Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. If there is anybody I would like to do that for, I would do it for you, but how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, I am going to try to answer your question when I get back on my feet, but I yield the floor at this point.

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, I can only do that in dollars. The original bill cost $31-plus billion; this one costs negative $1.2 billion.

Mr. DOMENICI. No, it does not.

Mr. DOMENICI. Sure.

Mr. DOMENICI. Could the Senator tell me what you said about votes in the next couple of days? I didn't get it.

Mr. DOMENICI. So you said about 2 days? I still didn't get that.

Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I don't quite understand, I say to both Senators. I want to help, but I don't understand.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Of course.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, I yield.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have up to 10 minutes, but I do not believe I will use that, if anybody is wondering. I rise to speak about a disaster that has occurred within the last 24 hours in the country of North Korea. We now have on the wire service recognition of the fact that there was a train wreck in North Korea where two trains ran into each other. It appears that between 1,000 and 3,000 people were killed. One report says 1,000 and another report says 3,000. In the meantime, the North Koreans have cut off the telephone lines to the area and have closed the border, so considering the nature of the country, I do not know when we will find out how many. The reason I rose to talk about it is because the substances that we have been told were in those trains do not come close to the explosive power of liquefied natural gas. They are some kind of a liquefied petroleum and another product like propane, and it must have been sufficient power for this to ignite and blow up. Why would I bring this subject up on the Senate floor? Well, I say to my colleagues, the Nation we live in has been on such an absurd path with reference to diversifying our energy resources that we are currently thinking about using liquefied natural gas in large quantities to take the place of natural gas, which is getting higher and higher in demand and less and less in terms of supply. I believe we ought to get on with producing as much natural gas from our own sources as possible. I believe the natural gas from the State of Alaska ought to be brought on board and we ought to help pay for the pipeline which will be the largest and most expensive construction job in our history, but it will transport voluminous quantities of natural gas and it will be ours. It will not be liquefied natural gas from Algeria, Tunisia, or wherever it comes from. We are inviting the opposite. We are inviting States, principally in the eastern part of the United States--at least it is not the West or the South again. But I would like to make sure other parts of the country understand that if they have been holding out and not wanting us to get this energy bill passed because they think this is some easier way--like we can solve this with wind instead of natural gas-- you know it just is not true. We cannot produce enough wind energy to take the place of the natural gas shortage we are going to have if we don't get on with producing it as fast as we can, in as large quantities as we can, and from safe sources, safe in terms of reliability and safe in terms of the environment. We are going to hear more about this. I am sorry that I come to the Senate floor with such drastic statements about energy and the destruction of people and property because of this collision involving energy sources. But I can tell you, what the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has been suggesting we do is so much less risky than this, this fuel that exploded, that I almost wonder what is it going to take to bring us to our senses. There are Northern and Eastern States saying, once they hear about LNG, they don't want it either. But I can tell you, there is not going to be any gas for parts of our country and it is not going to be imported from the West to the East; it is going to be brought to where it is needed. We are going to see people who are now talking with permittees who want to build plants, refineries, bases where you can harbor and hold liquefied natural gas. Unless one of those trains had LNG, and I don't think it did, we haven't seen anything yet. If you killed 1,000 and wounded 1,000 and blew up a town with two trains running into each other and one of them was not LNG, then whatever we know about will be less volatile than LNG. So we could be looking at a more disastrous situation. I also suggest while we are talking about terrorism, just think of that. If we have to bring in shipload after shipload of natural gas, just think of what we are going to have to do to make sure it is not part of a terrorist plan to blow up part of our country. I for one hope we don't have to bring very much in, but I am sure, with what has been going on--and I am sure the occupant of the chair shares my concern--we ought to be very careful. We ought to take on the issue of, can we get some nuclear powerplants built in a safer way than in the past? Can we produce some truly clean coal-burning plants? We can bring solar, wind, and geothermal on. We can give them subsidies, all that are in this bill which we will not bring up today. I think for those who are looking at that terrible country, terrible in terms of the nature of the existence of the people in North Korea, we can do nothing but shake our heads in fear and trepidation. I just finished reading a book about North Korea. As a Senator from a free country, to just read what is going on in that country just scares me to death. How the people can be so ravaged, so disgraced as human beings by that regime, and then to have something like this happen to them makes me terribly unhappy to be part of leadership in this world, that we can still let that eyesore of terrible proportions exist. Here is another one--3,000 people. Just absolutely pathetic. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I did not hear the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. I understood I was going to speak next. How much time do I have?

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I followed with interest the media comments and partisan criticism of the President in light of testimony from a variety of individuals before the 9/11 Commission. I find the criticism almost laughable, in some cases. Here is what I gather is the essence of the criticism prior to the attacks on 9/11: One, President Bush didn't care about terrorism, didn't care about it enough, but if he did, he didn't want to know about it. Second, President Bush didn't know about terrorism, but if he knew, he didn't know enough to do anything. Third, President Bush didn't do anything about terrorism, but if he did, it wasn't enough. Finally, President Bush and the agencies of Government knew about the pending attacks on September 11, 2001, but didn't do anything about it. Or President Bush and the agencies of Government didn't know in advance about terrorism plans for September 11, but they should have. Just laying out this summary of the charges shows the contradictory, almost ludicrous nature of these attacks. How outrageously partisan this all has become. Let me talk a minute about the way I see it. First, let's for a minute assume that 9/11 did not occur. Remember, I am going to talk for a minute about the President, America, and the Congress as if 9/11 did not occur. Mr. President, 9/11 did not occur, but the President got a report from the CIA, FBI, NSA, and others, telling him al-Qaida was getting anxious, they were a little bit worried about things; the group is moving around a little bit too much; they may be thinking about attacking America. But no 9/11 has ever occurred for my hypothesis about how I see it. The President says: In light of this report, we better get ready and we better take this issue to the American people. So the President gets ready, and he makes a speech to the American people. There has been no 9/11, so he cannot talk about that. He gets up and says: Things are a little dangerous. Al-Qaida is moving around too much. I am a little worried about America, so I think we ought to do something about it. No 9/11 has ever occurred. The President says to the American people: I want to set up a department, and I want 45,000 people hired so we can check on everybody who gets on an airplane in the United States. Mr. President, 45,000 people and everybody who gets on an airplane in America is going to be checked is the first request. The second request: The PATRIOT Act--which has been discussed this morning--I need that, I want that, says the President. Third, I need a homeland security agency. It will be big because this is a big problem, says he; $26 billion will be put into one agency so they can work on homeland security. Can we imagine the President of the United States taking that to the American people if we did not have 9/11? I can imagine it. In fact, I could ask the American people, What do you think would have happened? You know what they would say? Nothing would have happened. They would have laughed at the President. They would have said: Who does he think he is. He wants to search everybody who is getting on an airplane? He wants this new extraordinary power, some say, under the PATRIOT Act. He wants this new department. Do you know what we would have said in the Senate: You will never get that, Mr. President. Who do you think you are, a dictator? You want to check everybody who gets on an airplane in the United States? Never heard of such a thing. That is the truth of the matter. That is what would have happened. He would have gotten nothing. I just do not believe that this Congress, especially with the attitude I am seeing now--which is totally obstructionist, a minority but a large minority is trying to stop everything--can you imagine what they would have done if the President of the United States, without 9/11, would have requested all these items? I cannot. The point I am trying to make is, it is rather absurd to talk about which week did the President know, how much did he know, should he have known more; if he knew more, shouldn't he have done more? I have already gone through those, but I go through them again because, as a matter of fact, had he known a little more, had he known it sooner, had he had more reports from the CIA, nothing would have happened in terms of changing our laws. I am going to carp on one of them. Can you imagine Congress giving the President of the United States the authority to check everybody who gets on an airplane in the United States because he had some reports showing that al-Qaida was dangerous, al-Qaida might be looking at some activity in the United States? Of course not. Anybody who believes we would have done that for this President or any President is just not facing reality. As a matter of fact, it is my honest belief that if we did not have 9/11, we would have passed none--not one or two--none of the extraordinary measures that were passed because of 9/11. It seems to me that for people to now run around and wonder and speculate about whether the President knew enough, whether he should have known more because if he did he could have gotten all these things that we are talking about, that is an absolute absurdity. Remember, we had a Senator from the State of Georgia. Remember what he did on the Senate floor? He resisted homeland security. He resisted it on the basis that he was not sure whether they should put unions in as a mandatory notion with reference to those people who were going to be part of this new agency of our Government. He lost an election on the basis that he favored unions over the Department of Homeland Security. We then got a sufficient vote to pass it. It was that tough, even after 9/11. I close by repeating that this Senator does not believe it is possible that we would have passed this legislation that everybody is saying the President should have worked on, he should have done more on, he should have worked on this, he should have gotten America more prepared, when as a matter of fact this Senate would probably have done nothing had we not had 9/11. So is it not ludicrous, is it not rather outrageous that we are spending time trying to figure out if he knew, when did he know, he should have known more, when the facts are that it would not have made any difference because we would not have done anything? We would not have done anything unless and until al-Qaida had attacked the United States. If anybody would like to argue that point, I would be delighted. Does anybody believe we would have said we are going to check every American who gets on an airplane if we had not had 9/11? Imagine what they would have called the President. They would have called him every name under the Sun and probably would have ended up asking, Who does he think he is, a dictator? He wants to take over the airlines and inspect every American? Americans would be saying to their Congressmen, Do not let him do that. It is crazy that they are going to search us before we get on an airplane. The point is, there is no question that we acted after 9/11. The President acted after 9/11. Whether he did something before 9/11 or not seems to me to border--as a question, it seems to be one that we know the answer to. Even if he knew more, even if he knew sooner, we would have done nothing. So why is so much being made about that period of time and talking about the 1 or 2 weeks and was there a breakdown in communication or not? Look, we all understand we were not on a war footing. We did not get there until we had been attacked. I do not think America would have gotten ready before the attacks. Maybe after this al-Qaida attack we might, but, frankly, I believe any President, and in particular this one, would have been attacked viciously had he been talking about searching every citizen, every person, who was planning to go on an airplane, or if he would have said, I want to amend the rules and I want to call it the PATRIOT Act and we are going to have a lot more authority to track people, to listen to their conversations, and do the kinds of things the PATRIOT Act provides. So it seems to me we ought to get on with the report and a study that says how were we deficient--not whether this President knew, when did he know, what did he do--with reference to our laws, our rules, and our ability to do something about a terrorist attack. I am sorry to say we did what we did only because we got attacked. But we would not have done it otherwise. Whatever the President knew or did not know or whenever he knew it, we would not have responded with the kinds of things we ultimately responded with. Some of them took a little longer than one might expect, but nonetheless the truth of the matter is we do not need a group of partisans to take over that Commission that was appointed in honesty and with earnest intentions. We do not need a commission spending all of its time trying to get to the President politically about what he did or did not do, when he did it, when he should have, when if we looked inward we would say, Well, Congress most probably would have done nothing had we not had 9/11. I hope the Commission thinks about that when they are writing their report. I hope they think about the reality of preparing ourselves for terrorism. I believe, as I have said this morning, we would have done nothing had we not had 9/11. I do not think any President would have succeeded in getting anything done if we did not have 9/11. It would be interesting for the Commission to look at the matter that way, to look at it from the standpoint of what would have happened, what could we have done, what is the reality of getting anything done prior to 9/11 actually happening. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of April as Child Abuse Prevention Month. Child abuse continues to be a significant problem in the United States. It was estimated that in 2001, 903,000 children were the victims of child abuse or neglect. Child abuse is a crime perpetrated on the innocent and the defenseless. In 2003, there were 17,345 substantiated child abuse or neglect cases in New Mexico. We must protect these children who cannot protect themselves. By acknowledging April as Child Abuse Prevention Month, we are increasing awareness in the hopes that no more children live in fear. Across this Nation, numerous individuals and organizations dedicate countless hours of selfless work in the fight against child abuse. Many of the organizations that work to end child abuse began at the local level. I would like to acknowledge one of these organizations from my home State in Las Cruces, NM. The child abuse awareness team consists of around 40 members who recognized a need in their community and resolved to make a change. This team of volunteers, law enforcement agents, school personnel and social service agency representatives, continually strives to protect the children in Dona Ana County. The child abuse awareness team educates the community about child abuse prevention and reporting child abuse and neglect, promotes enforcement of child abuse and neglect laws, and provides advocacy for child abuse victims. They believe the most effective child abuse prevention programs succeed when the entire community is involved. The child abuse awareness team has developed this support system within the community by creating partnerships among social service agencies, schools, religious and civic organizations, law enforcement agencies, and the business community. The child abuse awareness team is taking the right steps in preventing child abuse incidents. I would like to specifically recognize the founder of this community organization Jesus Frietze, a social worker who saw a need in his community and took action. It is noble actions, from individuals like Jesus, who make a difference not only in the local communities but in our States and our Nation. By taking this month to recognize the problem of child abuse, I hope we will all do our part to combat this epidemic.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I strongly support the Pregnancy and Trauma Care Access Protection Act of 2004. I thank Majority Leader Frist for proactively addressing this crisis. Across America, health care providers, especially health care providers that work in high-risk services such as obstetricians, gynecologists, and emergency personnel, have faced difficulty obtaining affordable medical liability coverage. Doctors are being hit with dramatic increases in the premiums they pay for liability insurance--if insurance is even available in their area. These soaring costs are depriving patient's access to crucial medical care, especially in rural areas, where some services are already in short supply. In a number of instances, doctors are forced to relocate their practice as hospitals and physicians find it increasingly difficult to continue offering certain services. Without real reform, more and more Americans will find that health care services are simply going to disappear from their communities. And, in my opinion, this is unacceptable, especially when a reasonable solution is at hand. There is a map I have seen in this chamber. This map is of the United States, and each of the States is color-coded: red if the State is in crisis, yellow if the State is showing problems, and white if the State is currently OK. I am very proud that my State, New Mexico, is one of the six states that is white. New Mexico is OK because in 1976, the State legislature recognized there was a problem with medical malpractice, and they passed reform. Part of this reform included caps on noneconomic damages. And, as the map shows, it has worked. States with realistic limits on noneconomic damages are faring better. Physicians in most states with caps on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases pay lower insurance premiums. Reasonable caps keep premiums from rising quickly. Unquestionably, truly injured parties must have access to our courts to adjudicate their claims. And injured patients must be compensated for their economic damages such as cost of future medical care and lost wages. However, trial lawyers have taken advantage of our civil justice system to further their own interests. The explosion of malpractice lawsuits and subsequent growth of astronomical jury awards have tremendously increased the costs of medical malpractice insurance. Premium increases have jumped as much as 81 percent over the last 2 years, according to some insurers. Frivolous lawsuits combined with excessive judgments are destroying the doctor-patient relationship and driving professionals out of medical practice all together. This reality has terrible consequences for all Americans. The bill we are debating today is real reform. It provides an unlimited amount of damages for actual economic loss. It caps noneconomic damages, it has more reasonable punitive damages awards, a uniform statute of limitations, and it provides flexibility to States by allowing State laws to supercede Federal limits on damages. This bill creates directives for a malpractice system that currently is unpredictable and largely random. The rising cost of medical malpractice insurance is a serious threat to the well being of American citizens and our Nation's healthcare system. It is time for Congress to pass meaningful legislation that will address our Nation's health care crisis.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce an uncontroversial piece of legislation that I hope will receive prompt committee action and will make its way quickly to the President's desk for his signature. I would first like to familiarize the Senate with the important mission and related work of the Chihuahuan Desert Nature Park in Las Cruces, NM. The Chihuahuan Desert is the largest desert in North America and contains a great diversity of unique plant and animal species. The ecosystem makes up an indispensable part of southwest's treasured ecological diversity. As such, it is important that we teach our young ones an appreciation for New Mexico's biological diversity and impart upon them the value of this ecological treasure. The Chihuahuan Desert Nature Park is a non-profit institution that has spent the past six years providing hands-on science education to K- 12th graders. To achieve this mission, the Nature Park provides classroom presentation, field trips, schoolyard ecology projects and teacher work shops. The Nature Park serves more than 11,000 students and 600 teachers annually. This instruction will enable our future leaders to make informed decisions about how best to manage these valuable resources. I commend those at the Nature Park for taking the initiative to create and administer a wonderfully successful program that has been so beneficial to the surrounding community. The Chihuahuan Desert Nature Park was granted a 1,000 acre easement in 1998 at the southern boundary of USDA-Agriculture Research Service (USDA-ARS) property just north of Las Cruces, NM. This easement will expire soon. It is important that we provide them a permanent location so that they are able to continue their valuable mission. The bill I introduce today would transfer an insignificant amount of land: 1,000 of 193,000 USDA acres to the Desert Nature Park so that they may continue their important work. The USDA-ARS has approved the land transfer, noting the critically important mission of the Desert Park. I have no doubt that senators on both sides of the aisle will recognize the importance of this land transfer. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to change the subject for a minute. Today the United States-Canada Power System Outage Task Force released their final report on the causes of the August 14, 2003 blackouts and the ways to reduce the possibility of future blackouts. The Chair remembers, it was not too long ago when they had this northeastern blackout. The August 14 blackout was the worst blackout in North American history. It affected Ontario, Quebec, the States of Michigan, Ohio, New York, northern New Jersey, and parts of Massachusetts and Connecticut. Approximately 62,000 megawatts of customer load was lost, leaving close to 50 million people without power. Economic losses related to the blackout are estimated to range between $4 and $10 billion. The principal recommendation of the task force is that Congress enact mandatory reliability rules like those included in S. 2095. Guess what that is. That is the Energy bill. Everyone speaks as if it has provisions in it that they like to tell the public about. The truth of the matter is that bill is loaded with important provisions, matters of policy for America's future, and one is it provides us, if and when it is signed, with a mandatory system to regulate the customer load and the kinds of things that would prevent us from having another blackout. Its principal recommendation was mandatory reliability rules, such as the ones included in the Energy bill. Mandatory reliability rules are not the only requirement necessary to prevent blackouts. These standards by which our transmission grid should operate are the rules of the road, if you will, but we also need to upgrade our transmission system. The road itself, not just the rules of the road, needs to be improved. To avoid future blackouts and provide our industry and consumers with the reliable electricity they need, we need to invest in critical transmission infrastructure; provide limited Federal siting authority of transmission lines to ensure the transmission of national interest lines, and avoid the most significant areas where we had gridlock; streamline the permitting of siting for transmission lines to assure adequate transmission, develop advanced transmission technology and open access to the grid through regional transmission organizations. We need all these parts of the Energy bill. In addition, we need similarly important provisions relating to our growing dependence on natural gas: relicensing of hydroelectric plants, building a new generation of clean coal-powered plants, ethanol, the Alaska natural gas pipeline and conservation, and obviously we need some kind of tax incentive to start up again the nuclear powerplant business in America. The electricity reliability crisis was easy to see. Millions of people lost power. We are facing a similarly troubling time. It is more difficult to see the crisis because of our growing dependence upon imported oil and gas. By 2005, we will import 70 percent of our oil and 30 percent of our natural gas. As economies grow around the world, where current demand is growing at extraordinary rates, we will become less influential in setting world prices and guaranteeing supply. We are literally slowly but surely allowing our economy to fall under the control of oil and natural gas exporting countries. We are worried about it now because of gas prices. If we don't pass this Energy bill, we will worry about it more each year, and we will become more dependent on more kinds of products and be less capable of handling our own business in our own way. From what I can see with the Chinese and the Indians out in the market, who want to buy up all the oil they can find, we had better come to our senses and pass an energy bill that will do many things, the least of which will produce much more natural gas for America than we are producing today and maximize crude oil production over which we have control. To this point, I have insisted, because aspects of such a broad policy are so complicated and need to be considered together, that we move on one comprehensive bill. However, last week I proposed to the Republican leader and to others--and he has agreed--to attach the energy tax bill provisions to the pending foreign sales corporation tax bill. We need to get the energy package done. It renews the urgently needed wind production tax credit. This package for the first time also extends those credits to solar and geothermal. The tax package includes incentives for a natural gas pipeline. Without the incentives, there will be no pipeline. It includes tax incentives for clean coal. Coal is our most abundant energy source. If we can make it burn cleaner, we will have enough coal to keep the lights on halfway into the 31st century. Once we get this package through, I will work with those who want to work with me on S. 2095. We will make sure we get it through. We have enough popular provisions in the authorizing package to power it through the Senate. We have ethanol, electricity reliability and loan guarantees relating to the pipeline, just to name a few. In addition, the balance of the bill scores our minus $1.2 billion which actually results in increased revenue to the Treasury over 10 years. In conclusion, I strongly support the effort that our leader has made today. I think it will add considerable support to the foreign sales corporation bill, because the tax bill, in addition to the items I have just told you, provides tax incentives for people to buy alternative powered cars. It provides tax credits for consumers to buy energy efficient appliances and houses; technology to reduce energy consumption; new incentives to provide oil and gas from marginal--that is small--wells; expands the research and development tax credit for energy-related research universities; and involves tax provisions necessary to ensure that increased use of ethanol does not reduce the funds available to the Highway Trust Fund. When you add it up, we have now before the Senate an excellent tax package. Each one helps the other, and both together assure their passage. Then we have what is left: the authorizing parts of this bill. I have enumerated a few of them. I am certain that will become very much wanted once we get the tax package beyond us. Then we will proceed because the Senate will find that to delay the residual package any longer is sheer folly. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I just heard the distinguished Senator from Iowa talk about the American economy. It seems to this Senator that for some it doesn't matter what happens to the American economy; it is not good or it is not good enough. That seems to me to be playing politics with the reality of the American economy. Job growth in the first quarter of this year averaged more than 170,000 per month. The Friday number was not an aberration. The increase on Friday was 308,000 jobs for that quarter. That is not an aberration. It is a continuation of month after month of growth, once we got out of this recession. Fiscal and monetary policy still matter. The tax cuts President Bush pushed through Congress and the steadiness of the Federal Reserve Board have been able to bring this economy to a true test. Truly, we have been involved in a war, a recession, and come out of it with the American economy growing rapidly. With productivity gains continuing, with corporate earnings improving, job growth should continue to accelerate. Every time you have a set of good things happen to America, which we have all been waiting to share with each other as Americans, it is instantly politicized and spoken of by some as if the good things didn't happen. It is like changing the subject because you don't like the subject even if it is true, so you turn to the other subject and you talk about something else. I assume there will be a vote on those issues raised by the distinguished Senator from Iowa before this year is out. But I don't believe they have anything to do with whether America's economy grows, how much it grows, or whether we have productivity increases. You know historically when you had productivity increases, it meant there was more to be distributed. Generally it meant more people could be paid more, that corporations could make more profit so they could grow and prosper. We have been having incredible productivity growth, the highest and most sustained in our Nation's history, and we all knew sooner rather than later that would begin to respond in jobs. Everyone who looked at the economy kept saying it is a matter of when. That ``when'' happened in this last quarter. The ``how'' is very simple--a well-managed set of policies by the Federal Government, especially directed at small business. If you look at the tax cuts, America's small businesses, millions of them, were in the front lines receiving assistance so they could grow and invest and hire. I bet if we could look at these new jobs, we would find it is the small businesses that were helped by the tax cuts that are finally getting around to hiring people. Instead of realizing this is good for everyone, watch; today they on the other side tried to find excuses as to why this is not good. I think the facts are going to prevail. We have all been saying let the economy recover, let jobs come back, and that is happening.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, at the time Senate Report No. 108-236 Harpers Ferry National Historical Park Boundary Revision Act of 2003 was filed, the Congressional Budget Office report was not available. I ask unanimous consent that the report which is now available be printed in the Congressional Record for the Information of the Senate.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, at the time Senate Report No. 108-230 Fort Donelson National Battlefield Expansion Act of 2004 was filed, the Congressional Budget Office report was not available. I ask unanimous consent that the report which is now available be printed in the Congressional Record for the information of the Senate.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the following hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on May 11, 2004, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366. The purpose of this hearing is to gain an understanding of the impacts and costs of last year's fires and then look forward to the potential 2004 fire season. The hearing will give all Committee members a solid understanding of the problems faced last year and what problems the agencies and the land they oversee may face this next season, including aerial fire fighting assets and crew, and overhead availability. Because of the limited time available for the hearings, 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, SD-364, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Frank Gladies (202-224-2878) or Amy Millet (202-224-7556).

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays.