Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. They want to set it aside and go to the Burma measure. We had 20 minutes on each side, but they want to proceed to the Burma debate and vote, stacked, with yours going first.

Mr. DOMENICI. They want to stack them.

Mr. DOMENICI. What was the request again?

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

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, do they have any time left on their side?

Mr. DOMENICI. I will use 7 minutes and leave 3 minutes. First, I congratulate the distinguished Senator Campbell from the State of Colorado. I don't believe I could say it any better. In a nutshell, the Bingaman amendment is not good for the Indians in the United States. If we are crafting a bill here that says we want them to develop their energy resources, the amendment before us takes the unprecedented step of applying the NEPA process to the Indian tribes just as if they were the Federal Government. This amendment goes well beyond current environmental regulations and adds unnecessary regulations and costs to the tribal energy projects. This proposal is opposed by numerous Indian tribes and tribal associations that are already burdened by the lease approval process through the Federal bureaucracy. I will read a list of Indian tribes and associations that I would assume do not favor the Bingaman amendment because they were in favor of the amendment alluded to by the distinguished Senator, Mr. Campbell, with whom I was going to cosponsor, for they all refer to it: The National Congress of American Indians, the Council of Energy Resource Tribes, National Tribal Environmental Council, Southern Ute Tribe, Cherokee Nation, Chickasaw Nation, Native American Energy Group, Mohegan Tribe, Five Sandoval Indian Pueblos, Dine Power Corporation, Jicarilla Apache Nation, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the amendment will do the following: It will force the tribes to pay the cost of NEPA, extend the bureaucratic delays of energy projects, and diminish tribal sovereignty. There isn't a tribe in the country that would volunteer for this program because it doesn't do anything to improve their current process. So why would they volunteer to join it? I am confused by the purpose of the amendment. If the intention is to mandate that the tribes comply with NEPA for every single lease or permit, why not offer an amendment to strike the entire Indian energy title and argue for the status quo? This amendment goes far beyond existing law and expands NEPA beyond the scope of the Federal Government to cover tribes, independent of any Federal action. By requiring an environmental impact statement to be performed for every lease, it will impose a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars to be financed by the tribes. A cost they should not have to afford. If adopted, the amendment would encourage the generation of paper, not the generation of natural gas and crude oil and coal, which I thought we were here supposed to do. The objective of title III has to be to help the tribes by streamlining current lease approval processes that have hampered investment and the development of the Indian tribal lands as far as energy is concerned. Senator Campbell and I have worked closely with the tribes to craft a careful compromise that will protect the trust responsibility of the Secretary and the environment. That bill will be offered later, but it is not the bill pending before the Senate. It is a bill you will know because it will bear the name of the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Campbell. The Secretary's approval of the tribes' energy resource agreement will trigger NEPA if the Secretary of the Interior believes it will have a significant impact on the environment. Once an energy resource agreement is approved, tribes will not be required to seek Secretarial approval but will be required to comply with relevant environmental laws, just like any other landowner. Senator Campbell and I have worked with tribes to ensure that the trust relationship between tribes and the Secretary of the Interior is protected. This proposal is embodied in the Campbell-Domenici amendment which will be offered at a later date. The Bingaman amendment, however, would require the Secretary of the Interior to take full responsibility for all liability incurred by tribes--even if the Secretary wasn't party to the negotiations. That simply doesn't make sense. However, a separate and conflicting provision in this amendment allows the Secretary to negotiate all remedies to the Secretary's trust responsibility in the energy resource agreement. As I read it this will give the Secretary authority to drive a hard bargain with individual tribes that are desperate to gain the Secretary's approval of their energy resource agreement. Of course, this will vary from tribe to tribe and further confuse the trust issues. I believe a more simple solution is to ensure that tribes take full responsibility for the leases and business agreements they negotiate. The Secretary will not be liable for anything she is not a party to, but will continue to conduct annual trust evaluation to ensure that the assets are protected. Such a solution as included in the Campbell amendment has the support of many tribes. I am not aware that the administration has reviewed the Bingaman amendment and I am not aware of how many tribes support Senator Bingaman's amendment. The current system has failed to stimulate investment on Indian land, despite the resource potential. The Bingaman amendment will only exacerbate this problem and continue to restrict the quest for Tribal self-determination. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Bingaman amendment. I will state, I would not be offering these kinds of remarks in any normal situation regarding the relationship between the Indian people, the Federal Government, and third parties. But clearly when you have an energy bill, and the purpose of the bill is to have a section in it that will encourage, will cause, will say to the Indian people, we want you to be players, participants, owners of energy, so that you can be part of America's energy solutions and become owners in that solution, then I think we cannot adopt the laws that are as restrictive as the ones proposed in the amendment that is pending. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we yield back our time on our side. I move to table the Bingaman amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DOMENICI. I will have none. But when the matters that have just been agreed upon have been completed, we will then have another amendment on the Energy bill. It will be offered by the distinguished Democratic Senator from Florida with reference to an inventory of the Outer Continental Shelf assets, inventory that is provided for in the bill. He will move that be taken out. That will be debated tonight and voted on tomorrow.

Mr. DOMENICI. I would like to comment, before we proceed, just a further 30 seconds?

Mr. DOMENICI. We have been working very hard to get a complete list-- I think we are very close--of amendments we can agree to and put at the desk. As everybody knows, a lot is riding on this Energy bill: a full ethanol package; soon there will be the renewables that many are relying on in this country which have extenders that are required that are part of the tax amendments that are going to go on this bill. Those are providing for the existing--continuation of the renewables in the area of wind and Sun and others. If we do not get the bill moving, none of that moves along. So I do ask all Senators who have amendments to concur that they can write them up, get them in, get them on this list so we know where we are and when we might look for daylight on this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his cooperation. That is a true statement.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. We are looking for a unanimous consent request that says in the morning 1 additional hour on that side, a half hour on our side on the Graham amendment, and afterwards there will be a vote. That is being prepared. In the meantime, the Graham amendment is going to be offered for discussion this evening.

Mr. DOMENICI. I understand Senator Dole desires to speak on the same side. I don't intend to speak but for a moment. I will do my speaking and other members of the committee will be welcome to do so in the morning. I will take a couple of minutes and then yield to them for the evening. As you well know, as you are a member of the energy committee, not too long ago the Senate of the United States said to this committee of Senators: Give us an energy policy for America's future, prepare a blueprint, a program, a policy, a set of activities that tells us what we ought to be doing for America's economic future, for our jobs, for our prosperity, as it relates to energy. We thought that if we did nothing else, perhaps that little mission meant we ought to find out what we have. What does America own? We thought about it for a while and we said that is pretty simple. That is exactly what they would like us to do. They would like us to find out--even if we don't know what to do about it--what we have. What do we own? So a simple proposition was put in here, using the most modern techniques, disturbing nothing, to go out and find out how much oil and gas is in the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States--the property marked by my good friend from Florida in green on his chart-- that we have already, as a nation, said based on today's circumstances we don't want to touch. Does that mean we should not know what is there? The distinguished Senator from Florida says: We do know what is there. No, we do not know what is there because the most modern techniques are clearly changing what we know about what we own and what is underground. We do not have one of those most modern evaluations that has been put over that property that is within our control that could be used for America if we ever needed it and, I would even say, in a crisis. As an ultimate reserve, should we not know what is there? That is the issue. It is, do we want to adopt an ostrich policy or do we want to adopt a policy of being on the surface, above board with our eyes open and know precisely what we are looking at? That is it. You can read the language. We will read it very precisely. It matters not too much to this Senator from New Mexico what this Senate decides to do about this issue. It matters a lot to me as chairman of the Committee on Energy that I do what I was asked to do, and I thought I was asked to ask the committee members: Would you like to spend some American tax dollars to find out what we own so that it will be there in the inventory on the rack, so to speak, in the event something happened to America? I thought the answer to that question was yes. We wrote it up, and we put the issue to the members. One member is sitting here, the new Senator from Tennessee. There was a rather large bipartisan vote on a simple proposition. Of course we want to know. Why would we want to stick our head in the sand and say we know there is oil there, we know there is gas there, but we do not want to use the most modern techniques to tell America what is there? As is going to happen tonight and tomorrow, there will be all this fear aroused that we are going to harm the sea line, the coastal shore, the beauty of America that is alongside these shores. This says nothing about doing that, and everybody knows that we are not saying do anything whatsoever to these shorelines. What we are saying is, is it not, one, the responsibility of the committee to suggest to the Congress that we find out? I think the answer to that is unequivocal. Yes, we sure should. Second, since you should have and you did, should the Senate now turn around and say you should have, you did, but we want to take it out, we want to throw it away, and we do not want to do it? That is the issue. I sense that there is going to be enough fear established that people are going to be voting as if we are destroying something. Quite the contrary, I think we are doing something positive. I do not think we are destroying a thing. We are saying to folks: We have a lot of oil and gas out there. If the situation really gets bad--and what that might be, I do not know; none of us in this room knows--but if things got bad enough, there it is, and we know it is there, and it has been measured with the most modern-day techniques which are, indeed, not only marvels but they are marvelous in terms of what they will tell us about the capacity for the future. Unless my friend from Tennessee wants to say a few words, I do not intend to spend any more time tonight. We will split our half hour tomorrow among three or four Senators from the committee in further response to the amendment that our distinguished friend from Florida has brought to the floor in a bipartisan manner with a lot of Senators. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of the bill tomorrow morning at 9:30, there then be 90 minutes of debate remaining prior to the vote in relation to the pending Graham amendment; provided further that Senator Graham or his designee be in control of 60 minutes and the chairman in control of the remaining 30 minutes. Further, I ask consent that following the use of that time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the amendment, with no amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote.

Mr. DOMENICI. Either/or.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first I thank the distinguished Senator from Idaho for his remarks this morning and for his assistance on this bill. I thank him very much. This morning I want in particular to thank the distinguished minority whip, the Senator from Nevada, for his comments on the floor and his commitment. We are working on a list on our side. We will certainly be ready at the same time or sooner, which means whether we finish by this Friday or not, although we will try mightily once we have the list to wean them down and to move with dispatch. Obviously, we will be on a course to get an Energy bill this year, which is clearly what we want to do. From listening to the minority leader, I have no doubt whatsoever that is what the minority desires to do. I thank him very much for the comments here this morning. As far as the pending amendment is concerned, it is in our hands at this point. The Senator from California has her prerogative of not wanting to set it aside. We have an obligation to decide what we are going to do with it. We ought to do that pretty soon. Our leadership will make that decision. It is not directly within the jurisdiction of this committee, or I would be making decisions with the leadership. It is more within the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee, and the leadership is taking a look. I understand we have a vote this morning on a judge. Is that correct? That will give leadership a chance to be here in the Chamber, I say to my friend from Nevada, after which time we will make a decision on what we want to do with the pending amendment. In the meantime, the Senator from New Mexico yields the floor knowing there are others who want to speak to this issue. The junior Senator from Idaho desires to speak. I will yield at this point so he may proceed.

Mr. DOMENICI

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. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 12:15 be equally divided in the usual form for debate in relation to the Landrieu-Domenici amendment; provided, further, that at 12:15 the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to that amendment, with no second degrees in order to the amendment prior to the vote; and, finally, that following the vote the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objection. Mr. President, I add 5 minutes to the time in the request, with the Senator from Pennsylvania having that 5 minutes. The vote would occur at 12:20.

Mr. DOMENICI. I am sorry, we did not know that, I say to the Senator. We would have asked you.