Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time, and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4068, which was received from the House.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be read three times and passed, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record as if read in the appropriate place.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 58, introduced earlier today by Senators Glenn, Thompson, Collins, and others.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I want to speak for a few moments about the action that was taken by the House of Representatives last week in passing a tax cut for the middle-income, hard-working Americans. I commend the House for doing that and hope that the Senate will follow suit. I think it is very important that every year we give the taxpayers back something of what they have worked so hard to earn when we are looking at a surplus. That is, in fact, what we are looking at. You know, if I had said to my constituents 5 years ago, ``I'm running for the U.S. Senate, and I'm going to balance the Federal budget,'' most of them would have probably smiled benignly and thought, ``Oh, at least she is naive enough to think that she can make a difference.'' Well, in fact, that is exactly what has happened. I did run saying that I wanted to work to balance the budget. I did not promise that I would come to Washington and do it alone, but I did say that this is something I thought our Congress should do. In fact, in the Congress that came in in 1994, we did make the promise and keep the promise that we would balance the Federal budget. In fact, this year, we will see that balanced budget. So then, of course, the question comes, What are we going to do with the new surplus? Of course, there are lots of ideas. Of what we think is going to be a $1.5 trillion surplus over the next few years, the lion's share should go toward making sure that Social Security is secure--no question about it. But an $80 billion tax cut every year, I think, will stimulate the economy, will do what is right by America, and will correct some inequities that we have found in the Tax Code-- the major portion of what the House passed is the bill that I introduced with Senator Faircloth last year and the year before; and that is to reduce the marriage tax penalty. In fact, if a policeman who makes about $33,000 a year in Houston, TX, marries a schoolteacher in Pasadena, TX, they have a penalty of $1,000, or a little more; and every person in those income categories in our country has the same. In fact, the average is about $1,400. Now, this is a young couple who gets married that wants to start saving to buy a new house or buy another car, have their nest egg, get started in life. And they get hit with a $1,000 penalty. That is not what was ever intended. But the Tax Code, because there are more two-income-earner couples now than when the last revision of the Tax Code was passed, in fact, has penalized those two-income- earning couples, many of whom have two incomes because they are trying to make ends meet. So we are taking away a part of their quality of life. So I commend the House for saying it is time to correct that inequity and it is our highest priority. I am pleased that they passed the bill that Senator Faircloth and I introduced. It is our highest priority. It will also help ease the burden for small business owners and farmers and ranchers and others who have been able to accumulate something to realize the American dream; and that is, that they would give their children a better start than they had by increasing the inheritance tax--the death tax--exemption to $1 million starting January 1 of next year. I think that is the right thing to do. It will begin to ease the tax on the elderly. I think we should do that. We have already eased the capital gains tax. I hope we can eliminate that. But, Madam President, I think it is important that we, every year, make a little bit more progress in giving the hard-working Americans more of the money they earn back to them so they can decide how to spend the money for their families rather than having Government decide for them. I hope the Senate will pass tax cuts. It is a high priority. I think we can have two goals that are very clear: We are going to save Social Security; and we are going to give a little bit of the money people work so hard to earn back to them to get our Government in perspective. I think it is time that we lowered the opportunities for spending at the Federal level, let the States and local governments have more leeway, have families have better opportunities to spend the money they earn, and to make sure that Social Security is secure. I think those are the right priorities for spending that surplus. I hope the Senate will follow suit. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join forces with Senators Leahy and Jeffords to introduce legislation which confirms that zoning decisions should be the providence of local governments, not overseen by the Federal Communications Commission through the use of preemption authority. It has been my position for some time that the FCC does not have a role to play in local zoning, right of way management and franchising decisions. I fought hard during consideration of the Communications Act of 1996 to ensure that local governments have the right to exercise these fundamental authorities. The issues associated with the use and value of property, public and private, are most appropriately considered at the levels of government closest to the citizenry. Local governments can balance the needs of commerce and the use of property. If their judgment is subject to question, it should be reviewed by the court system. It should not be checked by a federal regulator, who is far less able to calculate the totality of a community's interest. This legislation is needed because local governments have contended with a proposed FCC rule to preempt local authority over the placement of broadcast towers. The rule, I understand, has been withdrawn as a result of an agreement between the FCC, local and state government interests and telecommunications industry interests under the auspices of the FCC's ``Local and State Government Advisory Committee.'' This agreement provides for facilities siting guidelines and informal dispute resolution. I applaud this agreement. I believe it represents the reality that local governments, in the main, do want to work cooperatively with telecommunications providers who want to serve the residents of a community. However, I believe that this legislation is still necessary. The FCC simply should not have the authority to preempt local zoning decisions. I look forward to working on the progress of this bill with my co- sponsors and appreciate the opportunity to act in support of the exercise of local authority.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join forces with Senators Leahy and Jeffords to introduce legislation which confirms that zoning decisions should be the providence of local governments, not overseen by the Federal Communications Commission through the use of preemption authority. It has been my position for some time that the FCC does not have a role to play in local zoning, right of way management and franchising decisions. I fought hard during consideration of the Communications Act of 1996 to ensure that local governments have the right to exercise these fundamental authorities. The issues associated with the use and value of property, public and private, are most appropriately considered at the levels of government closest to the citizenry. Local governments can balance the needs of commerce and the use of property. If their judgment is subject to question, it should be reviewed by the court system. It should not be checked by a federal regulator, who is far less able to calculate the totality of a community's interest. This legislation is needed because local governments have contended with a proposed FCC rule to preempt local authority over the placement of broadcast towers. The rule, I understand, has been withdrawn as a result of an agreement between the FCC, local and state government interests and telecommunications industry interests under the auspices of the FCC's ``Local and State Government Advisory Committee.'' This agreement provides for facilities siting guidelines and informal dispute resolution. I applaud this agreement. I believe it represents the reality that local governments, in the main, do want to work cooperatively with telecommunications providers who want to serve the residents of a community. However, I believe that this legislation is still necessary. The FCC simply should not have the authority to preempt local zoning decisions. I look forward to working on the progress of this bill with my co- sponsors and appreciate the opportunity to act in support of the exercise of local authority.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I do support the Inhofe amendment. Having served on the National Transportation Safety Board, I can tell you that the NTSB normally does not overturn the FAA revocation of pilots' licenses. But they do, after they go through the process and look at all of the evidence. I think it is quite fair to say if someone is going to be disadvantaged by having a license revoked, that the NTSB could very easily, and quickly, look at the type of evidence that they are going to hear and, without making a final adjudication, determine that this person would or would not be eligible to fly during the pendency of the proceedings. I think it would introduce a new level in the process. It would be the emergency level. I think the NTSB can handle this. I think they are competent to do it, and I think their record shows that they have done it in the past. I do support the amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Surface Transportation/Merchant Marine Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 16, 1998, at 2:30 p.m. on ``Fatigue: Trucking and Rail Industry.''

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Wednesday, September 16, 1998, at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing on the topic of ``The National Cancer Institute's Management of Radiation Studies.''

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services to meet on Wednesday, September 16, 1998, at 2:00 p.m. for a hearing on ``GAO Report on High Performance Computers.''

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Immigration, of the Senate Judiciary Committee, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 16, 1998 at 2:00 p.m. to hold a hearing in room 226, Senate Dirksen Office Building, on: ``INS Oversight and Reform: Detention.''

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 16, 1998 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 16, 1998 at 10:00 a.m. to receive testimony on S. 2288, the Wendell H. Ford Government Publications Reform Act of 1998.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 16, 1998 at 9:30 a.m. to receive testimony from the Architect of the Capitol on plans to renovate the Dirksen Senate Office Building and the Capitol Dome.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 16, 1998 at 9:30 am to hold a joint hearing with the Caucus on International Narcotics Control.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to conduct a hearing Wednesday, September 16, 2:00 p.m., Hearing Room (SD- 406), regarding the use of methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) in gasoline and S. 1576.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. First is Citizens Against Government Waste. In part, they write: On behalf of the 600,000 members of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, we respectfully ask you to oppose any efforts in the Senate to strike the provision in the Interior Appropriations Bill that delays the implementation of a final crude oil valuation rule, unless a resolution between MMS and industry can be reached. The Minerals Management Service proposed new oil valuation rules that would eventually raise taxes on producers. They go on to say: Passage of this provision in the Interior Appropriations Bill will provide the time necessary for MMS and the industry to reach a fair and workable agreement on the rule, benefiting both sides. Here is a letter from the Citizens for a Sound Economy: I write on behalf of the 250,000 members of Citizens for a Sound Economy regarding the Boxer amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill. . . . Historically, the cost of this type regulation is passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for commodities. Of course, it makes sense that if we are going to raise the rates that producers have to pay, it is going to raise the price of every gallon of gas that you buy at the pump. Specifically, the Boxer amendment circumvents the authority of Congress to ensure that agencies of the Federal Government operate within the bounds of the law, and it will have the ultimate effect of increasing the cost of oil and gas for every American. This is in a letter from the National Black Chamber of Commerce: The cost of fuel is extremely influential in most levels of our economy and our competitiveness in the global market. Any approach in how we assess royalties is very critical to each and every one of us. Congress should certainly be involved as they truly represent the people, not bureaucrats. This is from the People for the USA: The new rule proposed by MMS is far too complex and could lead to the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the energy industry, where so many of our members are employed. . . . On behalf of the 25,000 members of our grassroots People for the USA campaign, I am respectfully asking you to resist any such efforts to remove this provision. Mr. President, we are talking about tax policy in this country. If you vote for the amendment before us today, we are saying that the Mineral Management Service can walk away from Congress and the congressional intent and congressional mandate that they report to us about any kind of fees or increases. If they do this--and if we allow them to do this--we will shut down marginal wells throughout our country, which we have already seen happening because of the low prices. Thousands of people will be out of jobs. We will lose revenue in our States and our Federal Government, hurting the schoolchildren of our States when they are not able to have that income stream that is now steady--$6 billion worth of steady income stream--which will become shaky from marginal producers because they cannot make ends meet. They are laying off people every day because of the low price of oil. This is not the time to raise prices. We should not let unelected bureaucrats do it, and we should not jeopardize the energy independence of our country by allowing a bureaucracy to raise taxes when that is the prerogative of Congress. Thank you. Mr. President, I thank Senator Domenici for his leadership, along with the bipartisan group that is trying to make sure we keep jobs and energy independence and gasoline pumps filled throughout our country. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to answer some of the arguments that have been made earlier in the debate. First, it keeps being said that the oil companies are not paying their fair share, that they are in lawsuits about it, and that they have been settling the lawsuits and therefore they must be guilty. All of this is totally separate from the amendment before us today. There is a disagreement between the oil companies and several States about how the valuations under the present regulation have been made. I want the oil companies to pay their fair share. So does the Senator from California, so does the Senator from New Mexico, so does the Senator from Louisiana. These matters are in court, and they will be settled in court. They have nothing to do with the amendment before us today. In fact, as the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Louisiana have said, the oil royalty valuation process is very complicated. The new MMS proposal is very complicated. In fact, I would make the case that we do not change anything in the process as far as making it clear what is owed. It is just a matter of the Mineral Management Service raising the rates on oil companies at a time when oil prices are at an all-time low. That is the issue. A second argument has been made that this only affects big oil companies. I would just say that I have received a memo from the Independent Producers Association of America that represents the small independent oil producers. And what they say is: ``Percentage of oil producers impacted by proposed oil royalty rule--100 percent.'' Because everyone who is in this industry knows that whatever is the standard for royalties on public lands is also the standard throughout the industry. So to say that we are only talking about 5 percent of the large oil companies in America is absolutely untrue. We are talking about small producers, independent producers, and we are talking about marginal producers. Those are the ones that are drilling 15 barrels or less a day. They are operating at very low margins. With the oil prices at 11- and 12-year lows, they are not even making a profit in many instances. So we are affecting oil jobs in our country. Now, it was said by the Senator from Illinois that the amendment delaying the rule was put on an emergency supplemental appropriations bill. That is true. It was put on an emergency supplemental appropriations bill and passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President. The reason it was put on is because the Bureau of Mineral Management Services announced they were going to finalize a rule without going through the congressional process that they had been told they must do. There was no alternative but to immediately stop that. Otherwise, they were going to implement a rule without reporting to the appropriate congressional committees. Of course, Congress exercised its prerogative to say no, that is not what we told you to do. After all, we do make the laws and the policies of this country. Raising taxes is the prerogative of Congress for a very good reason--because we are accountable to the people. If we are going to set the policies of this country, we must consider many things. We must consider jobs, we must consider crises, we must consider security, how much of our oil needs to be imported, is there a security issue in our country. The reason that elected representatives make policy is because we are accountable. We look at other factors such as how much of our oil we are importing, how many jobs are going to be affected, and what is the overall situation in the economy of our country. I want to talk about the first part of a policy decision that Congress considers, and that is jobs. Oil prices are at a 12-year low in this country. I refer to a chart for the jobs at risk in our country if we now raise the cost of drilling on oil companies. Let's take some examples: In California, 115,000 jobs are at stake; in Missouri, 31,000 jobs are at stake; in Montana, over 9,000; New Hampshire, over 3,000; New Jersey, almost 30,000; Nevada, over 7,000; Ohio, 54,000; Pennsylvania, 48,000; Texas, 253,000; Virginia, almost 30,000. Now, those are the jobs at stake. Let me just read to Members recent articles that talk about the job layoffs that are occurring right now because, of course, the industry is on its knees. August 28, 1998: J. Ray McDermott, a builder of offshore petroleum platforms, has laid off 41 employees in Houston [Texas], cutting about 10 percent of that office's staffing. [McDermott] left open the possibility that more layoffs could result if the oil market remains in a slump. August 29, 1998, Halliburton lays off 100: The state of the oil industry is being blamed for the layoffs of about 100 employees at Halliburton Energy Services [in Oklahoma.] August 12, 1998: Schlumberger laid off several hundred people in the second quarter and plans further cuts, as falling oil prices lower demand for its services and products. Schlumberger's news comes as a number of oil-field-service companies have been cutting staff in recent months. The industry is struggling with some of the lowest crude oil prices in 12 years. Oil and Gas Journal, August 3, 1998: Triton Energy Ltd., Dallas, laid off 65 employees from its Dallas office as a part of a corporate restructuring and cost-reduction plan. The move cuts Triton's Dallas staff by more than one third. August 18, 1998: Low prices particularly hurt small producers who rely on marginal, or stripper, wells producing less than 10 barrels of oil a day. Some 74 percent of New Mexico's 24,000 wells are considered marginal. Some small producers have cut back or eliminated new drilling projects. . . . Others have shut-in wells--stopping pumping, a solution intended to be temporary but which often results in permanent loss of production. Tom Dugan of Dugan Production Corp. in Farmington [New Mexico], said, ``Essentially our income has been cut in half within the last six or seven months.'' Dick Frank, the state Department of Labor's area director in Lea County [New Mexico], said the unemployment rate in the oil rich county has been climbing, reaching 6.7 percent in June. Oil and Gas Journal, July 20, 1998: An independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States survey has found that the plunge in oil prices is forcing marginal well shut-ins in the U.S. Rocky mountains. Twenty producers have shut in more than 200 marginal wells. . . . Big U.S. Independent Union Pacific Resources said it will slash its rig count from 49 to 18 for the balance of the year, further depressing an already shaking North America land rig market. Oryx Energy battened down the hatches, July 28, saying it will cut its 1,000-worker payroll costs 20 percent, or $14 million a year, and sell another 35 million of properties in response to continued weak oil prices. I think it is very important that we look at the impact on people, on their families, their lives, on States that are not going to have sales tax revenue if people don't have jobs in States that will have to start paying unemployment compensation because people don't have jobs. Yesterday, in the debate on the mining bill, Senator Harry Reid from Nevada said, ``These are the best blue-collar workers in America,'' and he was talking about gold prices being the lowest in years. I can make the same arguments today. The Senate voted for keeping the mining industry intact yesterday. As Senator Bumpers said, he lost his argument. The same arguments apply today. We have oil prices at their lowest in 11 years and we have the best blue-collar jobs in America. In fact, oil and gas jobs are among the highest paid in our economy. In Montana, for example, the average oil and gas jobs pay $32,380 compared to $20,500, which is the average of jobs in Montana. Every oil industry job creates an average of 2.3 service-related jobs. This is a very important issue for jobs in our country. As you can see, almost every State is affected. It not only creates jobs in the industry, but over two jobs in the service industry are related to oil production in our country. What could be bad about that? Yet, we are talking about raising fees and taxes on the companies that are on their knees, with low prices, that are laying people off as we speak. It doesn't make sense. The other side has said, ``We are losing $5.5 million a month.'' In fact, I thought Senator Landrieu made a very important point. We are talking about $6 billion in revenue to the Federal and State Governments, and they want to tear it down, saying they are going to add $5 million a month. You would jeopardize a steady stream of revenue from an industry that is on its knees, that is shutting down wells as we speak, to try to gain $5.5 million a month. Even if you thought you were going to get $5.5 million a month, you would have to assure that the companies are going to stay in business. If they go under, you are not going to get $5.5 million a month; you could lose $5.5 million a month, and those are jobs that we now have in place. Why would we jeopardize those and risk losing revenue, when you hope they will stay in business and gain revenue? That is not a very good hope when the industry is on its knees. Let's talk about the policy of raising taxes. In fact, we have shown, both in Congress and in 13 States, that lowering the taxes on the oil and gas industry have actually increased revenues. In fact, the Congress passed the Offshore Drilling Deep Water Royalty Relief Act in 1995. They gave tax relief, they gave tax breaks, lowered taxes, to companies that would go out and do the expensive drilling in the water, especially the Gulf of Mexico. For doing this, the Government has received $3.1 billion in bids on those leases in the gulf. This has created over 3,500 direct jobs to manage the increased activity. In fact, it has created $3 billion in revenue. So we have shown that when we lower revenue, we increase the amount that comes into the Federal Government. When we lower taxes, we increase revenue. This has been duplicated in my State of Texas, where they have given tax relief to drill the marginal wells which are less than 15 barrels a day in Texas. Or if someone goes in and unplugs a plugged well, they will get a tax break. Here is what that has done in Texas: 6,000 wells were returned to production; $1.65 billion came into the Texas economy; 10,000 direct and indirect jobs were created every year; and $22 million more went into the Texas treasury--$22 million by giving a tax break. Thirteen States have inactive well recovery programs that are doing the same thing. Yet, the amendment before us today would go in exactly the opposite direction. It would increase the amount that the oil companies would have to pay, putting many of these small producers in jeopardy because that will be the industry standard, creating a loss of jobs and, I submit, a loss in revenue. I have a chart that shows the economic effect of the abandonment of marginal wells just in 1997. The lost revenue to California was $45 million; Kansas, $24 million; Louisiana, $8 million; New Mexico, $19 million; Oklahoma, $29 million; Texas, $97 million. These are lost revenues because marginal wells went under. They had to plug the wells. This doesn't even address the lost jobs or the lost sales tax revenue to these States. So I think we have the evidence that raising taxes is going to cost revenue to the Federal Government, not raise revenue to the Federal Government, because so many of the wells in this country are marginal; they produce under 15 barrels a day. So if they go under, these States are not going to get more money for their schoolchildren, they are going to get less. That is what the amendment before us would do. Let's talk about another policy issue that Congress must address when we increase taxes on an industry. We import over 50 percent of the oil that we need in this country--the oil we need to drive our cars to work, the oil we need to operate our plants, the oil we need to produce fuel for every home in America. Fifty percent is imported. This is a national security issue. It is an economic issue. Does anybody remember what it was like when we had the severe oil shortage several years ago and people had lined up for 5 hours to get gas for their cars? They could not fill them up; they were limited. They were limited in the amount or the number of gallons they could put in because we had an oil shortage. This country cannot depend on imports if we are going to have control of our own economy. How could we be talking about shutting down wells and causing our dependency to become greater? It does not make sense. It would be highly irresponsible of this Senate to do something that would jeopardize every person driving a car in this country, every plant that operates, and every home that depends on oil or gas for its energy. We should not be even considering something so irresponsible. I have letters of support from many organizations. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Of course.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his leadership. Which of these actions would be the act of a strong and powerful nation led by men and women of vision and foresight: a nation that constantly reassesses its security threats and tailors its defense to meet those threats, or a nation that sits back and says let's see what the threat is, then we will assess it and then we will address it? Mr. President, it was the latter thinking that caused us to go to a hollow military after World War II, and we paid the price with thousands of lives in the Korean war--lives of our men and women, because we hadn't planned for the future. Mr. President, we have gotten the wake-up call. It is the Rumsfeld report that Congress commissioned, which said that we have failed to estimate how long it would take rogue nations to develop ballistic missiles. That is the wake-up call. Are we going to meet the security threats of this country? The greatest security threat we have is incoming ballistic missiles. If we put our mind to the technology, we can prioritize our defense spending to say to the American people that we will protect you from incoming ballistic missiles to our shores, or to any theater where our Armed Forces are present. We can do no less if we are men and women of vision and foresight for the greatest Nation on Earth. I urge your support for the Cochran visionary amendment that would protect our country at the earliest opportunity.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a man for whom I have great respect; a man who inspired and taught me while I attended the University of Texas Law School. I am speaking of Law Professor Charles Alan Wright. Today is Charles Alan Wright's birthday. Charles Alan Wright is one of the most distinguished constitutional authorities in the country, a champion for racial justice, and the model of what a great lawyer should be. For more than forty years he has shaped and influenced generations of Texas lawyers while teaching at the UT Law School, including myself. Professor Wright also does not shy from a challenge. He has argued twelve times before the Supreme Court, winning most of his cases, some of them landmark decisions. As an author, Professor Wright has written one of the most definitive texts in the arena of law, Federal Practice and Procedure, cited by many as the bible for federal judges. His pursuit of professional excellence is mirrored by his righteous courage, having fought for desegregation and to put an end to racial intolerance. I would like to quote from the Austin American-Statesman: ``For Wright's accomplishments in the legal field, his country thanks him. For his sterling record as a professor, the university and its graduates thank him. For his personal courage in opening minds, all Austin should thank him.'' Happy Birthday Charles and thank you. I ask that the Sunday, June 21, 1998, Austin American-Statesman editorial paying tribute to Charles Alan Wright be printed in the Record. The editorial follows: [From the Austin American-Statesman June 21, 1998] A Scholar and a Leader Charles Alan Wright is lucky enough to live in interesting times and smart enough to make the most of it. A profile of this towering scholar and professor at the University of Texas law school in today's editions by American-Statesman reporter Mary Ann Roser is a testament to his presence on campus and in the world at large. Wright has made an indelible imprint on the law school, an institution he helped raise in stature in his tenure of more than 40 years. And his impact in the legal profession will be just as lasting, as his multi-volume bible of federal court procedures, Federal Practice and Procedure, attests. Wright joined the law school faculty in 1955 and made an immediate impression. From intramural football to the controversial defense of President Richard M. Nixon in the Watergate scandal, Wright has been involved both in the school and in the life around him. As he is today as a member of the legal team appealing the Hopwood decision by the federal court of appeals. Wright brought status and stature to the UT School of Law. His high profile and prestige certainly helped attract the faculty that has kept the law school in the top rank in the country. Wright will always be known for his work with the Nixon defense team during the Watergate years and for his involvement with the prestigious American Law Institute, for which he served as president and vice president. Those intimate with the legal profession are impressed, too, that three U.S. Supreme Court justices have appointed him to the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference. He served the conference from 1964 to 1993. But Wright's personal courage in challenging this community's racial intolerance in the early years of desegregation illuminates Wright the man as much as his many professional accomplishments burnish Wright the constitutional scholar. He fought personally to desegregate the private church school his daughter attended, to desegregate the private clubs and institutions on the University of Texas campus and to spread the message of racial tolerance throughout the community. For Wright's accomplishments in the legal field, his country thanks him. For his sterling record as a professor, the university and its graduates thank him. For his personal courage in opening minds, all Austin should thank him.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Coats for his addition to my amendment, because I do think it strengthens the base amendment. What Senator McCain has done is assure, in order to get this money, that there would be no nuclear proliferation by North Korea. My amendment then comes in and says we will not allow the ballistic missile technology to be sold by North Korea to terrorist nations. I think the amendment of Senator Coats strengthens both of these by assuring the certification process is real. I think it is very clear that the Senate is speaking with a very loud voice that we are not going to continue to sit back and let North Korea break the agreement that they made, sell technology to terrorist nations that would use that technology against the United States or our allies anywhere in the world, and let them do it and reward them for it. We are not going to do it. The signal is clear. The Senate is speaking. I thank Senator Coats, I thank Senator McConnell, I thank Senator McCain for working together to send a very clear message that we want North Korea to abide by the agreement they made. If they do, we will reward them. If they do not, they will not get one penny of taxpayers' money from this country. Mr. President, I urge my amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, just before the Senator's modification of my amendment, I want to add that as people in America today are going to the movie theaters and seeing for the first time the horrors of war, if every person who sees ``Saving Private Ryan'' will think about this great leader, Strom Thurmond, whom we are talking about today, and realize that this was a man who, in his forties, volunteered to go into World War II, and went into Normandy--the sights of which most of us could not have imagined unless we saw this movie--and was there in his forties, volunteered to be there to serve his country--as Senator Coats so well said, they will never make another Strom Thurmond. I just want to add my accolades for this great man and what he has given for our country besides voting 15,000 times. He has done so much more. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.