Tapoco Project Licensing Act of 2004

Madam President, shortly, we hope to be taking up S. 2290, the asbestos bill. I have come to the Senate this afternoon to talk a little bit about the legislation. It is a good bill. It is a bill that, quite frankly, needs to be passed. I believe our civil justice system generally works very well. Like many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I think our State and Federal courts are a vital part of our entire system of government. Our court system ensures a level of fairness and justice for our citizens that is second to none in the entire world.

Our civil justice system works well when we let juries decide disputes between two individuals or a limited number of parties. It usually works well in class action cases with large numbers of individuals with similar injuries caused by one or a handful of defendants. But we all have to admit our justice system is not perfect. It doesn't always work.

We all know our justice system has failed to deal with the asbestos crisis. I use the term ``crisis'' because that is exactly what it is. The system is not adequately protecting the rights of victims nor defendants. As things stand now, some victims are successful in getting jury verdicts that compensate them fairly. But many victims have no one to sue and receive perhaps 5 percent or 10 percent of the total value of their claims from asbestos bankruptcy trusts. That is not right. It is not fair.

On the other extreme, some victims receive huge awards or settlements that are way out of proportion to their injuries. The bottom line is, more and more victims face a risk of never being compensated for asbestos-related illnesses at all, ever.

It is our responsibility in the Senate to deal with this crisis. We must not wait any longer to act. I would like to take a moment to talk about why we have this asbestos crisis and why the courts are ill equipped to deal with it.

First, the sheer volume of claims is staggering. So far through the year 2002--the last figures we have--730,000 individuals have made claims for asbestos exposure, and the most recent Rand study estimates that anywhere between 1 million and 3 million total individuals could make claims in the future.

The second factor is the unusual nature of the illnesses caused by exposure to asbestos. As witnesses before the Senate Judiciary Committee testified, there is a long latency period between exposure to asbestos and the actual illness or impairment. People are exposed to asbestos for long periods of time and then don't show symptoms of illness for 25 or sometimes even 30 years. Not everyone exposed to asbestos ever gets sick, thank heavens. Yet our tort system requires a potential victim to file his or her claim for injury within a year or two from discovering the potential harm. What this means is the vast majority of people who are filing claims don't have any actual symptoms at that time, and many may not ever even get sick. Still they have to sue to protect their rights.

Third, many of those who are exposed to asbestos feel compelled to sue immediately because the number of financially sound potential defendants is rapidly diminishing. Someone who has been exposed to asbestos, even if he or she has no symptoms, may decide to sue now or take the risk that nobody will be left to pay a claim down the road.

Clearly, this system isn't meeting the needs of victims, and it also is causing tremendous problems for the business community. Candidly, asbestos liability is bankrupting many potential defendants as claims are now being brought against businesses that have a very remote connection to the manufacture of asbestos. So the impact of asbestos claims is overwhelming, not just to some of our Nation's largest companies but to our small businesses as well.

As a consequence, tens of thousands of workers, people employed by these businesses, are, in fact, being affected. Thousands and thousands and thousands of people are being affected. Employees and their families who never had any exposure to asbestos are, in fact, feeling the effects in lost wages, and for many of them lost jobs.

The impact in my State of Ohio is particularly severe. From 1998 to the year 2000, Ohio was one of the top five States in which asbestos litigants chose to file their suits. This is partly because Ohio is the home of many businesses that at one time or another used asbestos in products. It is also likely the result of a litigation strategy in which attorneys look for a court that has a history of allowing overly generous verdicts for claimants. This is known, of course, as forum shopping. But either way, literally thousands of companies have been named as defendants in our Ohio courts.

Out of 8,400 firms that have been named as defendants nationwide, over 7,000 have been named in cases filed in Ohio. Of the 66 or so companies that filed bankruptcy because of asbestos-related liability, more than 20 of these companies are headquartered or have significant facilities in Ohio.

Perhaps most important is the impact this has on jobs. More than 200,000 people worked for those bankrupt companies. Not every job was lost, but many were because of the bankruptcy and many employees were affected in other ways. It is simply devastating for an employee whose employer goes bankrupt--wages are cut, promotions are scaled back, and pension funds can be completely wiped out. Of course, many of these 200,000 employees are in Ohio.

Let me be clear--I believe that companies should be held accountable for their conduct. I am concerned, however, about the many companies that now find themselves held responsible for the actions of other companies. These companies employ thousands of

people and contribute to our economy and tax base. No one, including the victims of asbestos, is served by the closure or dramatic reorganization of these companies. With both victims and employers at risk, we have no choice but to enact a legislative remedy to address this problem. We need to do something that protects the rights of those harmed by exposure to asbestos and allows businesses at least to predict how much this crisis will cost. ``Predictability'' is the key word for business. The FAIR Act provides that protection and predictability--protection for the victims and predictability for business.

Mr. President, I will respond to an ad campaign that paints the FAIR Act as nothing but a bailout for big companies that manufactured asbestos products. The ad includes some outrageous and indefensible quotes from asbestos company executives, and implies that Congress wants to bailout the companies that were the source of these quotes.

I want to try to set the record straight. But first, I want to say that I would not, under any circumstances, vote to bailout any company that intentionally harmed its employees. However, this bill is not about releasing big asbestos companies from liability simply because there are virtually no companies left that manufactured asbestos.

With one notable exception, they all went bankrupt. I'll talk about the exception in a moment, but let me tall you what the essential facts are with regard to asbestos manufacturing companies. Johns-Manville went bankrupt in 1982; 48 Insulations went bankrupt in 1985; Raymark went bankrupt in 1989; Celoteax went bankrupt in 1990; Eagle Picher went bankrupt in 1991; Armstrong World Industries went bankrupt in 2000; Babcock & Wilcox went bankrupt in 2000; Federal Mogul went bankrupt in 2001; Owens-Corning went bankrupt in 2000; U.S. Gypsum went bankrupt in 2001; and W.R. Grace went bankrupt in 2001.

Some of these companies had a lot to answer for with regard to the asbestos exposure; others manufactured asbestos products before the dangers were known. We don't need to judge their culpability, however. They no longer exist as companies that must account for their conduct with regard to asbestos. And, most importantly, this bill has little effect on these companies. It is clearly not a ``bailout.'' Here's why.

In an asbestos liability bankruptcy, a majority of the assets of the company are put into a trust fund to compensate asbestos claimants. I want to note here that traditional creditors, such as banks, suppliers, and stockholders are the minority creditors and often get mostly shut out of recovery all together.

Please keep in mind that a company's stockholders often include the company's pension fund. This bankruptcy process eliminates all of a company's asbestos liability. If there is a ``bail out'' here, it is in the current bankruptcy code.

The Johns-Manville Company is a perfect example of an asbestos manufacturing company gone bankrupt. For years, Manville produced a whole range of products containing asbestos and had as much as one half the market share for manufactured asbestos products. They were the subject of intense asbestos litigation and filed for bankruptcy in 1982. All the assets of Johns-Manville were sold years ago and the proceeds are in the Manville Trust. Johns-Manville as it existed pre- bankruptcy is long gone. The Manville Trust exists solely to compensate victims of asbestos exposure.

In the real world, as it exists today, Johns-Manville's asbestos liability is limited to the assets which are held by the Manville Trust. Johns-Manville will never have to pay another dime for asbestos exposure, over what is currently in the trust. Under our bill, all the money in the Manville trust will be rolled into the national trust. Manville will not get a dime back; they will not save a single dime. And, they are not relieved from a single cent of their existing liability. This is true for all the asbestos manufacturing companies, which have gone bankrupt.

My point is that the suggestion that this bill bails out big asbestos manufacturing companies is almost silly--there are virtually no ``asbestos'' companies left to bail out.

And, I should note, the Manville Trust is currently paying claimants 5 cents on the dollar. So, the future victims of asbestos exposure whose only recourse will be against the Manville Trust do stand to benefit greatly by this bill. The truly sick individuals who only have claims against Manville will receive significantly more compensation under the national trust than they would from Manville.

Now, I mentioned an exception a minute ago. There is one company that could be considered an asbestos manufacturing company. The company is a large and diversified manufacturer. But, it had a small division that made pipe that included asbestos up until 1958, when the pipe manufacturing division was sold.

But, here is the key--to date, this company has paid more than $1.5 billion towards its asbestos liability--liability that is largely exhausted because it has not manufactured an asbestos product for 45 years. Nonetheless, under this bill, the company will pay hundreds of millions of additional dollars into the trust fund. Is this bill a ``bailout'' for this company? Clearly, it is not.

Mr. President, in addition to protecting the victims of asbestos exposure, at issue in this bill are small and mid-size businesses which did not manufacture asbestos products. These are businesses that provide needed jobs to Americans across the country--businesses that are being driven to bankruptcy themselves due to the remotest of connections to asbestos.

These are bankruptcies that will cost thousands of Americans their jobs and their pensions--bankruptcies that mean that fewer and fewer victims will receive compensation in the civil justice system. This is why the legal system is broken and why we need the bill before us to help fix it.

Mr. President, I will talk about just one example from my State of Ohio. In my State, there is a medium-sized company that employs over a thousand hardworking Ohioans. Before the dangers of asbestos were known--when the industry standard was to use asbestos in a variety of products--this company sold a home repair product for do-it- yourselfers; the product was a drywall paste. This product was not used in big commercial applications. Professional contractors did not use this product. It was sold in local hardware stores to average Americans who wanted to do things such as patch nail holes in their own homes or maybe finish the inside of a garage.

At its peak, this company had less than a 1-percent market share for this product and made less than $500,000 total. As soon as the dangers of asbestos were known, this company immediately stopped production of their product.

I would like everyone to keep in mind that the majority of harm caused by exposure to asbestos is a result of occupational exposure which is individuals who routinely work with asbestos products on the job over a long and continuous period of time. It was unlikely that anyone had any occupational exposure to the product made by this Ohio company.

Let's take these two important facts together. One, the product was not sold for use in commercial settings. By definition, then, an individual could not have been exposed to this product over time as part of his occupation and, two, a vast majority of asbestos-related diseases were only caused by occupational exposure over long periods of time. One would think this adds up to a pretty good defense in litigation. One would think this company should not fear defending themselves in court. One would think they would do OK in our civil justice system. Let me tell you what has happened over the last few years to this company.

They have been named in over 4,000 lawsuits that include something like 15,000 individual claimants. The company has actually won all of the few cases it has tried. However, in most of these cases, they have a number of codefendants ranging from 6 to 20 or sometimes 30 in a single case. Sometimes these codefendants settle early on. Sometimes codefendants are bankrupt companies which were, in fact, bad actors when it came to asbestos.

As litigation proceeds, this Ohio company finds itself in an extremely difficult position over and over. It may be one of three or four solvent defendants left in the case. Although it has a valid defense, other defendants may not have a good defense.

The problem is, many States have something called joint and several liability. What that means is if a jury finds another defendant liable and grants a huge jury verdict and that liable defendant is bankrupt, our Ohio company is on the hook for the entire amount. So instead of taking a chance, the company I am talking about in Ohio figures it is in their best interest to settle. They settle over and over again in cases in which they have a legitimate, significant defense.

In this example, this Ohio company has spent in excess of $175 million on asbestos litigation so far. They have a good defense. They have won 100 percent of the cases they have taken to trial. Yet they have spent $175 million on asbestos litigation.

The Senate is not a court. We are not in a position to judge liability or nonliability of every defendant. I am not asking my colleagues to do this, but I can say this Ohio company seems to have an extremely good defense to liability, and a jury has said so several times. I doubt all manufacturers that have been named in lawsuits have such a good defense. So I want to make it clear that the last thing I want is for a company that is legitimately liable for causing someone harm to get off free. There is really no chance of that under this bill, and I want to make that clear.

Under this bill, this Ohio company I described will be required to pay $450 million into a trust fund for people who have health problems caused by exposure to asbestos. That is $450 million in addition to $175 million already spent. That does not seem fair. It does not seem fair to them when they look at it. But this company and hundreds of others like it are willing to go along with this solution even though to them it does not seem fair. It does not seem fair to them when they look at it, but they are willing to do it because it is better than the status quo. It is better than the uncertainty they are facing today. It is going to be painful for the companies and their employees, but it is better than the uncertain future they face under the status quo today.

I have heard from several Ohio companies that, frankly, are not happy about some of the provisions of this bill. If we can debate this bill in the Senate, I plan to work with Senator Hatch and others to make some additional refinements to the bill. Still, I anticipate that many businesses will be concerned that we have gone too far and demand they pay too much into the trust fund. But it is what must be done, I believe, to guarantee that American owned and operated companies have the certainty and predictability they need in dealing with their potential asbestos liability. Hopefully, we will save companies from the bankruptcies that cost jobs and pensions.

I would like to conclude my remarks. I see my colleague from Tennessee is in the Chamber. I assure him I am wrapping up. I conclude my remarks by talking for a couple more minutes about the process that has led us to this point where we are actually debating whether to bring the asbestos reform bill to the Senate floor for debate.

I have been working on and supporting efforts to deal with the asbestos crisis for most of my time in the Senate. A little over a year ago, my staff and I had numerous meetings to discuss the issue. I met with a lot of folks from Ohio who told me stories that the impact of the asbestos crisis had on them. These meetings were not only happening in my office, but were happening all over the Senate in Democratic and Republican offices alike. My colleagues had similar experiences. They were experiences with companies, but, frankly, they were also experiences with victims.

We had a hearing in the Judiciary Committee in early March of 2003. Then I recall participating in a bipartisan asbestos summit which was organized by our friend and colleague, Senator Dodd. That occurred April 1 of last year. A large number of Senators on both sides of the aisle participated in that summit. Then for months, through the spring and summer, we all worked intensely, meeting and negotiating. A point came when we decided the best approach to solving this problem was to create a privately funded trust which would be managed by the Federal Government to compensate victims.

This approach won out over the traditional-tort-reform-type approach that had been discussed previously. Some of my colleagues were not happy about that decision, and some outside businesses affected by asbestos were not happy about that decision either, but it was a compromise reached with the input of a number of Republican and Democratic Senators and with the input of industry and organized labor.

Our staff and outside groups representing organized labor, big and small manufacturers, and insurers met and worked for dozens of hours on the structure of the fund, medical criteria, claims values, and funding. They worked on nights and weekends. I recall when my staff reported to me about progress in an intense all-day session on a sunny Saturday in June, which included representatives from the AFL-CIO, the Asbestos Study Group, the Asbestos Alliance, the American Insurance Association, and staff from Senator Leahy's office, Senator Kennedy's office, Senator Dodd's office, Senator Hatch's office, my office, and other offices as well.

I recall we had another meeting in the Judiciary Committee in early June. I recall that we welcomed the attendance of other Senators who were not on the Judiciary Committee at that hearing. I believe Senator Dodd, Senator Carper, and Senator Murray attended some of the hearings. I know staff from many other Senate offices were there as well.

My only point is this was a group effort, where virtually every Member of the Senate it seems like at one time or another has been involved.

Negotiations continued behind the scenes. Every Senate office and every party was not at every single meeting. That would not have been impractical, if not impossible. Yet countless suggestions, and suggestions from Senators and outside parties, were included in the discussions and negotiations. Then in June 2003, the Judiciary Committee began marking up a draft bill which we formulated from the earlier discussions--and what a markup it was. It was an unbelievable time. I think it took place during 4 full days over the course of several weeks. I think we adopted 35 bipartisan amendments, many of them making significant changes to the bill.

It is safe to say not a single Senator on the committee was entirely happy with the resulting bill we reported. While the final vote was not overwhelming, the process was bipartisan. Nobody got everything they wanted. In fact, we created a little bit of a mess. It is a large and complicated bill, and some of the amendments we adopted conflicted with others. Some of the amendments we adopted sounded very reasonable, but frankly did not withstand post-markup scrutiny. That is the way it works sometimes in the Senate.

So the negotiations and redrafting started again, as often happens in large, complex bills. Again, many Senators from both sides of the aisle and outside parties submitted input into the process. Meetings took place on at least two or three different tracks. Senator Frist's office led staff negotiations that included representatives for Senator Daschle, Senator Hatch, Senator Leahy, Senator Specter, Senator Dodd, and others. Again everyone was not at every meeting. Many times more than one meeting was going on. It was not practical to have everyone who was interested in attendance at all times, but a range of political views was represented at these meetings.

At the same time, Senator Specter convened a series of very important meetings with the help of retired Circuit Judge Becker. These comprehensive meetings involved stakeholders in the asbestos issue, many of whom I have mentioned earlier. These meetings continued up until last week, as I understand it.

I have gone through this tedious history for one reason, to point out this bill is not a result of a single Senator's partisan effort to craft a biased asbestos reform bill. Anyone who thinks that just has not followed the laborious history of this bill. That is not the fact. That is not true. Thousands of hours have gone into creating this bill with input from all directions in this Senate. It is easy to say now, well, that was not or this was not put into the bill or that meeting was not attended or I was excluded from that meeting, or hundreds of other allegations that the process for this bill was insufficient or

maybe not even fair. The fact is this has been a good process.

I conclude by saying in fact the process that led to this bill was comprehensive, it was fair, it was bipartisan. I do not think we should use complaints about process as an excuse to vote against proceeding to debate on this bill. We should bring this bill to the floor. We have been through a long, laborious, and a good process. It has gotten us this far.

If anyone would have said to me 2 years ago, 3 years ago, 18 months ago we would have been this far on this bill, I would have said, I do not think so; I do not think we can craft a bill that would be even this close. We have come a long way.

First of all, we owe it to the victims who are still not being compensated, either at all or adequately, to craft this bill and to report a bill. We owe it to the victims to debate this and give it our best efforts on the Senate floor. Too much work has gone into this. We have come too far. We owe it to the workers who will lose their jobs if more companies have to declare bankruptcy or if more companies go out of business. We owe it to those companies, but most of all we owe it to the victims.

So let's bring this bill to the floor. Let's give it the chance it deserves. We have put a great deal of effort in it. Let's do the right thing, bring this bill to the Senate floor.

I thank my colleague from Tennessee for his indulgence.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to speak about an issue that concerns the Senator from North Carolina and her constituents. I know of her love for the Great Smoky Mountains and her concern for the outdoors, and while most of what I am about to say affects eastern Tennessee and the Great Smoky Mountains, anything that affects eastern Tennessee and the Great Smoky Mountains has something to do with western North Carolina and the Great Smoky Mountains. This is some good news for the outdoors men and women and all of the people who love the mountains, the valleys, and the rivers of east Tennessee and western North Carolina.

The legislation I have introduced will save thousands of good-paying jobs at the Aluminum Company of America plants in Blount County, which is my hometown, and at the same time provide recreational opportunities on thousands of acres of ALCOA mountain land for canoeists, hikers, and fisher men and women. Of importance to all of us who enjoy the outdoors in east Tennessee and North Carolina, this agreement should help to create fuller lake reservoirs during the summer recreation season.

This bill I have introduced today is necessary because since 1913, a little more than 90 years, the Aluminum Company of America has operated dams high on the Little Tennessee River adjacent to what is now the Great Smoky Mountain National Park near the border of Tennessee and North Carolina. These dams were built before either the Tennessee Valley Authority or the Great Smoky Mountain National Park were created. These four dams provide half of the electric power ALCOA uses to operate its plants in the valley below the mountains in Blount County, TN. ALCOA's license to operate these four dams expires next year. The company has applied to the Federal Electric Regulatory Commission for a 40-year license renewal.

ALCOA's license renewal application has created a lot of interest in the Tennessee Valley, and for two reasons. The first reason involves the economic well-being of thousands of current and retired ALCOA workers in the communities in which they live. The second reason is the application has attracted broad attention from conservation organizations because of the opportunity to create recreational opportunity on land ALCOA owns in the Little Tennessee River watershed adjacent to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Some of this ALCOA land is actually within the legislation boundaries of the park.

On this chart the darker area is the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. This is a unique park created in the mid-1930s and given by the people of North Carolina and Tennessee to the United States. It is the only national park in our system that was given to the Government and not bought by the Government. It has 500,000 acres, more or less, and it is visited each year by about 10 million Americans. It is by far the most visited national park in America. Yellowstone National Park, as an example, has about 3 million visitors a year.

This is the Little Tennessee River. It was the center of the Cherokee civilization when the European pioneers came. This is the river on which Alcoa began to build dams nearly a century ago.

Around these four dams on the river is the land we are talking about. This is approximately 10,000 acres that lie between the Great Smokey Mountain National Park and between the Cherokee National Forest and the Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area. This is Tennessee. This is North Carolina. The Tennessee/North Carolina border runs right across the top of those 6,000-foot mountains. One of the most beautiful areas in America with virgin timber is right here in the Joyce Kilmer- Slickrock Creek Wilderness Area just across the line from Tennessee. So we are talking in my remarks and in this legislation about 10,000 acres that lie between the Great Smokies and the Cherokee National Forest.

One may wonder, just listening to this, what does that have to do with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Under our rules, Alcoa now has to apply for a 40-year renewal to operate these four dams. The conservation organizations in the area and the neighboring communities began a discussion with Alcoa 7 years ago about what would happen when that application renewal came up. That 7 years of discussion between the Aluminum Company of America, the neighboring regions, and the various conservation organizations have come up with a settlement agreement on which people have worked long and hard. Basically it does this. Alcoa will basically swap or exchange this land here in exchange for community and conservation support for the license renewal.

We are going to hold a hearing on this whole subject on April 27 in the Senate Energy Committee. I look forward to working with our chairman, Senator Domenici, and with the chairman of the National Park Subcommittee, Senator Thomas, on that day.

We hear a lot about obstinate companies that are not interested in the environment. We hear a lot about conservation organizations that will not be reasonable. Here is a good story. Here is a textbook example of how a major American company can work with communities and conservation organizations to help Americans keep a high standard of living as well as to conserve the environment. Once approved, I expect it to become a model for many other companies, communities, and conservation groups.

I see on the floor now the Senator from Georgia, who spent a fair amount of his younger life in Tennessee, probably in these same mountains. He, as I, and the Senator from North Carolina, have visited and hiked in and enjoyed these mountains as thousands do. Let me say first a word about the jobs involved and then a word about the recreational opportunities.

On the jobs, looking back those 90 years, this is the story. In 1913 a group of men from Pittsburgh came quietly to Maryville, TN, to meet with the mayor. The businessmen were looking for a location for an aluminum smelter. They came to Maryville because alumina is extracted from bauxite ore in an electrolysis process requiring huge amounts of electricity, and the opportunity for producing huge amounts of electricity existed better in the Tennessee Valley than in almost any other part of the United States.

The Great Smoky Mountains rise to more than 6,600 feet above the valley in which Maryville is situated, and the rainfall in those mountains is more than 80 inches a year, one of the highest in America. So that combination, heavy rainfall and fast-running water, created a formula for making cheap hydroelectric power, so Alcoa built four dams along the Little Tennessee River: Calderwood, Cheoah, Chilhowee, and Fontana. Half of the electricity for the Alcoa operations in east Tennessee comes from those four dams. The rest of Alcoa's power is purchased from the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Here is what happened to the far-sighted mayor who visited with those Alcoa executives in 1913 and approved the location of that aluminum smelter in the Tennessee Valley. He was literally tarred and feathered and run out of town because the mountain people did not want to be disturbed by what they were afraid was about to come and disturb their lifestyle. What came was the largest aluminum smelter in the world, which, when combined with a fabricating plant and a rolling mill, employed as many as 14,000 during World War II. The Alcoa plants made the metal that helped win the war.

Meanwhile, the Alcoa jobs, those 14,000 jobs since 1913 until today, transformed one of the poorer parts of America. When Alcoa came to Appalachia, family incomes of these families of east Tennessee were about one-third of the national average. I know about this. Our family has been in that part of Tennessee for seven generations. But the Aluminum Company of America began to pay steelworker wages to these 14,000 families and those wages were national wages. So suddenly men and women from all over east Tennessee, and I imagine some from North Carolina, were driving dozens of miles to get one of those Alcoa jobs that brought with it good income, good health care, and a retirement income.

Some of those who went to work there included many African Americans who had been brought to Tennessee from Alabama to help build the plants. The changes that those Alcoa jobs brought to Blount County and to the surrounding counties is proof positive of what three generations of good jobs can do: good housing, low crime, strong families, some of the best public schools anywhere in America, almost nobody rich but almost everybody with a good job.

Today, there are 2,000 Alcoa jobs in east Tennessee. That means $140 million in salaries and benefits. It means $\1/2\ million a year in Alcoa Foundation education scholarships to children of those employees. It means $230 million each year in purchased goods and services; $7 million in State and local taxes--a total of $377 million a year just to Tennessee.

I must confess a personal interest in this story. I grew up hearing about Charles Martin Hall and the discovery of Aluminum. My father went to work for Alcoa in 1941, the year after I was born. The job the plant manager, Mr. Granville Swaney, offered to him as a safety engineer paid twice what my father was being paid as principal at West Side Elementary School, and one of those Alcoa Foundation scholarships went to me in 1958, making it possible for me to attend Vanderbilt University, something I never could have afforded to do otherwise.

So you can see why I believe, as well as I am sure almost all Tennesseans believe, it is critically important to renew this hydroelectric license for another 40 years and keep these good jobs in the Tennessee Valley. Without these four dams providing low-cost reliable power, these jobs would be gone overnight, probably to Alcoa plants in Quebec or Iceland where the hydroelectric power is plentiful and cheap.

The second reason and the final reason this settlement agreement has attracted such widespread interest is because of the recreation opportunities it will provide.

Tapoco is the name of the Alcoa subsidiary that owns the four dams I described along this Little Tennessee River. The acres contained within the Tapoco project are sandwiched between nearly 10,000 acres of nonproject lands owned by Alcoa. These nonproject lands are the 10,000 acres in green here. This is in the area I mentioned of the Great Smokies, the Cherokee National Forest, the Nantahala National Forest, the Citico Creek, and Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Areas.

A critical requirement in obtaining this 40-year license renewal is this settlement agreement negotiated by and with a large group of interested relicensing stakeholders. These stakeholders include the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the eastern band of Cherokees, State agencies representing Tennessee and North Carolina, numerous nongovernmental organizations, local government, homeowners associations, and individual citizens.

They began to discuss all of this 7 years ago. It has taken all of that time to work this out.

In order to make this effective, however, Congress must authorize the land exchanges in the settlement agreement. The terms and conditions under the settlement agreement will then become terms and conditions under Alcoa's hydroelectric license.

In order for the Federal Electric Regulatory Commission to have legal authority to put the settlement agreement terms and conditions in the license, legislation from Congress is required prior to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission making a relicensing decision in August of 2004.

Much of the settlement agreement is focused on the transfer of land interests between the Great Smoky Mountains, the U.S. Forest Service, and Alcoa.

Let me see if I can describe it simply.

The first part of the land swap is between the Great Smokies National Park and Alcoa. The Great Smokies will transfer 100 acres of flood areas of land in exchange for 186 acres of biologically sensitive acreage that Alcoa owns.

All of us growing up always heard about people from Florida coming up and wanting to buy land and we would sell them land that was flooded, or they would sell us land that was flooded. But basically, flooded land--100 acres--is being swapped for 186 acres of land that is a biologically diverse area, and this will go into the Great Smoky Mountain National Park.

In fact, it was already within the legislative boundaries. But I suppose the park ran out of money back in the 1930s and couldn't buy it.

The second component is a big tract of land--6,000 acres between the Smokies and the Cherokee National Forest.

After a complicated set of arrangements, what can happen is this:

It involves the Nature Conservancy, but this legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to purchase this land at a reasonable value from the Nature Conservancy after Alcoa gives it to the Nature Conservancy.

The long and short of it will be that after 3 years, hopefully the Great Smokies will be 6,000 acres larger and immediately people who live in this region will be able to enjoy this 6,000 acres.

There is one other part to this. There is a 4,000-acre tract over here. The Nature Conservancy will own this under the agreement, but it will also be open to outdoor recreation, to hunters, and to fishermen.

All of this is part of Alcoa's relicensing agreement. The people who work here get the jobs. Everybody who lives here gets to enjoy a national park with 6,000 more acres and an area that includes 4,000 more acres.

That is the legislation I have introduced today. The legislation will allow the settlement agreement worked on for 7 years to be implemented and for Alcoa's relicensing process at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to proceed.

Alcoa, American Rivers, Blount County, city of Alcoa, city of Maryville, eastern band of Cherokee Indians, Great Smoky Mountains National Park--I say particularly the Nature Conservancy and the National Parks Conservation Association--thank you for your hard work.

Also, North Carolina Department of Environment and Conservation, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Tennessee Clean Water Network, and various other organizations I want to mention have also been a part of this effort.

It gives me a great deal of personal pleasure to be able to come to the floor and compliment the hard work of others over the last 7 years.

The hard work of the Aluminum Company of America, the creativeness and reasonableness of the conservation organizations and communities will result in 2,000 good jobs being saved and all of us being able to enjoy up to 10,000 more acres adjacent to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

Madam President, I rise to speak about an issue that concerns the Senator from North Carolina and her constituents. I know of her love for the Great Smoky Mountains and her concern for the outdoors, and while most of what I am about to say affects eastern Tennessee and the Great Smoky Mountains, anything that affects eastern Tennessee and the Great Smoky Mountains has something to do with western North Carolina and the Great Smoky Mountains. This is some good news for the outdoors men and women and all of the people who love the mountains, the valleys, and the rivers of east Tennessee and western North Carolina.

The legislation I have introduced will save thousands of good-paying jobs at the Aluminum Company of America plants in Blount County, which is my hometown, and at the same time provide recreational opportunities on thousands of acres of ALCOA mountain land for canoeists, hikers, and fisher men and women. Of importance to all of us who enjoy the outdoors in east Tennessee and North Carolina, this agreement should help to create fuller lake reservoirs during the summer recreation season.

This bill I have introduced today is necessary because since 1913, a little more than 90 years, the Aluminum Company of America has operated dams high on the Little Tennessee River adjacent to what is now the Great Smoky Mountain National Park near the border of Tennessee and North Carolina. These dams were built before either the Tennessee Valley Authority or the Great Smoky Mountain National Park were created. These four dams provide half of the electric power ALCOA uses to operate its plants in the valley below the mountains in Blount County, TN. ALCOA's license to operate these four dams expires next year. The company has applied to the Federal Electric Regulatory Commission for a 40-year license renewal.

ALCOA's license renewal application has created a lot of interest in the Tennessee Valley, and for two reasons. The first reason involves the economic well-being of thousands of current and retired ALCOA workers in the communities in which they live. The second reason is the application has attracted broad attention from conservation organizations because of the opportunity to create recreational opportunity on land ALCOA owns in the Little Tennessee River watershed adjacent to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Some of this ALCOA land is actually within the legislation boundaries of the park.

On this chart the darker area is the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. This is a unique park created in the mid-1930s and given by the people of North Carolina and Tennessee to the United States. It is the only national park in our system that was given to the Government and not bought by the Government. It has 500,000 acres, more or less, and it is visited each year by about 10 million Americans. It is by far the most visited national park in America. Yellowstone National Park, as an example, has about 3 million visitors a year.

This is the Little Tennessee River. It was the center of the Cherokee civilization when the European pioneers came. This is the river on which Alcoa began to build dams nearly a century ago.

Around these four dams on the river is the land we are talking about. This is approximately 10,000 acres that lie between the Great Smokey Mountain National Park and between the Cherokee National Forest and the Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area. This is Tennessee. This is North Carolina. The Tennessee/North Carolina border runs right across the top of those 6,000-foot mountains. One of the most beautiful areas in America with virgin timber is right here in the Joyce Kilmer- Slickrock Creek Wilderness Area just across the line from Tennessee. So we are talking in my remarks and in this legislation about 10,000 acres that lie between the Great Smokies and the Cherokee National Forest.

One may wonder, just listening to this, what does that have to do with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Under our rules, Alcoa now has to apply for a 40-year renewal to operate these four dams. The conservation organizations in the area and the neighboring communities began a discussion with Alcoa 7 years ago about what would happen when that application renewal came up. That 7 years of discussion between the Aluminum Company of America, the neighboring regions, and the various conservation organizations have come up with a settlement agreement on which people have worked long and hard. Basically it does this. Alcoa will basically swap or exchange this land here in exchange for community and conservation support for the license renewal.

We are going to hold a hearing on this whole subject on April 27 in the Senate Energy Committee. I look forward to working with our chairman, Senator Domenici, and with the chairman of the National Park Subcommittee, Senator Thomas, on that day.

We hear a lot about obstinate companies that are not interested in the environment. We hear a lot about conservation organizations that will not be reasonable. Here is a good story. Here is a textbook example of how a major American company can work with communities and conservation organizations to help Americans keep a high standard of living as well as to conserve the environment. Once approved, I expect it to become a model for many other companies, communities, and conservation groups.

I see on the floor now the Senator from Georgia, who spent a fair amount of his younger life in Tennessee, probably in these same mountains. He, as I, and the Senator from North Carolina, have visited and hiked in and enjoyed these mountains as thousands do. Let me say first a word about the jobs involved and then a word about the recreational opportunities.

On the jobs, looking back those 90 years, this is the story. In 1913 a group of men from Pittsburgh came quietly to Maryville, TN, to meet with the mayor. The businessmen were looking for a location for an aluminum smelter. They came to Maryville because alumina is extracted from bauxite ore in an electrolysis process requiring huge amounts of electricity, and the opportunity for producing huge amounts of electricity existed better in the Tennessee Valley than in almost any other part of the United States.

The Great Smoky Mountains rise to more than 6,600 feet above the valley in which Maryville is situated, and the rainfall in those mountains is more than 80 inches a year, one of the highest in America. So that combination, heavy rainfall and fast-running water, created a formula for making cheap hydroelectric power, so Alcoa built four dams along the Little Tennessee River: Calderwood, Cheoah, Chilhowee, and Fontana. Half of the electricity for the Alcoa operations in east Tennessee comes from those four dams. The rest of Alcoa's power is purchased from the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Here is what happened to the far-sighted mayor who visited with those Alcoa executives in 1913 and approved the location of that aluminum smelter in the Tennessee Valley. He was literally tarred and feathered and run out of town because the mountain people did not want to be disturbed by what they were afraid was about to come and disturb their lifestyle. What came was the largest aluminum smelter in the world, which, when combined with a fabricating plant and a rolling mill, employed as many as 14,000 during World War II. The Alcoa plants made the metal that helped win the war.

Meanwhile, the Alcoa jobs, those 14,000 jobs since 1913 until today, transformed one of the poorer parts of America. When Alcoa came to Appalachia, family incomes of these families of east Tennessee were about one-third of the national average. I know about this. Our family has been in that part of Tennessee for seven generations. But the Aluminum Company of America began to pay steelworker wages to these 14,000 families and those wages were national wages. So suddenly men and women from all over east Tennessee, and I imagine some from North Carolina, were driving dozens of miles to get one of those Alcoa jobs that brought with it good income, good health care, and a retirement income.

Some of those who went to work there included many African Americans who had been brought to Tennessee from Alabama to help build the plants. The changes that those Alcoa jobs brought to Blount County and to the surrounding counties is proof positive of what three generations of good jobs can do: good housing, low crime, strong families, some of the best public schools anywhere in America, almost nobody rich but almost everybody with a good job.

Today, there are 2,000 Alcoa jobs in east Tennessee. That means $140 million in salaries and benefits. It means $\1/2\ million a year in Alcoa Foundation education scholarships to children of those employees. It means $230 million each year in purchased goods and services; $7 million in State and local taxes--a total of $377 million a year just to Tennessee.

I must confess a personal interest in this story. I grew up hearing about Charles Martin Hall and the discovery of Aluminum. My father went to work for Alcoa in 1941, the year after I was born. The job the plant manager, Mr. Granville Swaney, offered to him as a safety engineer paid twice what my father was being paid as principal at West Side Elementary School, and one of those Alcoa Foundation scholarships went to me in 1958, making it possible for me to attend Vanderbilt University, something I never could have afforded to do otherwise.

So you can see why I believe, as well as I am sure almost all Tennesseans believe, it is critically important to renew this hydroelectric license for another 40 years and keep these good jobs in the Tennessee Valley. Without these four dams providing low-cost reliable power, these jobs would be gone overnight, probably to Alcoa plants in Quebec or Iceland where the hydroelectric power is plentiful and cheap.

The second reason and the final reason this settlement agreement has attracted such widespread interest is because of the recreation opportunities it will provide.

Tapoco is the name of the Alcoa subsidiary that owns the four dams I described along this Little Tennessee River. The acres contained within the Tapoco project are sandwiched between nearly 10,000 acres of nonproject lands owned by Alcoa. These nonproject lands are the 10,000 acres in green here. This is in the area I mentioned of the Great Smokies, the Cherokee National Forest, the Nantahala National Forest, the Citico Creek, and Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Areas.

A critical requirement in obtaining this 40-year license renewal is this settlement agreement negotiated by and with a large group of interested relicensing stakeholders. These stakeholders include the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the eastern band of Cherokees, State agencies representing Tennessee and North Carolina, numerous nongovernmental organizations, local government, homeowners associations, and individual citizens.

They began to discuss all of this 7 years ago. It has taken all of that time to work this out.

In order to make this effective, however, Congress must authorize the land exchanges in the settlement agreement. The terms and conditions under the settlement agreement will then become terms and conditions under Alcoa's hydroelectric license.

In order for the Federal Electric Regulatory Commission to have legal authority to put the settlement agreement terms and conditions in the license, legislation from Congress is required prior to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission making a relicensing decision in August of 2004.

Much of the settlement agreement is focused on the transfer of land interests between the Great Smoky Mountains, the U.S. Forest Service, and Alcoa.

Let me see if I can describe it simply.

The first part of the land swap is between the Great Smokies National Park and Alcoa. The Great Smokies will transfer 100 acres of flood areas of land in exchange for 186 acres of biologically sensitive acreage that Alcoa owns.

All of us growing up always heard about people from Florida coming up and wanting to buy land and we would sell them land that was flooded, or they would sell us land that was flooded. But basically, flooded land--100 acres--is being swapped for 186 acres of land that is a biologically diverse area, and this will go into the Great Smoky Mountain National Park.

In fact, it was already within the legislative boundaries. But I suppose the park ran out of money back in the 1930s and couldn't buy it.

The second component is a big tract of land--6,000 acres between the Smokies and the Cherokee National Forest.

After a complicated set of arrangements, what can happen is this:

It involves the Nature Conservancy, but this legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to purchase this land at a reasonable value from the Nature Conservancy after Alcoa gives it to the Nature Conservancy.

The long and short of it will be that after 3 years, hopefully the Great Smokies will be 6,000 acres larger and immediately people who live in this region will be able to enjoy this 6,000 acres.

There is one other part to this. There is a 4,000-acre tract over here. The Nature Conservancy will own this under the agreement, but it will also be open to outdoor recreation, to hunters, and to fishermen.

All of this is part of Alcoa's relicensing agreement. The people who work here get the jobs. Everybody who lives here gets to enjoy a national park with 6,000 more acres and an area that includes 4,000 more acres.

That is the legislation I have introduced today. The legislation will allow the settlement agreement worked on for 7 years to be implemented and for Alcoa's relicensing process at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to proceed.

Alcoa, American Rivers, Blount County, city of Alcoa, city of Maryville, eastern band of Cherokee Indians, Great Smoky Mountains National Park--I say particularly the Nature Conservancy and the National Parks Conservation Association--thank you for your hard work.

Also, North Carolina Department of Environment and Conservation, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Tennessee Clean Water Network, and various other organizations I want to mention have also been a part of this effort.

It gives me a great deal of personal pleasure to be able to come to the floor and compliment the hard work of others over the last 7 years.

The hard work of the Aluminum Company of America, the creativeness and reasonableness of the conservation organizations and communities will result in 2,000 good jobs being saved and all of us being able to enjoy up to 10,000 more acres adjacent to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 19, 2004. The purpose of this meeting will be to mark up legislation to reauthorize child nutrition programs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 19, 2004, at 8:30 a.m., in open session, to continue to receive testimony on allegations of mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 19, 2004, at 10:00 a.m. to conduct a hearing on ``Congressional Oversight of the IMF and World Bank.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 19, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. on from public service to private sector: Spinning the Revolving Door for Personal Gain.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 19 at 11:30 a.m., to consider pending calendar business.

Agenda

Agenda Item 1: S. 155--A bill to convey to the town of Frannie, WY, certain land withdrawn by the Commissioner of Reclamation.

Agenda Item 2: S. 180--A bill to establish the National Aviation Heritage Area, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 3: S. 203--A bill to open certain withdrawn land in Big Horn County, WY, to locatable mineral development and bentonite mining.

Agenda Item 4: S. 211--A bill to establish the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area in the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 5: S. 323--A bill to establish the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area, LA.

Agenda Item 9: S. 1241--A bill to establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site in the State of New York, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 13: S. 1467--A bill to establish the Rio Grande Outstanding Natural Area in the State of Colorado, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 14: S. 1521--A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land to the Edward H. McDaniel American Legion Post 22 in Phrump, NV, for the construction of a post building and memorial park for use by the American Legion, other veterans' groups, and the local community.

Agenda Item 16: S. 1727--A bill to authorize additional appropriations for the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978.

Agenda Item 17: S. 2046--A bill to authorize the exchange of certain land in Everglades National Park.

Agenda Item 18: S. 2052--A bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate El Camino Real de los Tejas as a National Historic Trail.

Agenda Item 20: S. 2180--A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange certain lands in the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests in the State of Colorado.

Agenda Item 21: S. 2319--A bill to authorize and facilitate hydroelectric power licensing of the Tapoco Project.

Agenda Item 23: H.R. 961--To promote Department of the Interior efforts to provide a scientific basis for the management of sediment and nutrient loss in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 25: H.R. 1446--To support the efforts of the California Missions Foundation to restore and repair the Spanish colonial and mission-era missions in the State of California and to preserve the artworks and artifacts of these missions, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 26: H.R. 1658--To amend the Railroad Right-of-Way Conveyance Validation Act to validate additional conveyances of certain lands in the State of California that form part of the right-of-way granted by the United States to facilitate the construction of the transcontinental railway, and for other purposes.

In addition, the committee may turn to any other measures that are ready for consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, May 19, 2004, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on Oversight and Nomination Hearing: The Treasury Department and Terrorism Financing; and, to consider the nominations of John O. Colvin, to be Judge of the U.S. Tax Court; Juan C. Zarate, to be Assistant Secretary for Terrorism Finance, U.S. Department of the Treasury; and, Stuart Levey to the Under Secretary for Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Iraq's Transition--The Way Ahead (Part II).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 19, 2004, at 10 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting on S.J. Res. 37, resolution to acknowledge a long history of official depredations and ill-conceived polices by the United States Government regarding Indian Tribes and offer an apology to all Native peoples on behalf of the United States, and S. 2277, a bill to amend the Act of November 2, 1966 (80 Stat. 1112) to allow binding arbitration clauses to be included in all contracts affecting the land within the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Reservation; to be followed immediately by a hearing on S. 1696, a bill to amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to provide further self government by Indian tribes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special

Committee on Aging be authorized to meet Wednesday, May 19, 2004 from 2:30 p.m.-5 p.m. in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 19th, at 2:30 p.m.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 900, a bill to convey the Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project, the savage unit of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, and the Intake Irrigation Project to the pertinent irrigation districts; S. 1876, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain lands and facilities of the Provo River Project; S. 1957, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to cooperate with the States on the border with Mexico and other appropriate entities in conducting a hydrogeologic characterization, mapping, and modeling program for priority transboundary aquifers, and for other purposes; S. 2304 and H.R. 3209, bills to amend the Reclamation Project Authorization Act of 1972 to clarify the acreage for which the North Loup division is authorized to provide irrigation water under the Missouri River Basin Project; S. 2243, a bill to extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Alaska; H.R. 1648, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain water distribution systems of the Cachuma Project, California, to the Carpinteria Valley water district and the Montecito water district; and H.R. 1732, a bill to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Williamson County, TX, Water Recycling and Reuse Project, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on June 16, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. on The VOIP Regulatory Freedom Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on Wednesday, June 16 at 11:30 a.m. to consider pending calendar business.

Agenda

Agenda Item 1: Nomination of Suedeen G. Kelly to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Agenda Item 2: S. 155--A bill to convey to the town of Frannie, Wyoming, certain land withdrawn by the Commissioner of Reclamation.

Agenda Item 3: S. 180--A bill to establish the National Aviation Heritage Area, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 5: S. 211--A bill to establish the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area in the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 6: S. 323--A bill to establish the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area, Louisiana.

Agenda Item 10: S. 1241--A bill to establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site in the State of New York, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 14: S. 1467--A bill to establish the Rio Grande Outstanding Natural Area in the State of Colorado, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 15: S. 1521--A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land to the Edward H. McDaniel American Legion Post No. 22 in Pahrump, Nevada, for the construction of a post building and memorial park for use by the American Legion, other veterans' groups, and the local community.

Agenda Item 17: S. 1727--A bill to authorize additional appropriations for the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978.

Agenda Item 18: S. 1957--A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to cooperate with the States on the border with Mexico and other appropriate entities in conducting a hydrogeologic characterization, mapping, and modeling program for priority transboundary aquifers, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 19: S. 2046--A bill to authorize the exchange of certain land in Everglades National Park.

Agenda Item 22: S. 2180--A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange certain lands in the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests in the State of Colorado.

Agenda Item 23: S. 2243--A bill to extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Alaska.

Agenda Item 24: S. 2319--A bill to authorize and facilitate hydroelectric power licensing of the Tapoco Project.

Agenda Item 29: H.R. 1648--To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain water distribution systems of the Cachuma Project, California, to the Carpinteria Valley Water District and the Montecito Water District.

Agenda Item 30: H.R. 1658--To amend the Railroad Right-of-Way Conveyance Validation Act to validate additional conveyances of certain lands in the State of California that form part of the right-of-way granted by the United States to facilitate the construction of the transcontinental railway, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 31: H.R. 1732--To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Williamson County, Texas, Water Recycling and Reuse Project, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 32: H.R. 3209--To amend the Reclamation Project Authorization Act of 1972 to clarify the acreage for which the North Loup division is authorized to provide irrigation water under the Missouri River Basin project.

In addition, the Committee may turn to any other measures that are ready for consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, June 16, 2004, at 11 a.m., to hear testimony on Strengthening Regulations and Oversight to Better Ensure Agriculture Financing Integrity.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 at 2 p.m. to hold a Nominations Hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 16, 2004, at 10 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a Business Meeting on pending committee matters, to be followed immediately by an oversight hearing on the implementation in Native American communities of the ``No Child Left Behind Act.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs also be authorized to meet again on Wednesday, June 16, 2004, at 2 p.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S. 1996, the Oglala Sioux Tribe Angostura Irrigation Project Rehabilitation and Development Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 at 10 a.m., on ``Judicial Nominations'' in the Dirksen Office Building, Room 226.

Witness List:

Panel I: Senators.

Panel II: Richard A. Griffin, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit; and David W. McKeague, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit.

Panel III: Virginia Maria Hernandez Covington, to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida.