Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to recognize a long-time New Mexican, Bernice Fox, who is retiring after an amazing record of service in the public and private sectors. Her work in these areas has spanned 63 years, a most remarkable achievement. Bernice Fox, born in Bloomington, Illinois in 1920, has lived in New Mexico for almost 40 years. In the private sector, she owned and operated motels and apartments, and she worked as a legal secretary for several New Mexican attorneys. In 1993, instead of enjoying the retirement that most of us would be seeking at the age of 73, Bernice Fox began still another career in support of the Department of Energy at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, New Mexico. She was present to witness the opening of that remarkable facility, the world's only permanent repository for transuranic radioactive wastes. Now Bernice Fox is planning to retire from the Department of Energy at the end of this year. I salute her for her long service to the citizens of New Mexico and the nation. Whether her next career involves real retirement or still another challenge, I salute Bernice Fox on her long history of contributions. Bernice Fox is being honored with her own special day by proclamation of the Governor of New Mexico. It is only fitting that Congress further honor her with this statement today.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I am delighted to do that. I yield the floor at this point.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator very much. I want to give my friend from Nevada a thought. He made a very serious and significant series of statements about the voluntary nature of this, that the truth is, for States such as mine--I don't know about Nevada--the major water districts and the river waters that will be used by farmers, ranchers, cities, et cetera, do not need another big purchaser of water rights called the U.S. Government's Secretary of Agriculture. We don't need one of those for our basins. Voluntary means how high the person who is buying will go in paying. I imagine the Secretary of Agriculture has a lot more money than any other buyer around. The purchasing in the district will be distorted by the gigantic reach of the Secretary of Agriculture. What will they be looking for? They will want to buy the acreage to do something different than we are planning to do with that water now, just as sure as we are here. They are not going to be acquiring it to do what the basin currently permits. It is going to be for another purpose. We are just plunging down in the middle of an already totally occupied water district a new buyer, the great big Secretary of Agriculture. They can come in and purchase this for Federal Government purposes. There is no question about it. Frankly, I don't think anybody who has assets and resources in their States would want to say everything will be OK, even though everything is tight right now. We don't know if there is enough water for the city. We don't know if there is enough water for the fishpond, the lake, or the streams. But that is all right. We are going to approve that program so big daddy, the U.S. Agriculture Secretary, can come in and buy up water rights. Of course, it is all going to work out because they are benevolent anyway and willing. Everybody is going to be OK. The State water superintendent has to say OK anyway. Frankly, I don't think we ought to give them the right to get into a district with that kind of power and end up calling it willing and calling it equal and calling it equality. It is not so. It is going to be tremendously distorted on the side of the Department of Agriculture. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: Has the amendment been adopted?

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, I will.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I made a mistake. I should have included as a cosponsor of the Domenici amendment all of those who are cosponsors of my motion to strike. They have indicated they want to be on the amendment. We don't have any objection; quite the contrary. I ask unanimous consent that they be original cosponsors as it is tendered to the desk.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am going to offer an amendment on behalf of seven or eight Senators. I will name them in a moment. For the interest of the Senators, my discussion about this amendment will probably take about a half hour, and then I understand about five or six Senators would like to speak. Nobody will be speaking extremely long, but we think this is a very important issue. More than just the Senator from New Mexico are desirous of being heard on this amendment. I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. I offer this on behalf of myself, Senators Craig, Crapo, Burns, Hutchison, Enzi, Thomas, Kyl, Smith of Oregon, Hatch, Allard, and Campbell. I have submitted it to other Senators. I fully expect more to join soon. I send it to the desk with those cosponsors at this point. As I receive others, I will submit them.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand we are engaged in what some would call a very serious effort. I want everyone to know my intention is not to in any way delay our process. As this issue evolves, Senators will know that for the West, this is a very important decision. I note the presence of Senator Reid who is also a western Senator. He had something to do with putting the provisions in that I would like to take out. So hopefully we will have some discussion before we are finished. This is a motion to strike essentially all of the provisions, brand new provisions in the law, that would take the conservation program that we have in effect--that is called the conservation reserve program--and would create a brand new one for 1,100,000 acres of land in the West. It would say that the Secretary of Agriculture, not the Secretary of the Interior, as we have now, would have the authority to acquire this acreage, up to 1.2 million acres, and the water rights that come with it, and then to use the water rights for the first time in derogation of State water law. In other words, they could be used for Federal purposes, not bound by State law. This is a very big decision for States such as New Mexico and many Western States, as you can see, that in just a few hours, most of the Western States' Senators are on board trying to prevent this from becoming effective. Actually, the conservation reserve program has been a very effective program. The Senator from New Mexico in no way intends to change that program. In fact, I believe the underlying bill that was produced by various Members who have been speaking in the Chamber even makes the conservation program bigger and perhaps even better. But there is another provision I am referring to that is brand new. The language contained in this substitute requires that the Secretary of Agriculture devote 1.1 million acres of the conservation reserve program to a new water conservation program. That didn't exist before. We now have a water conservation program. Specifically, this program will allow the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into contracts with private landowners, estates, or Indian tribes for the transfer of water or the permanent acquisition of water rights to benefit environmental concerns out in our waterways and in our various waters in the West. When enrolling this new acreage, this language requires that the Secretary of Agriculture give priority to land associated with water rights. Heretofore water rights were not necessarily considered as a paramount reason or a high-priority reason for selecting these various acreages to make up the conservation reserve. This now says the Secretary of Agriculture will give high priority to these lands that are going into this reserve, if they have water rights along with them. The purpose of the old program was to remove vulnerable land from production, not for the acquisition of water rights. Everybody here who has praised the conservation reserve program praised it because it removed vulnerable acreage from production and it had no higher purpose. Now we have established a brand new higher priority, and that is to acquire land if it has water rights. In essence, this is an attempt to pirate private water rights from individuals for purely Federal interests. Allowing the Secretary of Agriculture to permanently acquire these water rights gives the Federal Government control over State water. I don't think we ought to do this. I wish I would have had a chance to sit down across the table and discuss this approach with those who have put it in this Agriculture bill, including my good friend Harry Reid. I don't think western Senators, when confronted with their constituents and asked by their constituents in water-short States whether it would be prudent to create a high-priority program that could take those water rights as part of a conservation reserve program and attribute them to the Federal Government so the Federal Government could use it for Federal purposes, environmental or otherwise, and in that manner run inconsistent, if they so desire, with State water law, would agree. We already have shortages that are sufficient, which means we don't have enough water for the natural uses that we have been making for years. We don't have enough water in two of our basins in New Mexico that are alongside of rivers, be it the Rio Grande or the Pecos. We don't have enough water for the current users under existing State law, which is a water rights system built upon first in use and application. The first in time that does that is first in time in terms of ownership and priority. That is an already existing system. It has existed under Spanish law in our State. Many States in the West have first in time of use, which creates first in right for waters along streams. Here in the East there are many Senators who are going to say: This doesn't have anything to do with us. They are probably right. They don't have any shortage of water. In fact, many of the Eastern States do not have this allocation method. They use what is referred to in law school as the riparian rights system. If you are alongside of a stream, you use the water alongside the stream. Not so in States such as mine and Arizona and the others, Idaho, Iowa, Oregon. You use the water in proportion to your having taken it from the stream and put it to a beneficial use. In the Western States, that is either constitutionally established or statutorily established, but it is powerful proprietary interest in situations up and down and across our borders as water becomes more and more scarce. In essence, all I choose to do in this amendment, where I am joined by the various Senators I have just named, is to say at the end of the session we should not be considering a change in water rights for the West. (Ms. STABENOW assumed the chair.)

Mr. DOMENICI. I urge that Senators help us by just taking this out of the bill and saying another time, another place, we will have some significant hearings. Let's hear from our States and our communities, and let's hear from water ownership districts and associations, be they in Wyoming, New Mexico, or wherever. Let's hear from them and let's see how inserting this new bargaining chip in the middle of a river basin might have either a negative or positive effect. I actually believe we do not need in the basins of New Mexico--which are very short of water right now, and some are arguing whether there is enough for the already existing rights --another player plunked down on the stream that can, in fact, apply this water to another separate use and even abandon the State water law that controls how it is used, where it is applied, and what it is used for. I just don't think it is the right time. I would have thought if we were going to make such a change or imposition on State law as it pertains to water, we would have gone a little slower and would not have come up with an agriculture bill where these water rights have not been part of any hearings in the appropriate committees. As a matter of fact, I am not sure but that these provisions would have been subject to the jurisdiction of the other committees besides Agriculture. I believe the Energy and Natural Resources Committee would have liked to look at this new language in terms of new priorities and new rights. So this is an attempt on my part not to change but to just strike these provisions. I don't have amendments to the provisions crafted on behalf of Senator Reid, or whomever, and put in this bill. I don't think we ought to do them tonight on an agriculture bill, when it could have a profound impact on water rights in the West. There are certain groups that maybe can't get all the water they want in our States, for what they see as important uses. They have come along and said maybe we can do it this way; we can let the Secretary of Agriculture acquire these water rights as part of an old program that had nothing to do with acquiring water rights but had to do with acquiring properties to be put in a reserve so that we would have a better chance for these properties and these lands to develop and become usable if they are taken out of use and put into a reserve. Now somebody has found that we can take a piece of that and grab with it water rights and then let the Federal Government decide how to use them under Federal law, not State law. Changing the program--this old, good, solid program, the CRP program--could force many farmers to choose not to participate in a program for fear that they could be coerced into giving up their water rights. I don't think this is the right thing to do. I don't believe we are anywhere close to correct in assuming that this should be a highest priority for the CRP in the future. I cannot believe that of all the uses out there that go along with the CRP, Conservation Reserve Program, that we could establish without any serious and significant hearings that the Secretary of Agriculture--a new person in this equation, as it used to be the Secretary of the Interior. Now we have added the Secretary of Agriculture in this bill, and I don't think that is a move we should have made without significant hearings either, but this would change that. So I close my first round on the Senate floor by asking my distinguished friend, Senator Reid, if he will consider taking these provisions out of this bill. I don't believe they belong here at this time, when we haven't had an opportunity for significant hearings regarding the subject, and when it is clear and obvious to this Senator that we are going to give the Secretary of Agriculture a whole new series of rights under a program that is working well now, working well to take lands out of production. Now we are going to say we are giving the Secretary of Agriculture a new authority--and it is of highest priority--to acquire lands for this program if they have water rights so the Federal Government has both water rights and Conservation Reserve Program land. Then once the Federal Government has it, the Secretary of Agriculture is no longer bound by State law but can accomplish in a basin that is strapped for water a conflicting use just to come along and plunk itself on the water with a brand new right not governed by the State law that has been in effect, in many cases, for decades on these river basins. So I hope that Senators will go along with the huge preponderance of western Senators and say let's strike this provision for now. Let's go back next year and have hearings on what will this do to the water rights in the West. What will it do to water districts and river basins that are already so short of water that the next legal wars for the next decade or two are going to be over whether there is enough water for the existing priorities under State law. I think in many cases we are going to say there probably isn't. We are probably going to say, if there isn't, how can we justify a new high priority for the Federal Government to acquire these water rights as part of a Conservation Reserve Program and then use it as they see fit. It is a pretty clear-cut case. Is now the time to do this or not? Again, I work on many issues with my distinguished friend, Senator Reid from Nevada. We are chair and ranking members on an appropriations subcommittee that does a lot of great things. We understand each other very well. I actually didn't know anybody was working on this provision, including my friend, Senator Reid, that would change or have the potential for changing the water rights priorities from State priorities to an imposition of Federal priorities on river basins that don't have enough water for what rights already exist and that are being applied under State law.

Mr. DOMENICI. I should have stated that when the Senator arrived. I had the privilege of offering a substitute amendment for my amendment to strike. I merely substituted the new one for the motion to strike. So if it is adopted or when it is adopted, we will have accomplished one significant step. And that is that the program cannot be implemented in any State without the concurrence of the Governor of that State in writing. There remains other issues that do not have to do with the consent and whether the program can be used in a State, but rather how will it be applied vis-a-vis the 1.1 million acres that were intended for Western States, for States, under this new provision. The Senator is working on that. He now has some other people working on it. I have the utmost confidence that he will come up with some language. I anxiously await it, and I will be there to help and support him. I think we have eliminated a major concern our States had, and that was that this law would be there, and it would be a new imposition. Even if the States didn't want it, if they thought it was not good, they would be stuck with it. I think we have eliminated that. All of the things we think are perverse about that are not going to happen. I thank the Senator, because I didn't do it heretofore, for his help. He has been here most of the afternoon. I do believe together we made an important contribution. I thank the Senator for that.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back any time we might have on the amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI. Of course.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I think that the debate was a very good one. I think we all understand each other much better. Senator Reid and I have reached an agreement, and my fellow Senator from New Mexico has been a participant and a helper. Amendment No. 2502, As Modified I send to the desk a modification of my amendment, the strike amendment. This amendment, as modified, is offered on behalf of myself, my colleague, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Reid.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are going to put ourselves in a quorum because the principals involved are working on a way to resolve the issue that is brought to the Senate in the Domenici amendment to strike. That is why we are not going to be speaking for just a while. We hope we are saving time by doing this. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOMENICI. Now, Madam President, rather than explain it, I will just read it. Tthen everybody will understand what we have done is make this a consensual program. That means that the Governor of the State must agree for his State to be in this new program. And that right is given to each Governor if, in fact, there is a new Governor while the program is still in existence. So I am just going to read it: Before the Secretary of Agriculture begins to implement the program created under this section in any State, the Secretary shall obtain written consent from the governor of the State. The Secretary shall not implement this program without obtaining this consent. In the event of the election or appointment of a new Governor in a State, the Secretary shall once again seek written consent to allow for any new enrollment in the program created under this section in that State. I yield to Senator Bingaman who wants to comment.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I understand the distinguished Senator from Montana wants to speak. I wanted to say to Senator Reid that I appreciate his compliments. When he opened up, he said I was smart because I was a mayor. I want the Senator to know that the fact I was a mayor doesn't make me very smart.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Crapo, a junior Member of the Senate. He is on the Agriculture Committee, and he is growing his way up from near the bottom in seniority. Today and yesterday, he has shown that he has a very good understanding of dairy and dairy prices in the United States. I am very proud that he came to the floor and repeated his view of the remarks which Senator Bingaman of my State made. I know if we were to ask the Senate to answer a quiz about dairy and milk production in America, they would never come close to an answer that said the State of New Mexico is the fifth largest producer of milk in America. Nobody would really think that because we don't look like a State that should produce a lot of milk. We are very dry. We are not a giant agricultural State. But what we have is a large group of dairy farmers who have moved to New Mexico with their families, and they have become very modern, entrepreneurial, and technologically ahead of the game in production of milk in the United States. It is just an absolute joy to go see one of these dairy farms with 2,000 cows. It is unheard of in the parts of America where we are going to protect dairy and milk production with subsidies. We have many that have 1,000 head and many with 750 head. On average, we exceed 1,000 head per dairy farm. They produce large quantities of milk. In fact, year before last, the largest producing cow in America in terms of weight of milk was from the great State of New Mexico, which again causes people to wonder what are we doing right in New Mexico. We have great competitive farmers. They are doing the right thing by way of matching entrepreneurial spirit, capitalism, and the production of dairy milk and milk-related products for America. I think our national goal would be not to make it difficult or more difficult for that to happen as it is beginning to happen in the State of Idaho. We ought to encourage that. After all, what do we want? We want the cheapest price of solid, safe milk and related products coming from American dairy farmers for our children and for our families. We want a constant supply coming from competitive producers and marketers of milk. Clearly, whether or not one understands the intimate details of the latest, the fourth amendment regarding dairy and milk production in America, it is clear that there is no intention to make it easier for those who are producing at competitive prices such as New Mexico and other States. If anything, there is a calculated effort to make their lives more difficult and to make the potential for them to grow and prosper less rather than more. I can see where we ought to help one State versus another State if we have some really difficult problems on which they must have assistance. But just how much longer do we have to try to paint this picture, and then implement it, of trying to help one piece of America because they are having difficulty being competitive in the production of milk? This has been going on for a long time. It is time that it end, not that it continue. It is time that that kind of allocation of American resources be on some kind of a slide that is going downward, not one that is going up, up, and away. This year, the money that will be circulating around will exceed $2 billion, that will move from here to there and elsewhere in order to make one region, that obviously wants to continue producing milk but would have a difficult time competing, more assured of making money through the production of milk. So I came to this Chamber to urge, when we vote in the Senate today, that we decide we are not going to pursue this policy any longer, that we are going to move in the opposite direction. If there is going to be a motion to table, which I think there is, I say to Senator Crapo, I hope Senators will not vote to table and will leave this issue before us so we can have a vote on it. I believe eventually an agriculture bill that has this provision in it--that is the latest, the fourth iteration of the amendment in the last few hours--if that is going to be in the bill, I think it is going to be difficult to pass this bill, get it through both Houses, and signed by the President. In fact, I do not see how that is possible. So I am glad to be on what will ultimately be the right side. In the meantime, I yield the floor and wish the best for Americans in the future in terms of being able to supply plenty of milk to them at the most reasonable prices, coming from a competitive milk industry in the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I rise in opposition to the milk pricing mechanism, the last one we have seen. It is very hard to analyze because we have had four since we started. I wish I could be more precise and specific about the latest. But I want to just talk generally. I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of Mr. Crapo's amendment which would eliminate all elements of a National Dairy Plan. The amendment I support today would continue the $9.90/cwt. price support, which the New Mexico dairy interests strongly support. This is the third or fourth proposal we have seen with regard to dairy policy and it still caters to the Northeast at the expense of the other states. This most recent proposal resembles an expanded Northeast Dairy Compact. It is expanded to include Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia which were not originally in the northeast Compact. Under this recent proposal, marketing assistance loans apply to every producer except those in ``Participating States,'' which are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and West Virginia. The 12 States in the Northeast reap greater benefits than the other 38 dairy States. If we compare the numbers using today's payment rates, the Northeast States would get about 70 cents per hundredweight. Compare this to other States, such as New Mexico, which would receive only 40 to 60 cents per hundredweight. Under this national plan as the rolling average decreases each year, the payments to producers decrease by about one-third. Yet under the same plan, payments to the northeast group stay the same. This is because there is a $16.94 target price built into the plan. It is time that the Senate understands that when it comes to setting dairy policy, it is not just Vermont versus the Upper Midwest. The West, including New Mexico, should have just as much to say about dairy policy. New Mexico is currently the fifth largest diary State. Yet, under this new plan, estimates show New Mexico coming in dead last on payments. Policies that penalize the new and efficient while providing welfare to the inefficient are unacceptable. These are the types of policies that are being contemplated in the original Ag Committee bill. Additionally, policies intended to retard and reverse the growth of dairying in larger producing States such as New Mexico are also unacceptable. We need to be setting sound policies that foster competition and the production of a good healthy product, not policies that are regionally divisive--pitting small-farm States against large-farm States--for example, West versus the East. Additionally, we should not be setting policies that punish consumers with higher prices for fluid milk. Decreased milk consumption is not helpful to any producer. My colleague, Senator Crapo, has done such a wonderful job in managing the opposition to this price fixing approach. He received a letter from the Secretary of Agriculture. It was gracious of him to ask me to put it in the Record. I will read one part of it, wherein the Secretary of Agriculture says: Consumers will pay billions in additional costs. By raising prices, S. 1731 will also further exacerbate dairy overproduction. The Federal Government currently owns about 600 million pounds of non-fat dry milk--nearly a year's supply. The bill's effect of increased supply and reduced demand will create an even more enormous surplus that would adversely impact dairy farmers for many years to come. I ask unanimous consent that the letter which includes that paragraph from the Secretary of Agriculture to Senator Crapo be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I do not have a question. If I may just have a minute to make a statement, the Senator can then take as much time as he would like to rebut me.

Mr. DOMENICI. I just want to make one statement as to the issue of whether or not the American people were going to ever get a stimulus. They could look up here and say Congress passed a bill that people outside of government, who know about our economy, say will help us, the American consumers. That started down the partisan path when the Finance Committee of the Senate was told it was to produce a Democratic bill. They did. They got every Democrat to vote for it and no Republicans. All I am suggesting is, that started us down a path that was full of partisan thorns. Instead of us going down a nice, easy street to get Americans what they deserve, we started down a partisan path that got us here today. The House may be as partisan as can be. Their bill may be everything the distinguished Senator is going to say about it. But it may not, also. But it may be. That is his assessment of their bill. We do not have a bill we are going to discuss because they produced a purely Democratic bill that did not have any Republican support. If in fact we did what he said, it was subject to a point of order and we voted it down so it would not be the pending business. Those are still the facts. I regret that it doesn't set too well with the other side when somebody comes down here for 8 or 9 minutes--and that is all the time we have been here--and interrupts their conversation, which has been going on day after day, that kind of blames all this on the Republicans. I do not choose to blame it on the Democrats. I choose to say let's get a stimulus package and let's have some leadership, to say it is too late to get everything we want and it is too late to argue. Let's just get a stimulus package by going to conference with some leadership saying let's do a simple but good thing. I offer a suggestion today as to what that could be. I am just as vulnerable to being prejudiced in favor of the holiday portion of it as others are for business or labor provisions that they want in this. But I think we should get off the partisan path, get onto another one. And, frankly, the Agriculture bill can be debated, the remaining appropriations bill, and a nice, simple stimulus package could be put together if indeed we just chose to move to another path. I yield the floor and thank the Senator for yielding to me.