Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, communities within the State of New Mexico and throughout the country will soon be faced with a costly situation that was not of their making. Beginning in 2006, Federal drinking water regulations established by the EPA will require substantial reductions in the amount of arsenic present in that water. Today the limit is 50 parts per billion in 2006 it will be 10 parts per billion. Arsenic is indeed a poison when ingested at high amounts. It is also naturally occurring in much of the groundwater throughout the nation. Indeed, in Albuquerque, NM, the natural levels of arsenic are around 13 parts per billion. This illustrates the problem that the new standards will create. The bill that I introduce today recognizes that in some parts of America, the burden will be too great for some communities to bear. The bill does the following: (1) finds that small communities may not have the resources to meet the new arsenic standards and that Federal programs are not in place to address the issue; (2) creates a grant program for many small communities to help upgrade their water systems; (3) ensures that not less than 20 percent of the grant monies go to communities with less than 50,000 residents; and (4) authorizes appropriations of $1.9 billion for FY2006 and for each year through FY2011. Let me tell you more about this problem. In New Mexico, the geology, the make up of the rocks and dirt, results in relatively high levels of arsenic in the groundwater. However, over time, New Mexico residents have not experienced higher levels of diseases associated with arsenic. Be that as it may, the standard is in our future and many small communities throughout New Mexico and the west will not be able to meet the resulting financial burden. I am sure that if we have to fix our water plants to meet the EPA's new standards, some in villages of 100 people where they have a small water system and no other water source, it will create a significant financial burden. Because of this, I believe it is important to aid communities in meeting the coming standards. The financial burden facing many communities and individuals is great. The new standards could cost New Mexico communities between $370 million and $440 million to improve treatment systems, plus $18 million a year in operating costs. Albuquerque, NM, is looking at having to spend up to $150 million to come into compliance; Rio Rancho is facing $60 million in improvements. Many small communities in New Mexico and throughout the west are facing increases in their water bills of $50 to $90 a month per individual. I need not say that most people cannot afford such an increase. Most of the technologies needed for water systems to remain in compliance with the new requirements are advanced and will require a significant increase in the level of training and expertise of the public water system operators in New Mexico and throughout the Nation. This legislation will help these communities in upgrading their systems and training their people. We are forcing communities to comply with drinking water standards that many believe will not increase public health. The least we can do is help them meet the burden. I ask unanimous consent that my statement and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``American Indian Reservation Transportation Improvement Program Act.'' This act will provide the people of Indian Country with the resources they need to upgrade their decaying road system. In 1982, when I served on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, several members of the Navajo Nation Tribal Council Committee on Transportation approached me with an interesting proposition. These Navajo Councilmen believed the time had come for Indian tribes to participate directly in our National Highway Trust Fund programs. I agreed with these gentlemen, the Senate agreed with me, and the Congress and President Reagan approved Indian tribal participation in the U.S. Department of Transportation highway construction program for the first time in our Nation's history. By the mid-1980s, Indian Reservation Roads, IRR, funding was at about $100 million per year nationwide. By the late 1980s, however, IRR funding fell to about $80 million per year. In the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, ISTEA, for the 1990s, we were able to raise this critical highway construction funding to about $190 million per year. Then, in TEA-21, The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, we succeeded in bringing annual IRR funding up to $275 million for fiscal years 1999 through 2003. As we seek to promote economic opportunities on our Nation's tribal reservations, I believe it is imperative that we once again increase this vital infrastructure funding. I am aware that many groups have advocated for much greater increases in funding for Indian Reservation Roads. While I am sympathetic to the need for such large increases, I am keenly aware of competing needs around the country for medical research, economic stimulus, and for our national defense, to name just a few. Therefore, I am compelled to recommend increases for the IRR program that are more likely to win acceptance among my colleagues. For highway construction, I am recommending an immediate increase of $55 million in the first year to a new total of $330 million. My bill would then increase the amount for construction by $30 million each year so that the program receives $480 million in the final year of the authorization. For the Indian bridge program, I am recommending $15 million per year, an increase of $6 million annually. And for state roads that serve as key bus routes for Indian children, primarily on our Nation's largest Indian reservation--the Navajo Nation--I am recommending increasing this vital funding from $1.5 million per year to $3 million to retroactively fund fiscal years 2004 and 2005, to $4 million in fiscal years 2006 and 2007, and $5 million for fiscal years 2008 and 2009. My final recommendation is to create a rural transit program for Indian reservations. Because the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration each have their areas of expertise that can make such a program a success, my legislation will require the two agencies to work together for the benefit of the tribes who participate in this program. My suggestion is to fund this program at $20 million. In closing, I thank the Navajo Nation Transportation Committee and the tribal transportation department for keeping me informed of their progress and continuing needs. I believe my bill will be a positive answer to their requests. In addition, the Pueblo Indians and Apache Indians of New Mexico have continuing development needs, including new and improved roads to reach their many attractions for tourists and other visitors. I ask my colleagues to join me in increasing the Indian Reservation Roads program funds in our Federal highways programs to the degree I have requested in this bill. I thank my colleagues and urge their support for these increases as we reauthorize TEA-21 for 6 more years. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be introducing the Bisti PRLA Dispute Resolution Act of 2005, which will resolve a conflict regarding coal mining leases in New Mexico and which will confirm the completion of all Navajo Nation land selections in New Mexico under the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act. Arch Coal Company and the Navajo Nation have been deadlocked within the Department of the Interior appeals process regarding certain preference right lease applications, PRLAs, in the Bisti region of northwestern New Mexico. When enacted, this legislation will resolve a complex set of issues arising from legal rights the Arch Coal Company acquired in Federal lands, which are now situated among lands which constitute tribal property and the allotments of members of the Navajo Nation. Both Arch Coal and the Navajo Nation support this legislation to resolve the situation in a manner that is mutually beneficial. In addition, this legislation will serve to mandate the completion of a longstanding set of land selections the Navajo Nation made under the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act. In 1984 amendments to that act, Congress provided the Navajo Nation with its final opportunity, within 18 months of passage of the amendments, to select lands in New Mexico as provided in section 11 of the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act. The Navajo Nation exercised its rights under the 1984 Amendments, but since has sought to review, revise, and seek to select other lands to the potential detriment of mineral lessees holding leases on Federal public lands near the Navajo reservation. This legislation would clarify Congress's intent that the nation no longer has land selection rights available to it in New Mexico under the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act. There are many reasons the solution embodied in this bill achieves broad benefits to the interested parties and the public. It will resolve a longstanding conflict between the Navajo Nation and Arch Coal and allow the Navajo Nation to complete the land selections in New Mexico that were made in the 1980s to promote tribal member resettlement following the partition of lands in Arizona to the Hopi Tribe. Specifically, section 4(a)(1) will clarify and confirm that the Navajo Nation already has selected the lands to which it entitled under the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act and has no further rights under that act to select lands in New Mexico other than those already selected by the Navajo Nation in the 1980s. The bill also guarantees that Arch Coal, Inc. will be compensated for the economic value of its coal reserves. An independent panel will make recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior regarding the fair market value of the coal reserves, gives the company bidding rights, protects a State's financial interest in its share of Federal Mineral Leasing Act payments, and allows the Navajo Nation beneficial ownership in their lands. The Secretary of the Interior will issue a certificate of bidding rights to Arch Coal upon relinquishment of its interests in the PRLAs. The amount of that certificate will equal the fair market value of the coal reserves as defined by the Department of the Interior's regulations. A panel consisting of representatives of the Department of the Interior, Arch Coal, and the Governors of Wyoming and New Mexico will help determine fair market value. While the Interior Department is authorized to exchange PRLAs for bidding rights, the Department has not done so, largely because of the difficulty it perceives in determining the fair market value of the coal reserves. The panel method in this legislation will promote the objectivity of that process. Upon the relinquishment of the PRLAs and the issuance of a certificate of bidding rights, the Department of the Interior will execute patents to the Navajo Nation of the lands encompassed by the PRLAs. This is a win-win situation for all parties involved, is endorsed by the affected parties, and is a fair resolution to this ongoing problem. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will protect U.S. trademarks and their legitimate owners from the effects of the confiscations decreed by the Cuban Government. My colleagues and I believe in the fundamental principle that property rights must be respected and that it is wrong for governments to take property from individuals and companies, whether nationals or foreigners, without payment of prompt, adequate and effective compensation. We uphold the firmly established principle of our law and public policy that foreign confiscatory measures must never be given effect on property situated in the United States. When the Castro regime took power in Cuba, it engaged in a program of wholesale confiscation of property in Cuba, including property owned by Cuban nationals as well as by U.S. and other non-Cuban nationals. The Cuban Government also purported to extend the effects of the confiscation to property, such as trademarks, that the confiscation victims owned in other countries, and took other actions in an attempt to seize control of such assets. To protect U.S. trademarks and their legitimate owners from the effects of the confiscations decreed by the Cuban government, Congress enacted Section 211 of H.R. 4328, PL 105-277, in 1998. This law, referred to as Section 211, prohibits enforcement of U.S. rights to trademarks confiscated by the Cuban Government, except with the consent of the legitimate owner. Section 211 simply made it clear that the universal U.S. policy against giving effect to foreign confiscations of U.S. property applies with equal force in the case of U.S. trademarks confiscated by Cuba. Section 211 was challenged in the World Trade Organization, WTO, by the European Union, EU. In January 2002, the WTO appellate body finally resolved that challenge by finding in favor of the United States on all points except one. The appellate body made a narrow finding that, because Section 211 on its face does not apply to U.S. nationals, it is inconsistent with the national-treatment and most-favored-nation principles under the TRIPs Agreement. The appellate body fully supported the principle embodied in Section 211, that is, the non- recognition of uncompensated confiscations and the protection of intellectual property ownership rights. The revision required to broaden the application of Section 211 to include U.S. nationals amounts to no more than a minor, technical fix. The legislation that I introduce today makes it clear that this well- founded law applies to all parties claiming rights in confiscated Cuban trademarks, regardless of nationality. Such a technical correction will satisfy the WTO ruling and prevent the EU from applying trade sanctions against the United States at the end of this year. Moreover, this legislation does three things: it maintains protection for original owners of confiscated Cuban trademarks; it applies to all people, regardless of nationality; and it clarifies that trademarks and trade names confiscated by the Cuban Government will not be recognized in the United States when the assertion is being made by someone who knew or had reason to know that the mark was confiscated. This bill does not in any way decide which party owns a Cuban trademark in the U.S. nor does Section 211 prevent the Cuban Government or its various entities from having access to our courts or from registering legitimate trademarks in the U.S. As long as the trademark was not confiscated, the Cuban Government can legally register any trademark it desires. Moreover, even if the Cuban Government stole a trademark in the 1960s, it can still register the trademark in the U.S as long as the original owner has consented. Once revised, Section 211 is consistent with all of our international treaty obligations including the Inter-American Convention on Trademarks. Article 3 of the Inter-American Convention expressly allows non-recognition of a trademark when such recognition would be contrary to the public order or public policy of the state in which recognition is sought. There is no doubt whatsoever that allowing title to U.S. property to be determined by a foreign confiscation violates U.S. public policy. Section 211 simply makes it clear that the universal U.S. policy against giving effect to foreign confiscations of U.S. property applies with equal force in the case of U.S. trademarks confiscated by Cuba. Nothing in any treaty or in international law is inconsistent with that rule of U.S. law. I believe this piece of legislation is a simple technical corrections bill which will ensure that a fairly simple, but important, U.S. law is WTO-compliant. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, April 6, at 10 a.m. in 366 Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nomination of David Garman to be Under Secretary of Energy. For further information, please contact Judy Pensabene of the Committee staff at (202) 224-1327.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I begin by complimenting my friend from New Hampshire and the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee on a job well done. As the new Chairman, he has skillfully navigated a difficult course to produce the budget resolution before us today. Congratulations. I also want to tell him that even though this is his first year as the Budget Committee chairman, he has handled the job like a seasoned veteran. I would like to raise the issue of mental health parity as the Senate debates the FY 2006 Senate Budget Resolution. It is my understanding the resolution before us assumes the revenue impact of enacting a mental health parity law at a cost of $1.5 billion over 5 years. However, I want to make sure that this is indeed the case because the assumption I just mentioned is not specifically referenced in S. Con. Res. 18. Rather, the overall revenue number is such that it assumes Congress will pass mental health parity legislation.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished Chairman for his consideration and explanation of this important matter. energy savings performance contracts

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I don't need any time to discuss the matter. I need a unanimous consent request. I wonder if the Senator will yield to me to do that.

Mr. DOMENICI. This has to do with a time allotment on our side for the debate. We have 45 minutes on our side on debate with reference to the exploration in Alaska. I ask unanimous consent that 45 minutes be distributed as follows to Senators on our side to speak on the Cantwell amendment up to 5 minutes each: Senator Allen, Senator Talent, Senator Thune, Senator Murkowski, Senator Inouye, who would have up to 10 minutes--he is the only exception--and Senator Stevens and Senator Domenici. That would be 45 minutes. Some might use less and give it to other Senators. I wanted the Republican Senators to know they are all in line at some point during the debate, with 45 minutes of our time for them. I thank the chairman. I appreciate it.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time is on the other side?

Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you, Mr. President. (Ms. MURKOWSKI assumed the Chair.)

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, let me say to Senator Stevens that it has been a pleasure working with him on this issue. Some people have asked: Why don't we listen to the people of Alaska? It is their livelihood. They live there. I had the pleasure of going up there and talking with them. I can tell the Senate without any doubt that the overwhelming majority--maybe 70 to 75 percent--of Alaskans wants this to be developed. I think that means, at a minimum, they have seen some development, they have seen the benefits of it, and they have assured themselves that it can be done in such a way that it will not harm the environment which they so much cherish and in which they live. They don't want it to be destroyed. Now, I want to talk about some comparables. Many ask--not that there is a direct relationship--why don't we do more in renewables? I want to talk about what 1 million barrels of oil a day means compared to a renewable source of energy such as wind production. For those that say we ought to do more in renewables like wind, to make sure we do things in an environmentally sound way, here is the evidence. One million barrels of oil a day is the equivalent to 24,000 megawatts of powerplant production per day. That equals 24 powerplants, which in turn equals 92,500 windmills. The anticipated production from ANWR would be the equivalent of 5,781 square miles of windmills, the combined size of the States of Rhode Island and Connecticut. And 70 percent of the surface of the State of Massachusetts would be covered with windmills in order to equal 1 million barrels a day in electric generating capacity. I want to talk about a couple of things. First, how important this production is and that we proceed with it. The United States of America is in a state of crisis. Some people wonder whether this is serious. Indeed, it is. We do not know what to do and how to get out of our need for oil and oil products for American's daily lives, for our economic well-being, and for our transportation needs. I don't have an answer to that. We will all work hard to try to change that, but it will take many decades to change. Some say we ought to conserve more and they say we should conserve instead of producing this oil. I can only say we need to do everything. We are in such a crisis we have to conserve and we have to produce where we can, because right now the United States of America is absolutely vulnerable to the fact that we import oil from a dangerous and fragile world. What happens if oil is denied America by unfriendly foreign countries? Would you believe that this big superpower called America will be brought to her knees? We talk about our future security. We will not be a world power if somebody decides to deny us oil. I regret to say we are there now--not 10 years from now, today. And it will only get worse. Alaska, of course, is a State in our great Union. This is not a foreign country. It is part of the United States. And we have by far the most promising site for onshore oil in the United States in this 1.5 million acres in the State of Alaska. You can call it what you want, but it says in the law that this 1002 area is open for exploration if Congress wants to so vote. That is what we are talking about here. We are not here to destroy anything. We are here to vote on the proposition that Congress originally set this 1.5 million acres aside for--to go and look for oil. The laws says Congress will make the decision. We are making the decision here today. Do we want to do that or not? Let's talk about the United States and what a predicament we are in. The American reserves of oil, the entire reserves in all of our States, is 21.9 billion barrels. That is terrible. We are the 11th in the world for oil reserves. According to the estimate arrived at by the United States Geological Survey, the area at issue contains 10 billion barrels of oil. The USGS did a similar estimate for Prudhoe Bay but they underestimated it by 30 percent. But let's just use their numbers, which I call low: 10 billion barrels. With the oil estimated from ANWR, America's total reserves would be over 30 billion barrels of oil. That means this particular part of America contains one-third of the total reserves of oil of the United States of America. Imagine saying we don't need it. Opponents want us to do something else instead. Senator Everett Dirksen used to say about dollars, a billion dollars here and a billion dollars there and pretty soon it adds up. I can say to Senators and those listening, as far as America's energy future, a million barrels here and a million barrels there really adds up. And pretty soon it is terribly important to America's future. That is the first point. No one knows how to get off this dependence. We have to find ways to minimize the damage while we conserve, change our ways and go to hydrogen cars, but none of that will happen for a long time. In the meantime, we send all our money overseas, to foreign countries. The distinguished junior Senator from Alaska was talking about how many dollars a day we send out. On a yearly basis this 1 million barrels adds $18.6 billion to the merchandise trade deficit; that is, the trade deficit between us and the world. What we pay for foreign oil is almost 26 percent of the trade deficit. But it is not important, say some, that we increase our reserves by 10 billion barrels, which is adding one-third to our reserves for the future. My second point has to do with the fact that some say this is not the right way to do it, that we should not be using a budget resolution. I said last night it happens to be that this Senator knows a little bit about budget resolutions. I know a little bit about reconciliation.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for 1 minute off the resolution.

Mr. DOMENICI. And I want to make sure our Senator, the senior Senator, speaks in wrap-up. I close by saying there is no doubt in my mind that America must do something. This is an opportunity to do something very significant. We are not going to damage anything. This is a picture of a production well. All of that is done off of ice roads. When we are finished, we take it away and you see the little speck is what remains, the end product of an exploratory well. You can go there and prove up the reserves and leave that speck in a 1.5- million-acre piece of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a question? It will just take 1 second.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, do we understand the distinguished Senator is speaking on the Democrats' time on ANWR?

Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator is speaking on the budget, but, I say to the Senator, you are using time that is allotted for ANWR. Does the Senator understand that?

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DOMENICI. How much time does the other side have, and how much time do we have?

Mr. DOMENICI. And now the time goes to the Democratic side. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. We object to the amendment. It is not in order. There is a consent decree.

Mr. DOMENICI. I 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. Mr. President, I objected, but I understand this is a motion to strike the ANWR provisions, and we have no objection. That is business. Is that correct, Senator?

Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do we have?