Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. For the information of all Senators, when the Senate convenes on Tuesday, Senator Reed will be recognized to offer an amendment under a 1-hour time agreement. Following that debate, Senator Kennedy will be recognized to offer an amendment regarding the minimum wage under a 2-hour time agreement. At 12:30 p.m, the Senate will recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow the two party conferences to meet. When the Senate reconvenes at 2:15, there will be 5 minutes for closing remarks on the Kennedy amendment prior to a vote on or in relation to the amendment. Following that vote, there will be up to four additional votes occurring in a stacked sequence with minimal debate between each vote. Those votes, in their respective order, will include the two Feingold amendments regarding attorney's fees and filing fees, the Reed amendment regarding underwriting standards, and the cloture vote on the child custody bill previously scheduled for 4:30 p.m. Further votes will occur into the evening as the Senate attempts to complete action on the bankruptcy bill. As a reminder to Members, second-degree amendments to the child custody bill must be filed by 3:30 p.m.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments be agreed to, the bill be considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to consideration of calendar No. 549, S. 2317.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I further ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday morning at 9:30 a.m. Senator Reed be recognized to offer an amendment regarding underwriting standards, and there be 1 hour for debate on the amendment equally divided, and that at the conclusion of the debate, the amendment be temporarily set aside.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, the bill I am introducing today is the first step in addressing a longstanding unfairness that has blemished the conscience of New Mexico's history. It is an injustice that dates back to the time when Jefferson Davis, Daniel Webster, and Sam Houston walked the Halls of the Capitol as Senators. In 1848, the United States signed the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo with Mexico. Under this treaty, the United States acquired the territory that is now California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming. The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo solved some problems but created others. It failed to adequately protect the civil and property rights of the people living in the newly annexed territory. This bill is a very important piece of legislation. It is the opportunity to reverse the heritage of ill-will between the Hispanic people and the Federal Government. Hispanic descendants have been waiting for 150 years to get the Federal Government to fairly look into the land grant situation. We ratified a treaty with property rights guarantees provisions which, in retrospect, have turned out to be inadequate. John R. Van Ness, described the treaty as an enormous real estate deal, but the land grant claimants were led to believe that their property rights would be honored and protected. Some officials with the Federal Government, on the other hand, expected to get clear title to most of the land it was paying for regardless of the existing property rights of the Mexicans. The land grant applicants have endured hostile government officials. At one point, President Cleveland appointed William Andrew Sparks, as surveyor general for New Mexico. Sparks has been described by historians as ``steeped in prejudice against New Mexico, its people and their property rights.'' We had corrupt lawyers, and a confederation of opportunists who used long legal battles to acquire empires that extended over millions of acres--all at the expense of Hispanics. In 1891, the Surveyor General was replaced by the Court of Private Land Claims. The situation went from bad to worse because the court's procedures heavily favored the Government and the result was injustice. The New Mexico Court of Claims required that claimants prove that the Spanish or Mexican granting official had the legal authority to issue the land grant. Consequently, many New Mexico land grants were held to be not legitimate. As a result, the New Mexico court rejected two- thirds of the claims presented before it. Ultimately, by one account written by Richard Griswold del Castillo, only 82 grants received congressional confirmation. This represented only 6 percent of the total area sought by land claimants. The Court of Private Land Claims enlarged the national domain of the Federal Government at the expense of hundreds of Hispanic villages, leaving a bitter legacy. This bill is based on legislation recently passed by Congressman Bill Redmond. This is a major piece of legislation, and I commend Congressman Redmond. He came to Washington, and he quickly identified one of the most important and longstanding disputes that his constituents have had with the Federal Government and he took decisive action. He passed a major bill to begin the process of seeing what these claims were all about and adjudicating them, if possible. Members retire from 20- and 30-year careers and never achieve the passage of an important piece of legislation, and yet, Congressman Redmond got this bill passed in the House in his first term. Congressman Redmond's bill creates a Presidential commission to adjudicate the community land grants located in New Mexico. It is designed to benefit descendants of Mexican citizens who settled in Mew Mexico before the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. The purpose of the legislation is to determine which community land grants could be reconstituted from land currently held by the Federal Government--and I repeat, from land currently held by the Federal Government. The legislation finally implements the spirit of Treaty of Guadalupe- Hidalgo. I told Congressman Redmond that I would sponsor his bill in the Senate, and today I am introducing the companion bill. I am proud to do so. I have made some changes and only a couple of additions in the version of this bill that I am introducing today. The changes are based on the lessons I have learned from talking to the heirs of some of the land grants; and from reviewing the history; and from talking to scholars, historians, and land grant lawyers. I want to thank Roberto Mondragon, Max Cordova, Estevan Arellano, Joyce Guerin, Georgia Roybal, Juan Sanchez, Pedro Gutierrez, Jr., and Roberto Torrez for their invaluable help. I have also asked the Indian leaders to review the legislation in draft form. While I have not yet received their comments, I want them to know that I view their issues to be important, and I look forward to working with them and for them. First, it seems to me that the Federal Government needs to take an affirmative role in obtaining the necessary documentation needed to prove the validity of the community land grant claims. Unfortunately, many of the New Mexico documents were destroyed during the Pueblo revolt. But scholars have told me that the Mexican and Spanish governments have ever-improving archives that may indeed contain what these New Mexicans need. This bill requires the Secretary of State to negotiate an agreement with Mexico and Spain for access to the documents. It seems especially appropriate that in 1998, as New Mexico celebrates its 400th anniversary of the first Hispanic settlement, that our Government would begin negotiating the necessary agreements for access to these critical and historically significant documents. In reading the histories it seemed to me that there was a lot of ambiguity in the treaty and even more ambiguity and discretion in the statutes establishing the Surveyor General and the Court of Private Land Claims. I believe history supports my view that ambiguity works to the detriment of the land grant claimants. Therefore, I propose that before the commission begin its work on adjudicating specific claims it first develop clear and concise rules so that everyone will be treated fairly. This legislation requires the Presidential commission to be formed and then to develop a Code of Land Claims Procedure that would be reviewed by the Energy Committee to insure that it is fair in the Senate and its counterpart in the House. Once the documents are available and the rules have been spelled out, the commission would be ready to adjudicate the land claims. Trying to do justice 150 years after the fact is complicated. This legislation holds harmless private land owners and the Indians of New Mexico with reference to their claims, their lands, and with reference to access to their sacred sites. It makes sure that title companies and lenders will be satisfied that this legislation and any petitions for reconstituting the land grants will not adversely affect private property. It makes sure that our State Engineer is satisfied with the criteria used to deal with land claims without upsetting our system of water rights. I believe we can all agree that we do not want to have the Federal Government interfering in these various areas. The legislation calls upon the commission in its Code of Land Claims Procedure to have a clear set of rules for what can and cannot be done for our Indian people. I am hopeful that this bill can address what has for too long been a tale of land loss and denial without creating new problems or injustices. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and a Spanish translation of my remarks appear in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask the Senator, how long do you intend to speak?

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I traveled to the recent Summit meeting in Moscow. At that Summit, a protocol was signed that will, if successfully implemented, safeguard 50 tons of Russian weapons-grade plutonium and transform it into new forms that should ensure that it is never again used in nuclear weapons. I've placed special emphasis on this agreement for many months, and I invested a great deal of personal effort to achieve success. I welcome these recent steps. At the same time, I recognize that this protocol only creates an opportunity for real progress, we have to go far beyond just signing the protocol to secure the benefits that it can provide. I've spoken out in the past on the need to ensure that Russian stocks of weapons-grade materials do not find their way to terrorists or rogue states. The current financial crisis in Russia only adds further emphasis to these concerns. The former Soviet Union relied on guards and guns to safeguard their fissile materials. Now those guards may not have been paid for months--that has to increase our concerns. At the Summit we certainly heard about the tremendous burdens being borne by the Russian people from the current economic uncertainties and rampant inflation. Some programs already exist to improve the protection of nuclear materials. The Materials Protection Control and Accounting program is demonstrating some real successes in improving this situation. But the current opportunity to remove 50 tons of weapons-grade material from potential weapons use is most unique. I've worked to be sure that we quickly seize it. In fact, my visit to Russia in July with Senators Thompson and Grams was motivated largely by my interest in finding ways to progress more rapidly with this 50 tons. After that visit in July, I spoke with you about my misgivings with the Administration's plan to couple the rate of weapons dismantlement to the rate at which the weapons-grade plutonium could be used in reactors, as mixed-oxide or MOX fuel. At that time, the Administration was planning for Russia to use about 1.3 tons of this material per year in a set of Russian reactors. I argued that this was far too slow a rate. It would take 35 years to dispose of the 50 tons at that rate-- none of us can be the least bit sure that the current window of opportunity for progress with Russia will stay open anywhere near that long. In July, I proposed that we structure an agreement that decouples the initial steps in dismantlement from the final step of reactor use. Specifically, I believed that the Russians would accept a program that targets a goal for moving 10 tons per year of weapons-grade plutonium through the weapons dismantlement step, through conversion of classified shapes into unclassified ones, and into safeguarded storage. These steps have the effect of significantly reducing the risk that this material will be re-used in weapons. We still need to proceed with the final disposition of the Russian plutonium in reactors, and I want to accomplish that step as rapidly as possible as part of our overall integrated program on plutonium disposition. But construction of MOX fuel fabrication facilities, plus limitations on the number of reactors in Russia that can accept MOX fuel, will lead to slower progress for this final step. I discussed this approach with President Clinton in late July and encouraged that plutonium disposition be a focus of his next Summit. I appreciate his willingness to include this subject at the Moscow meetings. I've just recently corresponded again with the President to outline my suggestions on key principles that should guide our negotiations of the detailed agreements required to implement the new plutonium disposition protocol. In that letter, I repeated my strong advice that he appoint a special envoy charged with the entire plutonium disposition effort. This program requires coordination across multiple federal agencies, as well as negotiations with Russia and the G-7 countries. In my view, an envoy who commands domestic and international respect, and who clearly has Presidential authority, is essential to expedite success. I listed six key negotiating points in my letter to the President. First, I emphasized that agreements must focus on rapid progress for the initial steps of the process, the dismantlement, conversion of classified shapes, and the safeguarded storage. These steps can and should be targeted at a rate of 10 tons per year. Second, all milestones that we establish to gauge progress must include sufficient transparency that we can be positive that agreed- upon steps are accomplished. Third, Russian plutonium must eventually be used in MOX fuel, but the rate for this step will be much slower than 10 tons per year. Nevertheless, we need to make progress toward this ultimate goal and this step must be part of the overall integrated program. I also noted that in my conversations with Russian leadership, they are very sensitive to achieving the best utilization of their plutonium. They believe that new generations of reactors can best utilize some of their plutonium. I believe that we should respect their interests, as long as the weapons material is always stored under effective safeguards while awaiting eventual use. Fourth, we should minimize the construction of new Russian facilities. We should seek and perhaps help to convert some existing Russian facilities. For example, some of their weapon production facilities should be converted to weapon dismantlement. Fifth, it is important to involve the other G-7 countries. Plutonium represents a global risk prior to disposition and careful disposition of plutonium is a global benefit. For that reason, we should encourage meaningful participation from our G-7 friends as we work together on these goals. And finally, we should assure that any U.S. resources that subsidize the Russian Federation's program are provided only upon assurance that tasks and milestones were satisfactorily completed. It will be a challenge to negotiate agreements that follow these six points, but it is essential that we promptly start serious negotiations. I'm pleased to be informed by the Administration that the first discussions with the Russians on this subject will occur very soon. In closing, I want to note that this current emphasis on disposition of excess weapons materials is only one action in what I hope will be a long series of important steps toward dramatic reductions in global risks and tensions. This agreement is important, but it has to be followed by more agreements. Each of these subsequent agreements must be carefully and fully implemented, and should target further reductions in the large world-wide stocks of weapons materials. In order to achieve these reductions, new agreements have to be in place to inventory global sources of fissile materials; and obviously all nations will eventually have to participate to achieve real success. Other future agreements need to provide reliable counts of actual warheads, and eventually to dramatic reductions in the numbers of such warheads. Our long term goal should be a world without nuclear weapons, but that goal will only be achieved by many many years of patient progress toward intermediate goals. Each step along this journey must be focused on further reductions in global tensions and in risks of international conflicts. In the near term, I am committed to the importance of the disposition of the current 50 tons of Russian excess weapons-grade plutonium. We have a golden window of opportunity to rid the world of materials for thousands of nuclear weapons, we must not squander the chance. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair and thank the Senator.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the amendments are complete I be granted 15 minutes for a floor speech.

Mr. DOMENICI. I have no desire to prolong the amendments. I will come when you are all finished. I will be here today.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I inquire of the proponent of the amendment, and the floor manager on the Democratic side, how much more time will be consumed on the bankruptcy matter this morning? I have a speech which I should have gotten up and offered 15 or 20 minutes ago, before we started this.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to Senator Santorum, for all you have gone through and all the courage that it has taken for you to do what you have done, I hope that tonight, by staying here a few minutes with you--and there is nobody else on the floor but us--you understand that we are very appreciative of your leadership and we are with you. We are going to vote with you, and we are going to vote with you again, until it finally prevails. I thank the Senator. Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the overriding of the President's veto on partial-birth abortion. Before I give my comments and observations, I want to look across the Senate to the freshman Senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum. I want to say to him that when he spoke on this issue today, and when he spoke on this issue the last time we debated it here, I was never more proud of a Senator than I was to observe him and watch him. I can assure him that even though he may not have won the last time in terms of what we are doing in a veto override, and he may not win this time, there are millions of Americans who have watched him. Whether they were concerned about this issue or not, if they watched for a while, they are concerned right now. You can't ask for anything more. I read the Senator's wife's book with reference to the problems they had with reference to an abortion they had no control over, an early delivery of a child that died. I am so proud, I can hardly express it tonight. I want to once more congratulate him for what he has done here on the floor of the Senate. It is not easy, but he did it with great, great style. Mr. President, this debate is about infanticide. Frankly, I didn't dream that concept up. There is a very distinguished Senator from the State of New York--I know Senator D'Amato from New York is here and I think he would concur when I say a distinguished Senator named Senator Moynihan--who looked at this problem and it didn't take him very long. We talk all around it. He talked right to it when he said this is infanticide. So this debate is about humanity and necessity. The procedure of partial-birth abortion, to put it bluntly, is inhumane. By now, many Americans are uncomfortably aware of the details of partial-birth abortion. They have heard the testimony of doctors who performed this procedure, nurses who witnessed this procedure, and they have most likely seen informational ads or read descriptions of this procedure. Maybe they have even watched us debate this issue on prior occasions. So I am not going to go through the details of the procedure. I will only say that, at a minimum, it is cruel and inhumane. I find it ironic that our Constitution, via the eighth amendment, protects criminals from cruel and unusual punishment; however, that same amendment does not protect innocent babies when it comes to cruel and inhumane procedures that are known as partial-birth abortions. Proponents of partial-birth abortion claim that the procedure is rare, occurring only about 500 times a year. However, that is simply not true. The number of partial-birth abortions is closer to between 3,000 and 5,000 a year. In New Jersey alone, at least 1,500 procedures are done each year. Besides being inhumane and quite prevalent, partial-birth abortion is also unnecessary. Opponents of this legislation argue that partial-birth abortion is necessary to protect the health of the mother. However, most experts say this is also simply not true. According to more than 500 doctors nationwide, who make up what is called the Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth, it is never--I repeat never--medically necessary to perform a partial-birth abortion to protect the health or fertility of the mother. A former Surgeon General, who we admire and respect when he sort of agrees with our views but we ignore him when he disagrees, Surgeon General Everett Koop, has also stated that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect the mother's health or fertility. So amidst all this evidence, how can the opponents of this bill tell the American people that partial-birth abortion is sometimes medically necessary? If this procedure is not medically necessary, why do we allow it? As I told you, Mr. President, this debate is not about Roe v. Wade or the choice of life. It is not about any of those things. But it is about a baby, a life that is destroyed in a cruel and inhumane way. It is about a life that is unnecessarily destroyed and need not happen. It is for these reasons that I will gladly vote to override the President's veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997. I suggest tonight to my good friend, the leader of this cause, that if at first you don't succeed, try, try again. If indeed that means that you have already tried three times, then try and try again. What is so patently right will soon prevail. I yield the floor. Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, let me say that it is most appropriate that we take this action tonight during the second week of Hispanic Heritage Month in the United States. It is quite appropriate, while we are honoring the contribution which Hispanic culture has made to our country, that we are now saying to one group of Hispanics who live on the island of Puerto Rico that we are willing to see you take a vote regarding whether or not you would choose to become the next State. Mr. President, this resolution affirms that the first step in any change of political status for the community of Puerto Rico rests with the people of that island. When they express that opinion in December-- December of this very year--then it will be up to Congress to take whatever steps are necessary to consider that decision. Let me say that there are a number of Senate heroes with reference to this Puerto Rico resolution. First, I must say that the individuals most likely to recall the difficulties of taking a vote and deciding whether to become a State are the citizens represented by those Senators whose States were last admitted, or close to being last admitted. So the hero tonight is Frank Murkowski of the great state of Alaska. For anybody wondering, that is not a Hispanic name--Murkowski-- but it is a name of European descent, perhaps Polish. He understands what it is for a State to go through this process of deciding whether you are going to become a part of the Union, the United States of America. I remind the Puerto Ricans--who are Americans in their own right-- that Americans think that the United States is so important that we had a Civil War over whether you could unilaterally drop out of the Union once you joined it. So I want you to take it seriously, Puerto Rico, because it is serious. We had the biggest battle within the borders of our own Nation about the issue of keeping this great country together, and you should know that and you should be concerned about that. Secondly, let me suggest that in the State of New York there is a Senator named Senator D'Amato, and the Puerto Ricans know that is not a Spanish name either; it is Italian like mine, Domenici. But this Senator from New York understands what the Puerto Ricans in his State and the Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico mean to our Nation. He has always been willing to give the people in Puerto Rico an opportunity to determine their destiny. And I believe second to Senator Murkowski on our side of the aisle, behind the scenes, Senator D'Amato has made it very clear that this night should occur--not next year or the year after, but now. So I compliment my good friend and a friend of the Puerto Rican people in New York and across the country. I compliment the Senator for his tremendous, tremendous regard for what Puerto Rico believes is right and fair. I must say, from the other side of the aisle, it is most interesting that tonight we have a series of Senators with these strange names-- Murkowski on our side, D'Amato on our side, Domenici speaking, and Torricelli from New Jersey. I compliment Senator Torricelli for his vigilant and absolute persistence that something should be done on this issue before we leave here. So tonight, without any question, the Puerto Rican people can already say across the island and throughout the rest of America, because it is a foregone conclusion, that the Senate will vote on this resolution propounded by the Senator from Alaska, Senator Murkowski. Frankly, it will pass overwhelmingly. There will be no dissenting votes tonight, because for those who would like to dissent, they have already decided that they are not going to make a point of it. As a consequence, we are going to approve this in just as formidable a way as if we had voted, when the U.S. Senate says without a dissenting vote tonight, that we agree with this resolution. Mr. President, once again, many of us came here from around the world, or our parents or grandparents did. And we know the validity and the great value of America. We hope the people in Puerto Rico understand that and act accordingly. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator from California has 1\1/2\ hours. We have 1\1/2\ hours. I am not sure we will use all of ours. I don't know whether the Senator from California will use all of theirs. I have a few Senators who want to speak.

Mr. DOMENICI. At this moment?

Mr. DOMENICI. And you are not going to take the rest of the 15 minutes?

Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, is it a short amendment?

Mr. DOMENICI. Is it a short amendment?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to ask Senator Boxer--we have been going back and forth. Senator Murkowski just wants to speak for 3 minutes, and I wonder if we could then have Senator Thomas speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Then we would go to your side.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield to the two Senators in that order. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.