking a contract and saying: We are going to raise your taxes right in the middle of the contract. If we allow that to happen, who will be next? Who is the next person who is going to have a contract and have the price increased in the middle of the contract? Contract rights are part of the basis of the rule of law in this country, and we seem to be blithely going over it as if, ``It's a big oil company; we can run over them.'' That is not the rule of law. We should not be raising taxes in the middle of a contract. It is not right and I hope in the end the Senate will prevail and we will make the tax policy for this country. No. 2, the Senator from California keeps saying only 5 percent of the oil companies are going to be affected by the MMS-proposed rule. In fact, every company that drills on public lands is affected by this ruling. I want to put in the Record the letter that was received on September 13, 1999, by the California Independent Petroleum Association. Dear Senator Hutchison: The California Independent Petroleum Association represents 450 independent oil and gas producers, royalty owners, and service companies operating in California. We want to set the record straight. The MMS oil royalty rulemaking affects all California producers on federal land. It is false to claim that this rulemaking only affects the top 5 percent of oil producers. How are California independents affected? The proposed rulemaking allows the government to second guess a wellhead sale. If rejected, a California producer is subjected to an ANS index that adjusts to the wellhead set by the government. Using a government formula instead of actual proceeds results in a new tax being imposed on all producers of federal oil. I ask unanimous consent the entire letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, we directed the MMS to simplify the oil royalty payments so that companies would know what their fair share is. This is what MMS has come forward with as a simplification. Companies still do not know what they will owe. They want to pay their fair share. I want them to pay their fair share. Whether they have in the past is not an issue. We are trying to have a fair setting of taxes. The question is: Who makes tax policy in this country? Is it Congress or is it unelected bureaucrats who are not accountable to the people? We are talking about a 1-year moratorium so that this can be worked out in a way that is acceptable to Congress. The Senator from California says this only affects 5 percent of the producers. I have a letter from the California Independent Petroleum Association, representing 450 independent oil and gas producers, which says: It is false to claim that this rulemaking only affects the top 5 percent of all oil producers. It affects every California producer on Federal land. Madam President, I urge a vote for cloture so we can have a fair up- or-down vote on this amendment so that Congress will set the policy of this country.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Breaux.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I prefer to reserve my time and close.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, in view of the fact that seven of our Members are missing, I ask unanimous consent to move the cloture vote to tomorrow following the votes at 10:30.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from the hours of 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy conferences to meet.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, September 14. I further ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume debate on the Bryan second-degree amendment No. 1623 to H.R. 2466, the Interior appropriations bill.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished assistant majority leader and thank him very much for his leadership on this issue. Senator Domenici, Senator Nickles, and I have been fighting this fight and I could not think of two people who better understand the issue.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator withhold for a unanimous consent request to add Senators Brownback and Thomas as cosponsors of the Hutchison-Domenici amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate so much the explanation of the Senator from Louisiana because he is getting to the real point. This chart shows what the MMS is proposing to do under the new rule. As the Senator from Louisiana said, the mandate to MMS was to simplify the rule so the Federal Government and the taxpayers of America get a fair share of the oil royalties. This is what they have come up with. I believe if we can have a 1-year moratorium that MMS, which has a new leader, will come forward with a reasonable plan. It is not going to tax costs. No other industry has a tax on their transportation costs and their marketing costs. It is going to be a fair return. That is what we are after. I want to make one other point before I yield to the Senator from New Mexico. We keep hearing about this former ARCO employee and all of the oil companies settling. But the Senator from California fails to mention that 2 weeks ago, there was a verdict by a jury in California saying that Exxon did not cheat the taxpayers of California. That is the oil company that didn't settle because it didn't believe it had cheated. The former ARCO employee who has been referred to by the Senator from California testified in the case and was found uncredible. So I think it is very important that be in the debate. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have heard the Senator from California throwing around numbers such as this has cost the taxpayers of America $88 million already, or $60 million already. And I pointed this out to her. I ask unanimous consent that the Congressional Budget Office estimate be printed in the Record.