Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.

Mr. DOMENICI. U.S. assistance under the current compact is made available as both financial and program assistance. In the case of education, several U.S. domestic programs have been extended to the FSM and RMI since the compact was first approved in 1986. In July, the administration testified on this legislation and stated that ``funding in the compact was not structured to replace expiring Federal programs, or take the place of any program that is eliminated now, or could be eliminated in the future.'' In other words, continuation of the current program assistance was assumed. However, the House and Senate HELP committees have raised objections to this approach. Because these programs account for about 40 percent of the FSM and RMI education budgets, the success of the compacts depends upon either continuing the extension of these programs, or providing an alternate source of funding. The Domenici-Bingaman amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.J. Res. 63 includes language modeled on that passed in the House, that would create an authorization for alternate funding. The amendment would continue eligibility for certain essential programs, but eligibility would be ended for the remaining Department of Education and Department of Labor formula-grant programs, and for the Head Start program. In their place, an authorization is provided to fund two discretionary supplemental education grants: $12,230,000 for the FSM, and $6,100,000 for the RMI. Once appropriated, these supplemental education grants would be disbursed, used, and monitored in accordance with an agreement between the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of the Interior, and in accordance with the compact's fiscal procedures agreements with the FSM and RMI, respectively. This approach resolves the disagreement with the HELP committees while best assuring that the FSM and RMI will continue to have the resources needed to meet their education needs.

Mr. DOMENICI. I would like to ask the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, whether they support this approach and whether they will fund these alternate grants?

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank my colleagues for their support.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to engage in a colloquy with Senator Inhofe, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Jeffords regarding the disaster assistance provisions of H.J. Res. 63 to approve and extend the Compacts of Free Association between the U.S. and the Federated States of Micronesia, FSM, and the U.S. and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, RMI.

Mr. DOMENICI. Under the current compact, the disaster assistance programs of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, have been available to the FSM and RMI since 1986. Located in the western Pacific, the RMI and FSM are vulnerable to typhoons and experience periodic droughts in connection with the El Nino weather pattern. This vulnerability to disasters presents risks to public health and safety, jeopardizes the substantial investment made by the U.S. in the island's infrastructure, and it threatens achievements of the common goal of all three nations--promoting economic growth. Consequently, FEMA's presence in the islands has been shown to be an essential component of the assistance provided under the compact.

Mr. DOMENICI. That is right. The Committees expect that FEMA, the administration, and the island governments will engage in such negotiations expeditiously and in good faith. Depending on the progress made by June 30, 2004, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee may hold an oversight hearing on the matter.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank my colleagues for their support and for their cooperation in reaching this agreement.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I appreciate the work that you have done in regard to funding for Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD). As you know, this is a fatal neurological disease of farmed and wild elk and deer that belongs to the family of diseases known as transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE's). My State of New Mexico is inhabited with ample numbers of elk and deer. The elk are oftentimes harvested by hunters who get each animal tested for CWD. With that in mind, there continues to be a demand for the State to provide hunters with an accessible location that can perform the test in a timely fashion. The State of New Mexico is a Tier I State, which means a confirmed case of CWD has been discovered and the disease is present. I am hopeful that the final version of the fiscal year 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill will provide the opportunity for the State of New Mexico to work in collaboration with the Department of Agriculture to establish an approved CWD testing facility. The State of New Mexico has requested approval of a proposal to establish, equip, and operate a laboratory to conduct a rapid screening test for CWD in the New Mexico elk and deer population. This would be done at State expense.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 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 be held on Wednesday, November 12 at 10 a.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to conduct oversight of the implementation of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from Wyoming a question.

Mr. DOMENICI. Were you going to offer an amendment?

Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if I might have 5 minutes following the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that I follow him for 5 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, while what is going on in Russia may be some of the worst news that could beset the free world, including our country, because of the acquisition of majority control of the third largest oil company by the Government of Russia in one sweep today, who knows what that means in terms of oil production and stability. But I rise because, on the other hand, while that bad news is occurring, the announcement today as to the status of the American economy is about the best news we have had in 20 years. Today it was announced that the economy grew by 7.2 percent in July. That is July, August, September, that quarter. It has been almost 19 years. Not since 1984 has this economy seen such GDP growth. This news was not unexpected. Many have been saying--certainly I have--for some time the policies we have adopted, specifically the tax reductions, would result in this kind of event being announced now or very close to now. In addition, this was reflected in the morning numbers today which showed personal consumption was at 6.6 percent. Interestingly, since consumption makes up 70 percent of the economy, growth accounted for by consumption would on its own have resulted in the economy growing 4.6 percent all by itself. Equally, if not more importantly, the long-term business investment grew by 11.1 percent in this quarter. To me, this suggests we will continue to see this growth well into the future as businesses rebuild their investments and their inventories and retool their factories. Government spending, which accounted for most of the growth in earlier parts of this year, was not that important. It represented only 1.4 percent. Maybe lost in this big news is what really matters, and that is, with reference to growth, the Department of Labor reported initial claims for unemployment declined by 5,000 just this week, affirming a downward trend in unemployment. So the news is good on the home front. The numbers released today indicate a ramp-up to recovery and growth in this quarter and in quarters ahead. Policies we put into place are beginning to take hold. I commend all of those who have been part of that and commend our President as our leader for asking for most of the tax cuts and other items that have caused this growth to occur. Still, we have a lot more work to do. We must do more to help create jobs and bring economic recovery to all of our citizens. We cannot rest therefore on these reports today. We must continue to work toward reducing the cost of doing business in this country in such areas as health care, energy, and litigation costs. We need to remove barriers to investment and economic growth so employers can create new jobs. Our work here in the Congress must go on with renewed dedication. Today we see first hand the effects of the President's economic policies. But such results should encourage all of us to work even harder to bring economic recovery to the doorstep of every American.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are wrapping up this bill. I think everyone knows that it essentially came from the Agriculture Committee of the Senate. Many of us thought it was going to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, but it was ruled that it belonged more in the jurisdiction of Agriculture. I feel very good about the results. I am very pleased with Chairman Thad Cochran's efforts and those of the Agriculture Committee, in a bipartisan manner, producing this bill and then further negotiations to even make it better. I am not so sure had it been sent to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, where in years past we would have thought it should go, that we would have produced as good a bill. With the amendments that have come forth because of efforts after the bill came out of committee, it is truly remarkable that we were able to achieve this. It is almost as if the problem couldn't possibly have existed so long because of the way it has worked out. It is like an overwhelming number of Senators have come to the realization that it is time to fix a broken set of management tools for the forests of our country. I think we have fixed them. I can tie this into the pending amendment by saying, it certainly isn't anything you are going to fix in 5 years. So for those who might have in mind that we have this bill for 5 years and then we start over, we are probably going to need 15 or 20 years of effort under this bill, with plenty of resources, to get the forests of America back where they should be. Where they ought to be is they ought to be beautiful forests, but they ought not be so susceptible to burning down. We all know that. It is just incredible that it has taken so long to get where we are. I know what Senator Craig read into the Record a while ago from the newspaper in California because I read it a while ago. Whoever wrote it is right on. This horror that we lived through was no accident. It is the result of not doing what we ought to do because certain groups in this country didn't want it to be done--plain and simple. They know who they are and the people know who they are. It happens that every time we turn around and talk about them, there is an excuse now that they really didn't do it; They weren't really against this; They were for fixing the forests all along; They have been for modifying our laws for decades; right? Well, that just isn't true. We have finally come around, but it surely has taken a long time. Anybody looking at this Nation on this one would have a real complaint about the slowness of the democratic process. Because it wasn't all of a sudden that this problem came upon us; it has been around. It has been up and down, through the hills, burning the mountains. It leaves millions of acres dry, pieces of wood standing in the air that have been infested. And then still there are people going to court, groups saying, don't cut them down. These fires cut them down. These fires make them disintegrate. They don't even burn down; they just go poof and there goes a tree. That is about how it goes. I have seen it. I had one that was bad. Three hundred fifty homes burned down. Probably with the number of homes and the damage, it was the second largest one. But it paled in comparison to this one. Frankly, before these forests that are dead and should have already been cut down, before it finishes in California, there will be no room for excuses. There is going to be a whole bunch of people who will want it all solved next week, in particular those who have been in the way of fixing it. They are going to be saying: Why isn't it fixed? We are going to have to pour in three times as much money, in my estimation, as we have been putting in. I don't know if we can find the manpower to put in the Bureau of Land Management and the forests to do the kind of work we have to do. I am not sure we can. It is such a huge job to clean up these forests that I am not sure, if you put down a timeline and said, here is where we ought to be, we would get there. We are going to have to contract it out. We will have to have all kinds of approaches to get in there and just take out all that stuff that is all over the bottom of the forests, under the trees, just waiting to burn. That is no easy job. For those who are so worried that we were going to log the forests to death, they have watched them burn to death. We were not going to log them to death so we watched them burn to death. That is what happened. It is high time we fix it. I don't know if I will be a conferee. Maybe they will all be off the Agriculture Committee. If I am, I can pledge that I am in a hurry. I have a lot to do, but I am in a hurry. Everybody who goes to this conference ought to be in a hurry, not only in a hurry to get a bill but in a hurry to get a bill that can clear the Senate and get the President to sign in the shortest period of time. That is what we ought to be worried about next. It isn't so good to get this done and be at it 6 months and then find that the President doesn't like what we have done because we have changed things so much. I thank not only Chairman Cochran but I thank the staff of the Agriculture Committee. They have been tremendous. We have had the luxury of working with them from our staff. But I can tell you, had it been assigned, we couldn't have done it any better with the full staff. And they have done it. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield to Senator Reid.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I thank the Senate for allowing a lengthy debate this morning about a very serious issue. I am looking across the Senate to the distinguished junior Senator from Alaska, a new Member of the Senate. She has behind her a very big picture. She will explain it in more detail. But might I ask, that is a picture of a totally infested forest in your State; correct?

Mr. DOMENICI. Would you mind answering a couple of questions? We have been hearing about fires in California moving in the direction now, if they have not already, of an area that is highly infested. Last night on television we heard various announcers talk about it. They described it from the field, for those who were there. They said: This forest is like Christmas trees many months after Christmas, just standing there like dried pieces of wood. And they said that we know what happens to those after Christmas when you put a match to them. That is what we are talking about in this forest you have there.

Mr. DOMENICI. Before Senator Feinstein leaves on her way out, I will not ask you anything; I am just going to speak about you. First, I thank you for your leadership in this regard. Some people think that it is only New Mexico and Utah and Wyoming that have forest fire problems and that have forests that are clogged to the gills because we have not maintained and cleaned them. Some think the only infested forests are in Alaska. As I understand it, you have all of those and probably in larger quantities than most of us combined. I say, for those of us who have been trying desperately to get a bill that treated these situations in a way that could be solved, it was truly a Godsend that we got some powerful and thinking Democrats who decided to join us. You are one of them. Senator Wyden, I thank you. There are more than the two of you. But every time we needed a voice, you were there. I don't know what they said about you at home. I don't know what those people who don't want to do anything said about you. But I assumed they didn't say all nice things because every time you try to modify the law, there is somebody back home who runs an ad that you are trying to log all the forests in the State or that you don't care about preserving the beauty of your State, that you have just turned yours over to the logging industry. I see the Senator nodding. You must have had some of that already. And Senator Wyden, you must have, although you have already felt the wrath of not being able to log anything in your State, and you have seen what happened to thousands of workers. I just wanted to, as part of my opening remarks, thank you. We will also have to take up, as part of the Iraq bill, the Domenici- Feinstein bill on proper notice and opening up all the decisions that are going to be made over there to the public and in a regular order manner. We will do that later in the day and maybe have another victory.

Mr. DOMENICI. We have an array of Senators, not just Republicans--not the few who have been fighting for years about this issue of the failure to maintain our forests--we have a lot of Senators who have come around to our way of thinking, Democrat and Republican. It almost is unbelievable to see that forest in Alaska, which is no longer a forest other than by name, to see what is happening in California as brush fires move quickly toward an entire forest that is dried, dead trees, and then to ask the question: Why is that so? Wouldn't it be rational that we cut them down? Wouldn't it be rational that rather than leave them there as natural incendiaries, ready to literally blow up, just poof, and they go right up in the sky as these kind of trees burn, wouldn't it be logical to do something about it? Well, the truth is, we have not been able to do anything about it for one of the most ridiculous reasons anybody could have in mind, but it has worked until today. That is, anything you try to do is logging forests. Anything you try to do is turning the forests over to the loggers. Would you believe year after year after year that has prevailed? I don't know what we could have done when we passed legislation, when we begged these same groups, let's write in something about logging, let's talk about the size of the trees, let's do anything reasonable, as we talked about what has happened to American forests. I don't know if the distinguished occupant of the chair knows what forests looked like 20 years ago in our public forests, and what they look like today; but I can tell you they don't look like the same forests. They used to be cleaned: there used to be spacing; it used to be that the trees--I nicknamed what we were trying to do one time on the Senate floor--what we are trying to do is make the forests ``happy'' again. I meant that they could see the sun, and they would probably smile, instead of being clogged up together where they grow straight up. But nobody dare touch that forest and clean it up and make it a forest like it used to be because they will be sued and things will be delayed, a judge will take over, and the judge will say: Every ``t'' has not been crossed, every ``i'' has not been dotted. You cannot do it. One day in 1998, after we had our share of fires, after a huge fire in my State--I think it was the second most serious fire to the California fires in terms of burning down homes--450 houses at Los Alamos. Incidentally, if you are looking at what things might cost, that was done by the Federal Government that messed up and burned it by mistake and we had to pay. That one cost over a half billion dollars to the town and the people for what they lost, including houses and streets that were broken and torn up. I would not even want to guess what the California fire will cost. I hope that the houses are insured. Nonetheless, if you add it all up, it is costs. I don't see how it is going to be less than $5 billion or $6 billion, based on the little bit I know that I am sharing with you. The truth is that there is no reason under the Sun to delay moving ahead with that forest in Alaska, and moving ahead quickly, get it cut down; and whatever utility there is in the trees, use it. If there is none, have planned burns so you can give way to some growth that will be healthy again. That is why we have called this now the Healthy Forests Act. Might I quickly say that while we weren't able to expedite everything the way some of us wanted, although everything is expedited in this bill, at least cleaning up forests such as the one in Alaska, huge acres of infested trees, in this bill that will move quickly in the future. It can be delayed and go to court once. But the overall thrust of the bill is that it won't be delayed for years as in the past. So the distinguished Senator from Alaska hopes to see some of that removed soon, during her first elected term in the Senate. Now, I began by thanking Senator Cochran and his staff for moving ahead with this legislation. It was determined that it was their jurisdiction because of the way it was written, not the jurisdiction of my committee, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. They did a great job. I am not going to bother the Senate with a lot of statistics about the health of our national forests, but there are some facts of importance. Our Federal agencies tell us that 190 million acres are at risk to catastrophic fires or attack from insects and disease--190 million acres. This is an area equal to the size of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and most of Maryland. It means that much land covered by forests is no longer real forest, it is insect-riddled forest like that in the photo of Alaska, most of which should be removed so good trees can grow, and so we can eliminate catastrophic fires that can occur quickly, simply, and easily and go through and scourge the area--worse than Attila the Hun--leaving nothing. In the last 5 years, we have burned--including what we have burned this year--24 million acres; 24 million acres have been scorched. That is an area as large as Vermont, New Hampshire, and Connecticut. I am not here saying we will never have forest fires and we should never have them. What I am saying is they should not be occurring where improvements exist, homes exist, National Laboratories exist, where businesses exist because we already know we ought to clean around them so they will not burn. As a matter of fact, the principal reason for the bill I introduced, which I said we called ``happy forests,'' was to get at this issue we called urban interface. We still have not done a great deal. In fact, I am just learning that of the $250 million that we put in that bill back then, there is still over $100 million in both the BLM and Forest Service that has not been spent on happy forests. So maybe when we get this bill finished, we can finally get an organized plan for funding that will see us making some headway. We have seen insects destroy the forests in a dozen Western States, severely impacting forests in Eastern States. One such outbreak in southeastern California has destroyed 450,000 acres, half the national forest that it is located on, in an area almost as large as the State of Rhode Island. Let me put the forest health disaster in context. During that same period, the Forest Service has only thinned or harvested 1.4 million acres, which is slightly larger than Delaware. We have burned 17 times more rangeland in the last 5 years than we have attempted to manage--land that we know should be managed, cleaned up, unclogged, and we should get rid of the waste on the ground that is a fire trap. We have burned 17 times more than we have attempted to clean up and manage. So this bill is going to improve forest health, if we can ever get it passed. I hope those who have delayed it in the Senate will let us get on with it. I have been amazed to hear the reason some have said--that they are holding this bill up because they could not understand it. Well, I don't know how all these Senators, from the ones I mentioned on the other side of the aisle to the ones on this side, could all say it is a meaningful bill, and then we can have one or two Senators, or their staffs, saying they are against it because they don't know what it means. Maybe they should ask or let us bring it up, and if they think it is not clear, offer an amendment. I think it is clear, and I think it is a good bill. I don't think in some areas it goes far enough, but you have to do what you can. Now we have a great bipartisan coalition and we will have to work with the House, which wants to go more in the direction of expediting matters. But this is going to result in improving the health of our forests over time. It will result in a more public expedited process for moving hazardous fuels projects through the NEPA process. I didn't say ``without'' the NEPA process, as we are being accused of out in the hinterland. It is going to provide that that would be expedited. There is nothing in the NEPA law that says you cannot do that. It prioritizes the treatment of 20 million acres in the wildland/urban interface. I described that. Twenty million acres are supposed to receive high-priority treatment to clean this stuff that is around urbaness, and make it less volatile from the standpoint of burning. When we had our Los Alamos fire, which I alluded to, it came perilously close to burning some very important laboratory buildings. Suffice it to say that most of them were saved because the laboratory had cleaned up 200 or 300 feet around each one and left no trees, so they had to jump all the way over that to get some buildings. On the other hand, the fire got a few buildings that were not so important and where there had been no cleaning and burned them. We spent a lot of money replacing a few of the buildings. This bill says 20 million of this wildland/urban interface, as well as outside the wildland/urban interface is at highest risk, and they are called that: high-risk areas. This bill calls for court cases on hazardous fuels projects to be heard within the district in which they are located, encouraging the courts to deal with these cases in a timely manner, and directs that all preliminary injunctions be reviewed every 60 days, with an opportunity for the parties to update the judges on the conditions about which courts should know. Finally, the bill reminds the courts that when weighing the equities, they should balance the impacts to the ecosystem of the short- and long-term effects of undertaking a project against the short- and long- term effects of not undertaking a project. That is very important. It cannot be one-sided. There is always somebody who can say there is a bad side to it, but the judges now will have to look at and balance the short- and long-term effects of not doing the project with undertaking the project. They are going to find that a lot more than in the past, it will not be subject to the court holding them up. What is the difference in the House bill and this bill? First, we have restricted the use of this authority under this act to only the highest risk areas. We have emphasized the importance of working within the wildland urban interface by requiring 50 percent of the funds nationally be spent within the wildland urban interface. We have emphasized the importance of quickly dealing with insect and disease epidemics and the salvage of wind-thrown or ice-damaged timber due to their suseptability to insects and disease. We have increased the amount of up-front public input to project development and NEPA by adding a process for communities to develop a community fire protection plan to help inform the Federal land managers of a community's priorities and by requiring all projects to be developed through the collaborative process developed by the western Governors group. We have added the authority for the agencies, in cooperation with State and local government, to treat community escape routes as part of the wildland urban interface. This is a major improvement over the House-passed bill. Until the community fire protection plans are completed, we have laid out criteria for how far from the wildland urban interface the community protection projects may be undertaken. These criteria are flexible enough to take advantage of geographic features, such as ridge-tops, rivers, or roads, but restrictive enough to ensure projects undertaken in the wildland urban interface will really protect the community. We clarified what Congress wants in terms of a new pre-decisional protest process by requiring the Secretary to establish such a process while ensuring the public will play a part in the development of the new appeals process. Unlike the House version, we have limited the use of this new appeals process to just projects authorized by this act, rather than having it apply to all Forest Service activities. We have, for the first time, included language designed to protect old growth and fire resistant large trees. This protection is based on forest plans. Where those forest plans are old, or outdated, we require the Secretary to complete a plan revision or amendment to address old growth and large fire resilient trees, while at the same time including enough flexibility to ensure work need to improve fire resiliency can be carried out. We have narrowed the scope of changes under judicial review to just those projects undertaken under the authority of this act. We have also included all of the judicial review provisions from the Wyden-Feinstein proposal, S. 1352. Finally, we have authorized $760 million annually for hazardous fuel reduction work, including the projects authorized under this act, which is more than double what is currently being requested. I thank the Senate for listening. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would greatly benefit one of the largest irrigation districts in Southern New Mexico. Last Congress, H.R. 706, the Elephant Butte Lease Lott Conveyance Act, passed the House and Senate unanimously. The purpose of the original bill was to provide security to 403 lease lot holders who were interested in purchasing property currently being leased to them by the Bureau of Reclamation. Many of the lease holders had, at the urging of the Federal Government, invested time and money into improving these lots, including the addition in many cases of permanent fixtures. The bill I bring today would amend that Act by clarifying where the proceeds from the sale of these lands would be deposited. With regard to proceeds, the late Honorable Howard Bratton, a former Federal District Court judge for the District of New Mexico, ruled in 1992 and in 1997 that the Elephant Butte Irrigation District was entitled to net profits generated from the leasing of grazing and farm lands of the Rio Grande Project. I would just mention that while the latest in these rulings was handed down almost 6 years ago, the District has yet to receive these profits. I understand the Bureau of Reclamation, at the urging of the Federal District Court, has told the Elephant Butte Irrigations District that it will rectify this situation in fiscal year 2004. I intend to closely monitor that situation. The Lease Lot Conveyance Act of 2002 is silent with regard to any crediting of the proceeds from the sale of the 403 lease lots. Reclamation has taken the position that the proceeds should be credited to the Reclamation Fund. I would just like to note that the repayment obligations of the District were met and title was transferred to the District in the early nineties. The District, therefore, believes that under current law and the opinions of the Federal District Court in New Mexico, they would be entitled to these funds. The bill I am introducing today makes it clear that the proceeds of the sale should go to the irrigation district instead of to the Reclamation fund. With Reclamation expenses continually escalating, I have been told by the District that they would utilize these proceeds to offset on-going operation and maintenance costs. While the appraisal of these lands is still pending I do want to be clear that we are only talking about roughly 250 acres out of the total 78,000 acres compromising the Elephant Butte and Caballo Reservoir boundaries. I believe it is reasonable to allow these funds to go to the District. I hope the Senate will act expeditiously on this matter, so that the process can continue to move forward as we intended it to. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would greatly benefit one of the largest irrigation districts in Southern New Mexico. Last Congress, H.R. 706, the Elephant Butte Lease Lott Conveyance Act, passed the House and Senate unanimously. The purpose of the original bill was to provide security to 403 lease lot holders who were interested in purchasing property currently being leased to them by the Bureau of Reclamation. Many of the lease holders had, at the urging of the Federal Government, invested time and money into improving these lots, including the addition in many cases of permanent fixtures. The bill I bring today would amend that Act by clarifying where the proceeds from the sale of these lands would be deposited. With regard to proceeds, the late Honorable Howard Bratton, a former Federal District Court judge for the District of New Mexico, ruled in 1992 and in 1997 that the Elephant Butte Irrigation District was entitled to net profits generated from the leasing of grazing and farm lands of the Rio Grande Project. I would just mention that while the latest in these rulings was handed down almost 6 years ago, the District has yet to receive these profits. I understand the Bureau of Reclamation, at the urging of the Federal District Court, has told the Elephant Butte Irrigations District that it will rectify this situation in fiscal year 2004. I intend to closely monitor that situation. The Lease Lot Conveyance Act of 2002 is silent with regard to any crediting of the proceeds from the sale of the 403 lease lots. Reclamation has taken the position that the proceeds should be credited to the Reclamation Fund. I would just like to note that the repayment obligations of the District were met and title was transferred to the District in the early nineties. The District, therefore, believes that under current law and the opinions of the Federal District Court in New Mexico, they would be entitled to these funds. The bill I am introducing today makes it clear that the proceeds of the sale should go to the irrigation district instead of to the Reclamation fund. With Reclamation expenses continually escalating, I have been told by the District that they would utilize these proceeds to offset on-going operation and maintenance costs. While the appraisal of these lands is still pending I do want to be clear that we are only talking about roughly 250 acres out of the total 78,000 acres compromising the Elephant Butte and Caballo Reservoir boundaries. I believe it is reasonable to allow these funds to go to the District. I hope the Senate will act expeditiously on this matter, so that the process can continue to move forward as we intended it to. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I rise today to support President Bush's nomination of Governor Michael O. Leavitt to be the next Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. I am proud to have the opportunity to make a statement for the record that expresses my endorsement of this qualified nominee. President Bush has chosen an individual who understands the importance of a clean and healthy environment and who will ensure that the regulations promulgated by the EPA will be based on sound science, not speculation and conjecture. All too often, these regulations are put into effect not because they will increase health benefits, but because it was the politically expedient thing to do. Governor Leavitt's record speaks for itself. I think that there is little doubt, on either side of the aisle that Governor Leavitt is extremely qualified to serve as the next administrator of the EPA. He has thrice been elected as Governor of Utah and is currently the longest serving Governor of any State in the Nation. Under this watch, Utah saw a reduction in crime, hosted the 2002 Winter Olympics, and cut taxes. It comes as no surprise that five times during Governor Leavitt's 11 years as Governor, Utah has been voted the best managed State five times. As Governor, he has demonstrated his fitness to serve as our Nation's top environmental official by solving problems through consensus building and cooperation. Governor Leavitt has demonstrated his ability to bring all affected parties to the table, roll up his sleeves and reach a solution. These skills will be of critical importance as the 2006 arsenic regulations approach and we work toward domestic energy security. Of great concern to the people of my State and the State of Utah is the implementation of the EPA's 2006 arsenic drinking water standard which lowers the maximum allowable parts per billion of arsenic from 50 to 10. Arsenic is a naturally occurring element in my home State of New Mexico and in the State of Utah. Compliance with this regulation comes at a great cost to small communities, those that least have the resources to achieve implementation. The estimated national cost of implementing this new EPA rule is $600 million annually and will require $5 billion in capital outlays. The EPA estimates that roughly 97 percent of the systems expected to exceed the standard are small systems, those serving fewer than 10,000 people. These small communities lack the economies of scale present in larger communities and are less able to spread out costs. In Governor Leavitt's home State for example, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality estimates that implementing the new standards will require $40 million in capital outlays and predicts that annual operation and maintenance costs will run into the tens of millions of dollars. We need an administrator that will work with these communities so that implementation of this standard can be accomplished as smoothly and painlessly as possible. There is no doubt that our Nation is facing an energy crisis. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee, on which I serve as chairman, has spent many months and many people have put in long hours developing a comprehensive energy policy that best meets our Nation's energy needs while safeguarding the environment. I have come to the realization that every department of our Government needs to start looking not only at their policies but how their policies affect America's energy future. As we move forward with America's energy policy, it is critical that we have an EPA Administrator who understands our country's energy needs and is able to make assessments that are both based on empirical proof and will protect our invaluable natural resources for future generations. We need an Administrator who will evaluate how our environmental policies affect the goal of energy self-sufficiency. We need an Administrator that will promote scientifically valid initiatives when making assessments on the impact of regulations the EPA promulgates. I have no reservation that Governor Leavitt is the man for the job. Accomplishing these national priorities will be no easy task. I hope that he has a very successful term because if he does, we will be a more secure Nation for it. I bid him well.