Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that addresses an issue of great concern to our Nation's current and future security as well as to hundreds of communities across our country. We have endeavored to reduce the excess infrastructure of our armed forces four times in the past 15 years through the appointment of a BRAC commission whose charter was to recommended the elimination or realignment of unneeded bases. Four times these commissions have made recommendations to the President resulting in the closure of 106 major bases. I would like to agree that in each instance, the best decision was made and the military is now better off without these facilities; however, this is not the case. Mistakes have been made. While most of these selections were proper, some have resulted in significant, unintended consequences. Staggering costs to clean up the environmental liabilities left behind is one such example. At the former Navy Station Long Beach, CA, post-closure clean up costs have consumed hundreds of millions of dollars more than had been anticipated. The final cost of closing that base remains unknown. How can the savings of closing this base be cited when even seven years later the costs continue to grow? The lack of facilities now available to properly train our remaining forces is another. When justifying the closure of Reese Air Force Base in 1995, the commission's report stated that ``the Air Force has a surplus of undergraduate pilot training facilities.'' However, only five years later, this service had a shortage of over 1,200 pilots. To make up for that shortfall, the Air Force was compelled to hastily establish another training base, at tremendous cost to the taxpayer. The severe economic impact that small, rural communities have endured is yet another unintended consequence. The '95 commission's decision to convey Fort Chafee to the local community was scandalous. How was a small, rural community like Barling, AR supposed to turn a post like Chaffee, pockmarked with over 700 World War II-era buildings, each contaminated with lead paint and Asbestos, into an economic asset to the community? They couldn't. While the closure of Chaffee may have saved the Pentagon money, it saddled a small town with an expensive, environmentally hazardous burden. I am convinced the root cause of these regrettable selections was vague and inefficient criteria which the commissions used in their efforts to select candidates for closure or realignment. To ensure we do not repeat these mistakes, I have worked closely with a number of my colleagues, particularly Senator Bingaman, to develop legislation that would refine the minimum criteria the commission must consider. Among the new criteria are: the impact on homeland security; the effects on co-located Federal agencies; and lessons learned in the previous rounds of closures. This measure also promotes greater transparency by requiring the weighting of these criteria be published well before a commission recommends any base for closure. I know the outcome of the 2005 BRAC is of utmost importance to both the military and the communities outside the fence. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to ensure that the proper decisions are made, and that they are made for the proper reasons. I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, these past few years have been horrible for farmers. Low prices, the recession, and weather-related catastrophies--like the severe drought conditions we suffered in my home State of Texas--have made it extremely difficult for our Nation's agricultural producers to sustain their farms and ranches, and maintain their ability to feed Americans and the people around the world. These extraordinarily difficult times reinforce the need for Congress to support a strong and effective farm bill that provides a solid safety net and enhances the ability of our farmers and ranchers to compete domestically and abroad. This farm bill is not perfect, and I understand why many of my colleagues are opposing it. There are many provisions that concern me as well. This legislation undercuts the very foundation of the Freedom to Farm concept. Freedom to Farm was the right approach for American agriculture, but our farmers were denied open markets and fair trade because of our competitors' subsidies and tariffs. Now, instead of opening markets and lifting trade barriers, we are moving back to direct price supports. I am worried this could stimulate overproduction and drive commodity prices down even further. I am also concerned with the uncertainty that will follow this bill's country of origin labeling requirements. However, Texas farmers and ranchers are backed against the wall. Like many farmers all across America, Texans have been praying for two things--rain and certainty. Texas farmers have been waiting for months to make their planting decisions for this year's crop, and their lenders cannot help them until this farm bill is passed. This is a difficult vote for me. However, at the end of the day, this bill provides critical assistance to those who produce our food supply. This is why I will reluctantly vote for this imperfect legislation. This farm bill will answer the desperate calls for help from America's farm and ranch country. Most importantly, it provides a strong safety net for our farmers. The payment incentives in this bill will free America's farmers from depending on Congress to continually provide emergency assistance when prices drop. Over the last 4 years, Congress has spent nearly $30 billion on such emergency assistance for farmers. This aid was necessary, but its inefficient delivery did not provide the certainty that farmers and lenders need for crucial management and financial decisions. This farm bill may threaten our World Trade Organization commitments, so I am pleased that the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to regulate this spending on our domestic farm programs. Currently, more than 25 percent of American farm income comes from exports. We must continue to fight to open these markets, and we cannot hinder access to foreign consumers who will provide new opportunity and income for our Nation's farmers and ranchers. Finally, this legislation protects the States' water rights and creates the strongest conservation provisions of any farm bill in history. Many of America's livestock and dairy producers depend upon these programs for essential soil and water conservation. The severe drought and flooding that has occurred across the country makes this funding even more critical as farmers work to sustain and enhance the productivity of their land. America's agricultural challenges must be addressed immediately. This bill takes a step--I hope the fundamentals will improve, so we can attempt--freedom to farm again in the future. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the trade promotion authority legislation that is before the Senate. America has the most productive, creative workforce in the world. Our industries are diverse. Our products are second to none. Now we must expand our reach to bring more of these goods and services to the global marketplace by passing trade promotion authority legislation. Trade promotion authority had been used since President Ford's administration to implement trade agreements until it lapsed in 1994. The President has not had this trade promotion authority since 1994. If America is going to increase trade opportunities around the world, Congress needs to pass this legislation so the President has the ability to negotiate trade agreements with the knowledge that, while Congress retains its right to approve or reject a treaty, it will not try to amend or delay it. Without this legislation, foreign governments may not be willing to sit at the negotiation table with the United States, knowing that they may put all of this time into a negotiation that would then be delayed or changed by Congress. Ninety-six percent of the world's consumers live outside of the United States, representing a vast potential market for American exports. Unfortunately, other countries are moving forward in promoting trade while we are standing on the sidelines. While we delay, other countries are entering into agreements that exclude us. Our competitors in Europe, Asia, and Latin America have sealed more than 130 free trade compacts. Yet we are party to only three--Jordan, Israel, and NAFTA with Mexico and Canada. Again, there are 130 free trade agreements in the world and the United States is a party to only 3 of those. A lack of free trade agreements puts American exporters at a significant disadvantage. For example, a $180,000 tractor made in America and shipped to Chile incurs about $15,000 in tariffs and duties upon arrival. That same tractor would face only $3,700 in tariffs if it were made in Brazil, and there would be none if it were made in Canada. American businesses, farmers, and ranchers are the best, but they should not have to compete with this kind of disparity. Our inability to negotiate agreements with foreign countries is hurting U.S. industry and limiting economic growth. The TPA offers the United States a chance to reclaim momentum in the global economy by adding foreign markets and expanding our opportunity for American producers and workers. For 60 years, Presidents and members of both parties in Congress have worked together to open markets around the world. Now, as we launch the next round of global trade negotiations, close cooperation is critical. In Texas, we have experienced the benefits of free trade as a result of NAFTA. Since the agreement was implemented in January 1994, Texas exports have grown much faster than the overall U.S. exports of goods. Texas merchandise exports in 2000 went to more than 200 foreign markets, totaling $69 billion--an increase of more than 22 percent since 1997. On the agricultural front, Texas ranks third among the 50 States in exports, with an estimated $3.3 billion in sales in foreign markets in 2000. We are leading exporters of beef, poultry, feed grain, and wheat. NAFTA has helped us secure the No. 1 cotton exporting State status. Since the agreement took effect, we have increased cotton exports to Mexico from 558,000 bales to 1.5 million bales in 2000. Some people fear that trade will hurt the United States because they believe we will end up lowering barriers more than our trading partners. This is a legitimate question, but the fact is that the United States is already generally very low in barriers compared to our trading partners. For example, the average U.S. tariff on machinery imports is 1.2 percent, while foreign tariffs on U.S.-made machinery in countries such as Indonesia, India, Argentina, and Brazil are 30 times higher. By negotiating trade agreements, such as Free Trade Area of the Americas, the benefits we will receive by lowering those high barriers to our goods and services far outweigh the effect of lowering our very small tariffs. Another fear is the extent to which lowering barriers to the U.S. market will cause job losses as companies move manufacturing overseas. This could happen, but we do have superior quality and work ethic--that is undeniable. Beyond that, however, we must consider the extent to which we are already losing jobs to overseas plants because of the high barriers to our goods. Some countries try to attract manufacturing jobs by raising barriers to imports. This forces companies that would otherwise have production facilities in the United States and then export their products to build plants in these foreign countries so they get around the tariffs. For example, Mars, Inc., the candy and pet food manufacturer, has their largest production facility in Waco, TX. They and other U.S. confectionary makers face an average of 25 percent in tariffs on confectionary candy exports and candy products to the European Union, and they have a 55- percent tariff on these goods to India. But the United States has virtually no tariffs on confectionary products. The employees of domestic candy makers would be much more secure if the President were able to negotiate a trade agreement that lowered these barriers overseas so they were not penalized for having U.S.-based manufacturing. In addition to trade promotion authority, we will be debating related trade bills over the next few weeks. The Andean Trade Preference Act, which is the base bill we are debating today, seeks to help our counternarcotics efforts by providing people of the Andean region-- South America--with economic opportunity other than drug trade. This bill can help U.S. develop overseas markets. If the beneficiary countries are able to use their exports to the United States to develop a healthier economy, it will create market opportunities for U.S. exporters. The Andean Trade Preference Act has been successful in this respect. Since it went into effect in 1991, the four Andean countries have experienced $3 billion in new output and $1.7 billion in new exports. This has led to the creation of 140,000 legitimate jobs in this region, providing employment alternatives to people who might otherwise get involved in the drug trade. Similarly, by extending the General System of Preferences, which provides duty-free status to certain items from developing countries, we can help to develop healthier economies that will inevitably demand U.S. products. The other bill we are addressing during this debate is Trade Adjustment Assistance. This is a good program that would help those who lose their jobs because of trade. But we must also make sure this is not a program that is going to be so expensive and a program that discriminates among certain unemployed workers versus other unemployed workers versus employed workers. I think we might be taking a big chance with that part of the bill--not being as fully vetted and researched as the two parts that are trade promotion and Andean preference. These are two trade promotion acts that will have direct benefits to the workers and the people of America. It will also help the consumers of America get the lowest prices for goods that are imported without those artificial barriers. So in this time of increased tension in many parts of the world, American leadership on trade is more important than ever. Giving President Bush a strong hand to negotiate, helping other countries to use the benefits of trade to develop legitimate businesses and economic growth are what we are addressing in the Senate with this trade package. Passing this legislation will ensure the continued growth of our economy and make sure that we are exporting our greatest ideals to the world--freedom, free enterprise, and democracy. We must give the President this trade promotion authority so we will not be left behind. If America is only a party to 3 trade agreements out of 130, you know that other relationships are forming that keep America out. We made a very good start with NAFTA. We have seen the benefits of NAFTA, that free trade agreement. Now we must extend NAFTA to South America with the Andean nations with which we have had trade relations. We need to come back and put in place trade with those countries without those barriers that have been put forward in the last year. We need to have good relations all over the world. I think it is clear, from what is happening in the world and the lack of understanding in many parts of the world what freedom and free enterprise are, that we should be the leaders in opening free trade markets under an agreement that provides a level playing field for our workers and the workers of a foreign country. We should be the leaders, not the followers; not the people who are being dragged kicking and screaming into the new century. We need free and fair trade. We can only get it by negotiating trade agreements and making sure there is a level playing field. If we have no agreements, we can have small barriers, they can have big barriers, and that is not a level playing field. We want a level playing field. Trade promotion authority and the Andean Preference Act will give us that. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. Carper]. The Senator from Minnesota.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is the only part of the bill that would encourage small drillers to explore. In fact, this is as any other business is treated. The underlying bill says, if you pay an expense, you get to deduct it in the year in which you make it. This amendment would take that away and make you amortize it, even though you already paid it. And you may not even find oil. Please table this amendment. It would be unfair not to do so.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska. In fact, I thank both Senators from Alaska for leading this very long fight to open up a very small portion of their State for the purpose of exploring and drilling to make America more stable in this crisis in which we find ourselves. I want to go back over what is in the Murkowski-Breaux amendment because I think if you listen to some of the debate, you will be confused. First, the key provision is a provision I put in this amendment early on that says the President must find that it is in our national economic and security interest to drill in ANWR. The President must consider the impact on increasing the independence we would have on foreign imports for our basic energy needs in this country. This amendment limits the size of production to 2,000 acres, and in that 2,000 acres it is confined to a part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that is plain. There are no trees and wilderness in this part of ANWR. We are talking about drilling on 2,000 acres in an area the size of the State of South Carolina, where there are no trees whatsoever. In addition, I think it is important to note that we have limited in this amendment when they can drill. They can drill between November and May, when the land is frozen. There would be ice roads and ice runways. The footprint on the land would be minimal to none because they would be using the ice roads rather than driving on the land. In addition to that, the caribou, which is an animal that mates throughout the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, mates during the summertime. There would be no drilling in the summertime. Any argument that this might in some way disrupt caribou mating is not a valid argument at all. There would be 1.5 million more acres of real wilderness that would be designated as wilderness where they could not drill--this is in addition to ANWR in exchange for opening this nonwilderness area of the Coastal Plain. It is a balanced amendment. The environment is protected. It is very important that we look at the environmental safeguards America would put on drilling in ANWR to assure that we will have environmental standards. This same reserve may well be drilled in Russia which is very close to Alaska, as we all know. About 20 miles separates them at their closest point. They could drill right across the coast from Alaska, and we do not know what their environmental safeguards would be. We certainly would not have control over them, and that would affect the Alaska coastline even more because we would not have control of the way Russia might decide to drill. They might not decide to drill only in the winter. They might not decide to put any limitations on the kinds of ships that would come in and out of the water. I think that maintaining control is the better environmental argument. ANWR would produce at least a million barrels a day. That is about the amount we import from Iraq every day. The percentage of the U.S. oil needs that would be met by ANWR is nearly 5 percent. We consume 20 million barrels of oil a day. We import 12 million of those barrels. We are right at 60 percent of our needs every day having to be met by imports. Our ANWR production would make up for 8 to 10 percent of our current imports. I heard the Senator from Massachusetts say this is going to be a drop in the bucket for our energy needs; that this really gets us nowhere. So why would we do it? We would do it because we need to do everything we can to maintain our own stability and to look to ourselves for our economic and security needs. I would rather be looking at American jobs with American resources, American production and American control than to say 60 percent imports for our needs is OK. I especially think that the argument falls flat when we realize that the 60 percent includes some of America's known worst enemies, such as Iraq. Iraq has threatened America before; so have some of the other countries from whom we import oil. Then there are countries with whom we have great friendships, such as Venezuela. They also send us about a million barrels a day but they are in upheaval. There are strikes and the government is in a very precarious situation. So while we would certainly count Venezuela as a friend, they are not as reliable right now as we need to have. I think we need to look at this whole ANWR issue in light of the circumstances. I have always felt that America needed an energy policy that depended on our own resources. Today, it is no longer an option. It is no longer a matter of good public policy; it is a necessity. It is a matter of national security that we control our own economy. If countries, that would do us harm, could say ``we will stop exporting oil to America and shut down their factories, keep them from being able to drive to work, shoot the prices so high the airline industry starts to crater,'' then are we not going to beat them from within? Maybe we do not have to beat them from without because if their economy starts sinking we are going to win. Of course, they are right. If we allow that to happen, we are not responsible stewards of our country. Iraq has, in fact, said they are going to stop exporting oil that could come to America. With Iraq using this as a weapon, and other countries possibly doing the same, or deciding that perhaps they cannot export any more because of their internal situations, then what are we going to do if we have not planned ahead? The Senator from Massachusetts says we should conserve our way out of the crisis, but let's look at that. The 10 most fuel-efficient automobiles in America make up 1.5 percent of the automobile sales in America. In America, we have long distances to drive. In America, people have big families, and we know a heavier car is safer than a small car. So it would seem the Senator from Massachusetts would demand that people have only the choice of an unsafe car, that is not the one they want for their families, as a way to become more stable in our economy. I fundamentally disagree with him that this is the right approach. I think we need to look to our own resources as part of a balanced package that would keep our country strong. I think we should have incentives for more fuel-efficient automobiles, so that if people make that choice of their own free will, and if that meets their family's needs, they would be able to do that and maybe even get a tax credit for it. I think we need to look for alternative forms of energy. I think we have walked away from nuclear powerplants, which are known to be the most clean and effective ways to produce electricity. I think there are new things we will be able to find in the future, such as ethanol, hopefully, becoming more reasonably priced; other forms of wind energy that certainly could produce electricity, not in the great amounts we need at this time, but I think Americans are ingenious and we will find other sources. But that should not be all we need to do. We need to have a balanced plan that also allows us to produce the amount of energy we would need to keep our country strong. The major sources of oil in this country are ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico. We are drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, but we have not yet found the technology to go as deep as we would need to go in parts of the Gulf of Mexico to tap the added resources that might be available there. We do however certainly have the capability to look to that resource as well. In the Senate bill, we do not try to help get the Gulf of Mexico oil. No. The House bill allows us to continue the royalty help that we give for deep drilling in the Gulf because it is more expensive and takes more research and exploration. Senator Bennett Johnston of Louisiana passed a royalty relief bill that takes the first part of oil royalties from deep well drilling in the Gulf. It abates those royalties in order to create an incentive for companies to add that expense of drilling in that deep Gulf area. That credit lapsed and is no longer in effect. The House energy bill puts that back in play. We should do that. That is a valid incentive because it would produce more oil in the Gulf. In the Senate bill, there is very little about production, aside from the marginal well tax credits which were my in bill. I have fought for the marginal well tax credits for a long time. I am pleased that they are in the bill because the marginal well tax credits could help the marginal, small, little bitty wells to give them a floor so that anyone willing to go in and tap a site, that would produce only 15 barrels a day or less, would be able to withstand the falling prices. A number of those small wells were closed when oil was $11 a barrel a couple of years ago and they haven't been reopened because of the instability of the prices. If all the small wells are drilled and producing, we do have that credit in this bill which will equal the amount we import from Saudi Arabia. It is a significant amount. It takes 500,000 wells to do it. These are generally small businesspeople. That is good. Other than that, there is nothing in this bill that speaks to production. The House bill has the incentives for deep Gulf drilling, which I think is very important and I certainly hope will come out of the conference report if we can pass the bill before the Senate. The House has ANWR, which the Senate does not, and about which we are fighting and talking today. ANWR is a significant addition to our own national stability. The ability to control our destiny rests in ANWR and deep Gulf drilling. When you put those together with increasing nuclear capabilities, clean coal burning, wind, and other forms of renewables, a balanced package of conservation and production includes ANWR and the deep Gulf incentives. As we debate this, I hope some of our Members, who have said they are very concerned about drilling in ANWR, will look at the facts: ANWR has no trees in the part we will drill, it would only be done in the winter when you use ice roads and ice runways so there is no footprint on the land, where it would not hurt the environment, but, in fact, would be severely restricted by environmental concerns. If we are going to have affordable, reliable, and clean energy, we must have a balanced package. Not to pass a bill that gives the amount we import from Iraq and Saudi Arabia and Venezuela is hardly worth the effort because it wouldn't give enough stability to control our own destiny. It is essential we pass a bill that allows America to control our economy and will produce American jobs. We are talking hundreds of thousands of jobs. That, in itself, helps stabilize our economy. That is why the Teamsters Union and the building and trade unions have been so helpful in this effort. I have never seen a union so committed and so sincere and work so hard as the Teamsters to try to keep these jobs in America. We have lost many jobs, thousands of jobs, since September 11. These are good-paying jobs that would become available if we drill in ANWR and in the deep Gulf--not only the jobs on the rigs themselves, but all of the companies that produce the pipe, all of the companies that produce the oil-well supplies. It would be a huge boost to our economy. However, most importantly, it would stabilize our economy from oil price spikes that will hurt our airline industry, that will hurt our factories, that will hurt profitability and start causing more layoffs if we do not get control. I thank my colleagues for finally allowing this amendment to come forward. It is our responsibility to pass this amendment for the limited exploration in ANWR with the environmental safeguards and with the very specific times that assure we would not have a footprint on the land. This is our responsibility. It is a national security issue. It is an economic issue. If we don't look out for America, who will? This is the Senate of America and we must look out for the people, for the jobs, for the security of our country. That is what we have been elected to do. It is our job and it is time to step up to the plate and do the right thing for the people who have put their trust in us.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a fellow Texan, Major General Patrick D. Sculley of the U.S. Army Dental Corps. Major General Sculley has served our country for 29 years in a number of senior positions. His distinguished career culminated with his appointment to be Deputy Surgeon General of the Army and Chief, U.S. Army Dental Corps. As the deputy surgeon general, Major General Sculley provided exceptional leadership and oversight of all Army healthcare facilities and biomedical research activities. His efforts facilitated the highest quality healthcare for military beneficiaries while ensuring health readiness and a deployable medical force. As the chief of the U.S. Army Dental Corps, he implemented a worldwide Dental Care Optimization Program that significantly increased the dental readiness of military personnel and improved the dental health of America's Army. While still a colonel, he was integral to the establishment of the U.S. Army Dental Command and was its first commander. Throughout the nearly three decades of service to our country, Major General Sculley emphasized personal involvement with his junior officers. His leadership by example has been instrumental in the retention of quality dental officers. I would like to commend Pat and his wife, Peggy, for their unwavering dedication to the United States and the Army and thank them for their service. They have served our Nation with distinction and in the finest traditions of the U.S. Army. I wish them well in future endeavors as they enter a new phase of their lives in Texas. May God continue to bless Major General Sculley and his family and may God bless America.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, since we are at a lull in the debate on this very important bill, I take this opportunity to congratulate a company headquartered in Texas that is celebrating its 100th anniversary: the J.C. Penney Company. I think it is incredible, when you think of a company that was started in 1902, that it is still going strong today. I think it is worthy of note. The founder of J.C. Penney, James Cash Penney, was fond of saying to his workers that they were not building a business but a community. This is the kind of business philosophy I hope more businesses in America will adopt because businesses supporting communities means people are supporting communities, and that is what makes our country so strong. J.C. Penney encourages its employees to volunteer in the community. They contribute to the local United Way across the country, which is so helpful in the quality of life for every community. They are especially doing something that I want to point out because I know so many working parents worry about what happens with their children from the time school is out until they can get home. J.C. Penney has made a tremendous effort to ease their employees' fears and anxieties by providing more places and more opportunities for children in afterschool programs across our country. This is the kind of thing that really makes a contribution to our way of life in America. So I thank the employees of J.C. Penney for their commitment to building America's communities and for making a place for Americans to work to be a good place to work. I wish them the best and not only congratulate them on the last 100 years but for another 100 years of making the quality of life better for families throughout America. Mr. President, I will yield to my friend, the Senator from Wyoming, where J.C. Penney actually started until they had the good sense to move to Texas to make their headquarters. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, today I am pleased to again be offering legislation that will solve a significant issue for State and local legislators and candidates across the country and which I know is of serious concern. Two years ago, Congress enacted the Full and Fair Political Activities Disclosure Act of 2000, Public Law 106-230, a law that imposed new IRS reporting requirements on political organizations claiming tax-exempt status under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code. The purpose of this law was to uncover so-called ``stealth PACs,'' tax-exempt groups which, prior to the enactment of this law, did not have to disclose any contributions or expenditures and were free to influence elections in virtual anonymity. While Public Law 106- 230 was intended to target ``stealth PACs,'' it has had the unintended consequence of imposing burdensome and duplicative reporting requirements on State and local candidates who are not involved in any federal election activities. In many States like Texas, state and local candidates already file detailed reports with their state election officials. To correct this problem, I have worked closely with Senator Lieberman, among others, to develop legislation that would exempt state and local candidates from some of the IRS reporting requirements of Public Law 106-230. We have done this in a way that solves the problem but without creating new loopholes that would allow ``stealth'' organizations to reemerge. This legislation is the product of bipartisan and I would like to thank those who have supported our efforts, including Senator McCain, Senator Feingold, and Senator Levin who join me and Senator Lieberman on this bill today. I originally offered legislation on this issue last year and it was included in the tax cut bill, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Unfortunately, our provision was dropped from the bill in conference. Since then, P.L. 106-230 has created an increasingly heavy burden on local and State candidates. This is exacerbated by the fact that many candidates were not aware of the notification requirements and could now face severe penalties. It is time to take action and get this issue resolved. The bill we introduce today solves this problem while also addressing some issues that have been raised since we first made this effort last year. The deadline for the most burdensome reporting requirements is fast approaching in May. Congress has delayed too long. I again urge my colleagues to support this bill and to solve the problem that we created and to do so now.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, today I am pleased to again be offering legislation that will solve a significant issue for State and local legislators and candidates across the country and which I know is of serious concern. Two years ago, Congress enacted the Full and Fair Political Activities Disclosure Act of 2000, Public Law 106-230, a law that imposed new IRS reporting requirements on political organizations claiming tax-exempt status under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code. The purpose of this law was to uncover so-called ``stealth PACs,'' tax-exempt groups which, prior to the enactment of this law, did not have to disclose any contributions or expenditures and were free to influence elections in virtual anonymity. While Public Law 106- 230 was intended to target ``stealth PACs,'' it has had the unintended consequence of imposing burdensome and duplicative reporting requirements on State and local candidates who are not involved in any federal election activities. In many States like Texas, state and local candidates already file detailed reports with their state election officials. To correct this problem, I have worked closely with Senator Lieberman, among others, to develop legislation that would exempt state and local candidates from some of the IRS reporting requirements of Public Law 106-230. We have done this in a way that solves the problem but without creating new loopholes that would allow ``stealth'' organizations to reemerge. This legislation is the product of bipartisan and I would like to thank those who have supported our efforts, including Senator McCain, Senator Feingold, and Senator Levin who join me and Senator Lieberman on this bill today. I originally offered legislation on this issue last year and it was included in the tax cut bill, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Unfortunately, our provision was dropped from the bill in conference. Since then, P.L. 106-230 has created an increasingly heavy burden on local and State candidates. This is exacerbated by the fact that many candidates were not aware of the notification requirements and could now face severe penalties. It is time to take action and get this issue resolved. The bill we introduce today solves this problem while also addressing some issues that have been raised since we first made this effort last year. The deadline for the most burdensome reporting requirements is fast approaching in May. Congress has delayed too long. I again urge my colleagues to support this bill and to solve the problem that we created and to do so now.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce properly the Pastor who just gave the wonderful invocation that opened the Senate. It is my distinct pleasure to introduce our guest Chaplain and fellow Texan, the Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell. Reverend Caldwell is the Senior Pastor of the Windsor Village United Methodist Church in my hometown of Houston. I thank him for opening with a wonderful prayer this morning. Reverend Caldwell has led his church of approximately 14,000 members in southwest Houston for nearly 20 years. He also delivered the invocation at the President's inauguration last January. Reverend Caldwell is an influential and motivational leader in the Houston community. He is well known for his zeal and compassion for people. As an articulate and accomplished businessman, he has utilized his pulpit as well as his business skills to develop successful faith- based community programs throughout Houston. These initiatives provide housing, job training, counseling, and other important services to needy residents throughout the community, truly demonstrating Christian charity and brotherly love. The social programs fostered by Reverend Caldwell in Windsor Village have become models for faith-based initiatives throughout the United States. Reverend Caldwell came to the ministry truly from a calling and truly from his heart for he earned a master's degree in business at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, and he was a bond trader with a firm in Houston and was doing well. But something else nudged at him while he was in the business field, and he decided that he wanted to be a minister. So he went back to Southern Methodist University to get yet another master's degree, this time in theology. He serves on the boards of a range of community groups from the Children's Defense Fund to the MD Anderson Cancer Center. Reverend Caldwell is also the author of the book ``The Gospel of Good Success: A Roadmap to Spiritual, Emotional, and Financial Wholeness.'' I have known Reverend Caldwell for a long time. He is also a friend to President George W. Bush. He is such an important person in the Houston community, looked to by business leaders, community leaders, and by the people in the community who need help. He is always there when called. I am very proud to welcome him to the Senate this morning.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the speaking order. I would like to have up to 10 minutes to speak, after which Senator Miller would like 10 minutes, after which Senator Frist would like 15 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the need for an energy policy for our country. I have tried ever since I have been in the Senate to get us to plan ahead, to lead our country to be self-sufficient in our energy needs. Unfortunately, the disagreements have been too great and Congress has not been able to come up with a plan that could be signed by the President. Today we are not only talking about economic security, we are talking about something bigger, and that is national security. We must have an energy policy that begins to make our country self-sufficient because we can no longer allow 60 percent of our energy needs to be imported, especially from countries that may or may not be there for us. I do not know what it takes for the American people to get it. Iraq has just said they are not going to export oil for 30 days. The United States uses 1 million barrels a day from Iraq and the world market. Every time a country says they are not going to produce, it takes that oil out of the world market and increases the price of gasoline at the pump and the cost to every factory to stay in business. We are in a war. There is no question we are in a war on terrorism. We are in a war for the very freedoms on which our country was built. Religious diversity in our country has been the beacon in the world for tolerance and respect of people with different views. That has been attacked. We are in a war, and when we are in a war, it means we must make sure our underlying strength is everything we can make it. Part of our underlying strength is a ready supply of energy. We must have a stable price for the energy we consume in our homes, in our cars, and in our factories to keep the jobs in our country. We should have done this 6 years ago. We should have done it 4 years ago. We should have done it 2 years ago. But if we do not do it now, we are remiss in our responsibility as leaders of this country. The President has called on Congress to send him an energy package. We are debating an energy package that has been passed by the House. It is a balanced package. It increases production of oil and gas in our country. It has renewable incentives so that we will have wind energy and research into ethanol, soy fuel, and other products we can renew. It encourages the building of more nuclear powerplants which is a clean and safe energy. We will have more clean-burning coal. There are so many opportunities for us to become self-sufficient, but until we have an energy policy, we will not be self-sufficient and we will be beholden to countries, such as Iraq, that are already cutting us off as I speak. We cannot allow any country, even a supposed friend, to have a veto over our economic stability which, in turn, is a veto over our national security. We cannot allow it, Mr. President. If we do, we are not the leaders of our country that we should be. I am calling on the Senate to pass an energy bill. Even if it is not a perfect bill, we need to pass an energy bill. I do not like the bill the Senate is considering. It has some big problems. We are trying to straighten out those problems, and we have made some headway. Some of the amendments that have been adopted have improved the bill. When the price of gas at the pump goes up 14 cents in the last 14 days, we cannot sit here and twiddle our thumbs. We cannot do it in good conscience. It is time for the Senate to get to work. There will be an amendment pending in the next 15 to 30 minutes. We need to complete that amendment and go to the next one. It is very important. Part of the bill will give tax incentives for the small drillers, the 15-barrel-a-day drillers, to stay in business so we will have stability if the price goes below $15 a barrel. These are small business people. They are not going to reopen a well if they do not have some floor to help them stay in business and avoid the cost of closing that well. That is the reason many of the wells, that were closed when prices were $11 a barrel, have not been reopened. If we can get all of the marginal wells pumping in this country, we will equal the amount we import from Saudi Arabia every day. If we drill in a very small part of ANWR, we can equal the amount we import from Iraq every day. That would be a significant step toward our stability. ANWR is an area the size of the State of South Carolina. Part of it has vegetation and is a wildlife preserve. The part we are talking about drilling is 2,000 acres, about the size of Dulles Airport. We are talking about the size of Dulles Airport and the State of South Carolina. I think sometimes when I hear the environmentalists debate this issue, they do not know about the new techniques for drilling. We do not drill all over an area anymore. We used to have an oil well about every 50 feet. We do not do that anymore because we have technology that allows us to go down lower and spread out to get the oil without damaging the surface at all. We are talking about a very small area that can be drilled, and it happens to be an area that does not have vegetation. Two- thirds of the year it is ice, and the road will not ever hit the dirt because it is an ice road. We will not harm the caribou. There was a study that came out from the Department of the Interior that indicated there would be harm to the caribou, but they were not talking about the bill we are going to address. The assumptions the Department made in the report are not in the bill that the House passed. It is a totally different issue. They assume we will be drilling in other parts of the refuge which we will not. We will be sensitive to the environment. We should also protect the national security of our country. We can do both. Do we want to protect jobs and security in America, or do we want to be beholden to foreign countries for our energy needs which could shut down factories, lay off workers, cause lines at the gas pumps, and cause economic hardship in this country? That is our choice, and the choice is before us today: Are we going to choose to be self-reliant, like the greatest country on Earth at war, or are we going to rely on imports from countries that have already said they are going to cut us off? It is a no-brainer, Mr. President. It is a no-brainer. We must look out for the interests of America. If we are going to be the beacon of freedom in the world, this is part of our ability to protect that freedom. We can do no less than pass an energy bill, go to conference, and work out with the White House the differences we have. Let us put the partisan differences aside and let us make sure America has a balanced energy policy. This includes conservation, renewable energy, electricity deregulation, more production in our own country of oil and gas, and lessening the liability for nuclear powerplants, so we will once again be able to build nuclear powerplants for clean energy. The United States is not going to walk backward on protection of the environment. We will never do that. We are going to protect the environment, and at the same time we are going to protect the national security of our country, if we do the right thing. I hope my colleagues, who have come back from 2 weeks at home, have seen the prices rise at the pump, have seen the moms in SUVs who are taking their children to school in carpools saying: My gosh, I cannot afford to fill up my tank and pay $150; I cannot do it. No one says: Well, do not have an SUV. If they have five or six children and they are car-pooling, they are saving a lot of money because they are doing something that would take two cars to do. They are also looking out for the safety of their children by having heavier vehicles. The time is now. We have the opportunity to pass an energy bill and put one more piece of our homeland security in place. It is our responsibility, and I hope the Senate will step up to the plate and do the right thing. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank Senator Leahy and Senator Reid for allowing me to speak. I did not know the time had expired. I very much want to make a statement on behalf of Priscilla Owen, the supreme court justice from Texas. I rise in support of Senator Lott's amendment calling on the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on the U.S. circuit courts of appeals nominees who have been in the committee since May 9 of last year. In fact, 7 of the President's 30 circuit court judges have been confirmed. We will have a judicial emergency across our Nation if the Senate continues to delay the confirmation of these fine men and women. I was concerned when I saw the Wall Street Journal report last Friday that some Members of the Senate may target the nomination of Justice Priscilla Owen to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In fact, the Committee on the Judiciary in the Senate should take swift action on her nomination, particularly in light of the fact that Judge Owen was among the group of original 11 judicial nominees announced by President Bush on May 9 of last year. Justice Owen's stellar academic achievements and professional experience are remarkable. She earned a cum laude bachelor of arts degree from Baylor University. She graduated cum laude from Baylor Law School in 1977. When she took the Texas bar exam, which is one of the hardest bar exams in the Nation, she came in first. She earned the very highest score on the Texas bar exam that year. Prior to her election to the Texas Supreme Court in 1994, she was a partner in the Texas law firm of Andrews & Kurth, where she practiced commercial litigation for 17 years. Justice Owen has delivered exemplary service on the Texas Supreme Court, as affirmed by receiving positive endorsements from every major newspaper in Texas during her successful reelection bid in 2000. Justice Owen enjoys bipartisan support, and the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has unanimously voted Justice Owen well qualified. Filling judicial vacancies is a critical duty of the Senate. I hope we will be able to move forward. I have asked the Judiciary Committee to let us confirm three of the four U.S. attorneys for the State of Texas. The State of Texas has four judicial districts. One of our U.S. attorneys has been confirmed, but three U.S. attorneys remain unconfirmed. So we have appointed leaders in those offices where we really need to have permanent leaders, at least a permanent leader during this term, who will be able to lead the office and organize it and make sure we are hiring and staffing the offices in these important districts. One of those has the largest caseload in the United States, the Southern District of Texas. We need to have the prosecutors on board. We need to make sure the U.S. attorney who is going to run the office is setting the priorities for those offices. We know that our border districts, both the Western and Southern Districts, are the busiest districts in America. I ask that our U.S. attorneys in three of the four Texas districts be confirmed immediately. I had hoped we would do it before the recess because these three people are waiting and ready to go. All three of them are in Government now. They are not in private practice that has to be tied up. They are assistant U.S. attorneys and one is a magistrate. They could make the moves swiftly and begin to lead these offices. I ask the Judiciary Committee, with all due respect, to please expedite these nominees for U.S. attorney, particularly with Justice Priscilla Owen, who is a personal friend of mine, who I know to be of the very highest caliber. Having been appointed May 9, 2001, and not yet having a hearing I think is a pretty difficult situation. She is so well regarded by everyone who has appeared before her in court or has practiced law with her. I ask that we have a fair hearing on Justice Owen and that we be able to go forward with our three U.S. attorneys and Justice Priscilla Owen on an expedited basis. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if I may have up to 5 minutes or 3 minutes, if that is more helpful.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for leading the effort to point out some of the flaws in this campaign finance reform bill. This has been a long process. Everyone knows how hard it is to get a bill into final form. Frankly, we are being asked to vote cloture on a bill that we have not debated since it came from the House. There are some flaws in this bill. I don't think it is unreasonable to request the ability to have some amendments to try to correct the flaws. Most people would like to see campaign finance reform. There are flaws in the current system. However, this bill does not fix all of them. It does some harm, in place of good. To have no amendment capable of changing it is a very bad process that will result in a bad bill. Last year I proposed several reforms that were in a bill I introduced. I am glad to see included in the current legislation a provision that limits the amount of loans a candidate can repay, loans made to his or her own race. But there are several provisions I introduced that are not included in the bill. First, I believe an inordinate amount of campaign contributions can come from outside a person's home State or district. You can say: Make that an issue. Just tell everyone the majority of a person's contributions are coming from outside the State. But what we are doing in this bill is exacerbating the problem. In the bill I introduced last year, I said that 60 percent of campaign contributions should come from a Member or candidate's home State or district, because I do not think a group from outside the State should be able to drown out the people of the State or district. The bill that is before us today is going to allow outside groups, whose contributors we do not know, to have unregulated access to the system and limit the capability of parties whose contributors are made public. We are going to have situations, especially in a small State, where the people of that State can be totally drowned out by interest groups in Washington, DC. I think we are creating a monster by not putting in a limitation on how much you can raise outside the State. I think that could severely hamper the people of the State, especially a small State, from having their views, expressed through their contributions, able to be heard and not be drowned out by outside groups from another State or district. So that was not good in the bill, and I think the provisions that are in the bill make it worse. One of the provisions that is in the bill that I am very worried about allows unregulated special interest groups to raise and spend unlimited amounts of soft money without any real reporting requirements. I really do not know who the contributors are to a private group that decides to become politically active, which they have the right to do. It is their freedom of speech. Anyone can buy time for a television ad or newspaper ad or send out a flier. You do not have to know who the contributors are. But we have elevated the status of groups such as that by curtailing the ability of our political parties, which have played a vital role in getting out the vote and informing people about the nominees of that political party. We are limiting the amount of soft money that can go to the political parties while outside groups are not limited at all. I think that is a blow to the political system, and I think it is really against what the bill's backers would want. In addition, I think the bill tramples the principle of freedom of speech by restricting broadcast advertising for 60 days before an election. This is the part of the bill that I think is unconstitutional. How many times have we heard that a large portion of the voting public really doesn't focus on the campaign until 2 weeks before the election? A poll taken 2 weeks before an election is not really valid, and any candidate will tell you that, because so much can happen in that last 2 weeks. That is when the majority of the public begins to collect the data they have been getting in the mail to start studying it. They start to listen to what is being said on television, which is where most people get their news. Now people are just beginning to tune in, the heat is on, and we are restricting the capability for that broadcast message. I think this is an area of free speech with which we cannot afford to tamper, to lessen the capability to be heard in this medium. I think this is what will be thrown out in the end. I have to say I do not like the idea of voting cloture on a bill that has just come back from the House, has been amended in the House, and to say the Senate really should not have the ability to amend the bill because if we do that, somehow it will delay it further and we may not ever get it to the President. That goes against everything we stand for in a representative democracy where we have two bodies. Specifically, we have two bodies so you can make sure you cover all the bases because when one body passes a bill, the other one may see something that is different or they may find a mistake. We have seen that happen many times. To say: do not tamper with this bill that the House just passed, pass it intact, is an incredible statement, especially when the sponsors of a bill say they are trying to open the political system. We are closing the Senate in an effort to open the political system? Somehow that does not pass the logic test. I am going to vote against cloture. I think it is premature. If the bill is closed to debate, if cloture is invoked, I will certainly vote against a bill that I think has tremendous flaws in its treatment of fundamental rights in our country. I would like to see some reforms in our system. I introduced a bill that I thought had legitimate reforms. The few parts of my legislation that are included I appreciate. I think there are good parts of this bill. But I cannot in good conscience vote for a bill that I think will hamper free speech and will tilt the balance of power away from accountable political parties in favor of unaccountable interest groups from Washington, DC, whose supporters I do not even know, I have no idea who they are, and I will not be able to get that information in any reasonable manner under the bill that is being tested today on the Senate floor if we invoke cloture and the bill is passed without any amendments.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I say to the Senator from Kentucky, I think that is the part that is going to go first under the constitutional challenge. We have been, for over 200 years in this country, protective of every media outlet, trying to assure that there is no outlet that will be closed--other than the person who yells ``Fire!'' in a crowded theater, who could do harm. But other than that, to pick one medium and say you are going to have severe restrictions and redtape and bureaucracy before anything can be heard on your medium, but the other medium would have no restrictions whatsoever, is beyond comprehension when you read the Bill of Rights. It is beyond comprehension. I can't imagine that our Founding Fathers would have envisioned we would even attempt something such as this. At least they had the foresight to put speech as our most important right and gave the Supreme Court the capability to check the Congress when they would violate such an important right.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for continuing to look at these bills in great detail. We have tried to offer amendments that might clear these constitutional challenges. I know the Senator from Kentucky has tried to do that without success. That is why we are here today. But our Founding Fathers, who probably never envisioned television, had the foresight to know that freedom of speech was inviolate under our Constitution. They gave us the clear language of the Bill of Rights, and they gave us a third branch of government--the Supreme Court--to protect us. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of Randy Crane, who is the next nominee for the Federal judiciary who will be voted on by the Senate this afternoon. I am proud to support Randy Crane's nomination to be a Federal judge for the Southern District of Texas. Texas' Southern District has the third highest number of filings of criminal cases in the country. It is tremendously overburdened. The nonpartisan Judicial Conference of the United States has designated the court as a ``judicial emergency.'' Randy Crane has an outstanding record of academic qualifications, legal experience, and public service to make him an excellent Federal judge. He has been unanimously approved by the American Bar Association. A graduate of the University of Texas at Austin, Randy Crane received his law degree with honors at the University of Texas School of Law at the age of 22. He is currently a partner with one of the outstanding law firms of Texas, Atlas & Hall, a law firm in McAllen, TX. He has been active in the State bar of Texas and a director of the Texas- Mexico Bar Association. Randy Crane is a native of south Texas, and he is of Mexican American heritage. Randy Crane has strong relationships within the local community. He is highly respected and has been very active in McAllen. Everyone I have talked to who lives in McAllen knows Randy Crane and thinks so highly of him. His community involvement includes working with the McAllen Independent School District helping children, trying to make sure they have a quality public education system in McAllen. He is active with the American Cancer Society, youth soccer, and Little League baseball. I urge my colleagues to support the nomination of Randy Crane to the Federal bench. This is a vacancy that needs to be filled quickly, and we have a quality candidate to fill that need. The President has made this nomination, and his nomination has received bipartisan support. So I look forward to a unanimous vote on behalf of Randy Crane, and getting help down to this Southern District that so desperately needs the attention because of its high caseload. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I am so pleased that finally we are going to address an energy policy for our country. It has been a long time coming. I thought, even since before I came to the Senate, we were not looking forward enough to address the future energy needs of our country. September 11, 2001, turned an energy policy from a possible economic, far-reaching element that we should put into our policy think-tanks to a national security issue. The fact is, if we do not have energy supplies within our own country, under the control of our own country, we are not going to be a country that is economically self-sufficient, strong, and stable. And we most certainly cannot prosecute this war on terrorism if we do not have a strong and stable economy. The fact is, today we import 60 percent of our oil for national consumption. If we had a sudden closing of Middle East oil to our country, it would have a profound impact on the stability of our economy. What we cannot take, as we are looking at a fragile recovery in our economy, is another hit. We have the chance to do what is right, to plan for the future, and to stabilize our self-sufficiency. What we need is a balanced energy policy. We need a policy that addresses conservation, that says to Americans: You can do certain things and cut back on your consumption, and that will save millions of barrels of oil that we would need to import or millions of feet of natural gas or electricity or whatever. The bottom line is that we can have incentives for conservation. We need to look at alternative sources of renewable energy. That is certainly something we are just beginning to scratch the surface on, to see what the capabilities are. Nuclear power is certainly a clean energy, and we know we can build safe nuclear powerplants. We have seen other countries that are practically totally dependent upon nuclear power, and it is a safe and environmentally sound way to produce energy. We stopped building nuclear powerplants, and, frankly, I think we need to look at ways we can safely build nuclear powerplants today. That would provide a huge source of energy in our country, and it would certainly be a way to become more independent. Last but not least, we need to have more exploration and drilling in our own country. We need to have an energy supply that we can provide at home. So if we had a balanced approach, we would be able to become much closer to energy self-sufficiency. That is the kind of bill we need. It is not the kind of bill that will be laid before us. The bill that will be laid before us does practically nothing for the production side and relies totally on the other two prongs-- conservation and renewable energy sources--and it is not a balanced approach. We must go full force on all fronts. There are two things that will be very valuable. One is in the bill, and that is to encourage production by small businesspeople with marginal well tax credits. They could actually cost nothing because the price of energy is so high right now. If the price falls below break- even, which is $15 to $18 a barrel, we need a floor for the small guys, the 15-barrel-a-day well businesses--and to put that into perspective, 15 barrels a day is barely break-even in the best of times. A normal, good well would produce 1,000 barrels or 10,000 barrels a day. We are talking about 15 barrels a day. A well like that, when the price goes to $11 per barrel, has to shut in. It cannot stay in business. It is too small. The margins are too low, and you have to have a break-even point, which is about $15 to $18 a barrel. So if you have a tax credit for that small driller of 15 barrels a day or less, if the price goes below $15 per barrel, you can keep those people in business; whereas, they would shut in the wells, as thousands did when the price of oil, 2 years ago, sank to $11 a barrel. In fact, those little bitty wells have a great capacity. There are 500,000 of those around the country. Many have not been reopened because of the fluctuation and the view that if prices went down, they would have to shut in again, and they don't want to go to the expense of reopening. If we had those 500,000 wells working and producing 10 to 15 barrels a day, that would equal 20 percent of America's needs--the amount we import from Saudi Arabia every day. Think of the stability for that small businessperson just with a tax credit, if the price falls below break-even, which costs the Treasury nothing but keeps small business jobs going and creates stability for our country for 20 percent of our oil needs. That provision has been introduced and it will be part of our debate. We need to keep that provision, and I don't think we will lose it. But it is a significant part of our energy bill that is very important that we pass, hopefully, within the next few weeks. The second part is opening up ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. There has been a lot said about the environmental concerns about drilling in ANWR, but I think people who make this argument do not understand the new technology for drilling. For example, the wildlife refuge is an area the size of South Carolina. It is, obviously, a vast area. The amount we would be limited to drilling in from the House bill that has come to the Senate, and which everybody agrees is reasonable, is approximately 2,000 acres of land. That is an area the size of Dulles Airport. So the area is the size of South Carolina, and the area of drilling is limited to an area the size of Dulles Airport. That is what we are talking about. It would have all of the environmental restrictions to make sure that land is preserved and not damaged in any way for the wildlife there. In fact, the part where you would really do most of the drilling is not an area that has trees or any kind of vegetation. It is frozen a good part of the year, and it is basically barren flat land. Other parts of the wildlife refuge do have beautiful trees and wildlife, and it would not be encroached on at all. So we are talking about, I think, a very environmentally safe operation--to go in and drill. If we don't, let's look at what happens to the environment. If we decide not to drill in ANWR, the drilling will be done in Russia, right across the channel from Alaska. Will Russia put the same environmental concerns in place that we have if we do it on American soil? I don't know, but I doubt that the Russian environmental requirements would be as much as we would put on it if it were in Alaska. If Russia does this, using the same resources under the ground that would be what we would drill from Alaska, then you will have foreign ships coming in and out right through the Alaska channel. Oil spills that could happen, if we were not in control of the requirements for those ships, could be very damaging. So I think, environmentally, it would be much safer to drill on our shores with our environmental requirements, with our requirements on the ship that would come in and take the oil out, than to have it done 15 miles away in Russia, where we would have no control. So I think the argument is better made to do it where we can control it, where we would have the standards that would make sure it does not encroach on any kind of wildlife or wilderness area. That is why Alaskans are for drilling in ANWR. That is why the State that would be most affected very much wants this to happen. I think it will be a huge help for our national defense if we go forward and drill in ANWR. Today, we import a million barrels a day from Iraq. Oddly enough, in September of 2001 we were importing a million barrels a day from Iraq. Do we really want to depend on the good will of Iraq for almost 20 percent of the needs of our country--for jobs, for companies that need energy to continue to operate, for the gasoline we buy at the pump? Do we really want to depend on Iraq for 20 percent of our needs? I do not think that is a prudent position. We can create the same amount of oil from our shores in an environmentally safe way as we import from Iraq every day. We are going to have to make some sacrifices in our country to become energy self-sufficient. It is part of our effort in the war on terrorism. It is part of what we should step up to the plate and do to make sure our country is secure; that we do not depend on the good will of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, or anyone else who produces oil that is exported to America. We are friends with Saudi Arabia. We are friends with Venezuela. But do we really want to be dependent on any country? Do we really want to be dependent on a country that has clearly exhibited hostilities to the United States as Iraq certainly has? I hope not. I hope the Senate will pass a bill that will have the goal of creating energy self-sufficiency in our country. Only then will we be truly able to control our own economy. Only then will we not have to go begging with a tin cup to other countries to ask them not to cut back on their supply to our country. This is not a nation that does well at begging with a tin cup. This is a nation that has taken the lead in the war on terrorism; that is standing behind our military and our President in the prosecution of this war; that is standing behind those men and women who are in harm's way today. To not go forward with an energy policy that protects those in the field and those at home and strengthens our freedom, our democracy, and our economy will be walking away from one of the most important responsibilities we have. I hope we will pass an energy policy that does all that needs to be done: That creates incentives for conservation; that asks Americans to conserve; that puts in place a program asking Americans to do certain things, not forcing them but asking them. I hope we will look at new sources of energy, such as nuclear power, wind energy, and solar energy--all the sources that are renewable--and producing in our own country, creating the jobs in our country rather than exporting them overseas, giving good living wages to people in our country to drill for our own natural resources. That is a balanced energy package. Anything less would be an abdication of the responsibility of the Senate. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today, as I have done every year I have been in the Senate, I want to especially commemorate the anniversary of Texas independence. Many know--many do not know--the history of Texas, but I am very proud of the heritage we have. Texas is the only State that came into the Nation as a nation. There was a treaty that was made between the United States and the Republic of Texas for Texas to come into the Union. The freedom the Texans got in 1836 was hard fought and it was a long time coming. They were a part of Mexico. The Mexican Government was becoming more oppressive, and they were taxing the people, they were not giving them religious freedom, and they finally passed a law that said no one could emigrate from the United States into the Texas territory of Mexico. So the people rebelled. They had to fight for their independence, and one of the most famous battles in the history of our country was the Battle of the Alamo. I commemorate Texas Independence Day, which is March 2, every year, by reading the letter from William Barret Travis, that has become very famous, as he was holding down the fort at the Alamo. This was at a time when the convention was meeting at Washington-on-the-Brazos to make the formal declaration of independence from Mexico for Texas. My great, great grandfather was one of the delegates to that convention. He represented Nacogdoches, just as Thomas Rusk did. Thomas Rusk was the first Senator to hold my seat. He and my great, great grandfather, Charles S. Taylor, were very good friends. They were partners, and they were certainly patriots in the fight for freedom for Texas. It is with that background I would like to read the letter from William Barret Travis, remembering there were 184 Texas rebels in the Alamo at the time. There was a huge army of Santa Ana's out there, and this was the second day of the siege of the Alamo, February 24, 1836. Fellow citizens and compatriots: I am besieged by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Ana. I have sustained a continual bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and have not lost a man. The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken. I have answered the demands with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly from the wall. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of liberty, of patriotism and of everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three to four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor and that of his country--Victory or Death. William Barret Travis, Lt. Col, Commander. It turns out there were 3,000 to 6,000 Mexican soldiers. They did take the Alamo, which did not have reenforcements. Gen. Sam Houston decided it would be a waste of manpower to send reinforcements because he thought the cause was lost. Those 184 men were able to hold off the Mexican Army for days, and that allowed Gen. Sam Houston to gather his forces. The Declaration of Independence was signed on March 2, 1836, and because he was able to marshall the forces after the Alamo and take a stand at San Jacinto, that is where the war was won and the Republic of Texas was formed. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to fellow Texan Carol Curtiss, who has recently made a truly remarkable and unprecedented achievement. She is a Merchant Mariner who is the first woman ever to earn both a Chief Engineer's license and an unlimited Master's license. The U.S. Coast Guard has determined that she is one of only three merchant mariners in the country to achieve both these distinctions. Those who complete and accomplish the rigorous training and sea time required for gaining such status, are forever known as Master Mariners. Carol entered the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point, NY in 1976, which was the School's third year accepting women. She was attracted to the Merchant Marine Academy because of her love of travel, a love developed as a child when her family lived overseas while her father served in the Air Force. Women normally pursued careers on the deck side. However, Carol strove to be in the engine room, and decided to defy convention and maximize her talents in the Academy's arduous dual license program. Most participants in the dual program focus on a single department, deck or engine, but Carol earned her degree on a variety of technologies. She graduated as a Third Engineer and Third Mate in 1980, with honors. Soon after, she became a member of the Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association and started a long and successful career sailing as both an engineer and mate, on a variety of vessel types. Last year, Carol earned her Master's license, enabling her to captain a ship of any size. This year, she gained entry to an even more elite group when she successfully earned her unlimited Chief Engineer's license. In addition, Carol and her husband are both volunteer firefighters. At sea, Carol is the on-scene commander during all emergency situations. She felt that if she was accountable for training seamen how to fight fires, it would be best to have firsthand experience, not just training. Carol has ascended to the pinnacle of her profession after two decades of seafaring, a rare achievement reserved for an exceptional person and first-class marine officer. I congratulate Carol for earning such a high and honorable status in her career and service.