Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to honor General Michael E. Ryan, the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force. General Ryan is a great American and, more important, and I'm sure no surprise to my colleagues, he is a fellow Texan. General Ryan has long been a tribute to Texas, the Nation, and especially to the Air Force. General Ryan graduated from the Air Force Academy in 1965, and during his 36 years of service he commanded at the squadron, wing, numbered air force and major command levels, and accumulated more than 4,100 flying hours in seven different aircraft with 153 combat missions. He flew combat in Southeast Asia, including 100 missions over North Vietnam, and he served in key staff assignments at the major command level, at Headquarters U.S. Air Force and the Joint Staff. As commander of 16th Air Force and Allied Air Forces Southern Europe in Italy, he directed the NATO air combat operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina. We owe him a huge debt of thanks for just this duty alone as his leadership directly contributed to the Dayton Peace Accords. General Ryan is, fortunately, not an unsung hero as he has received many decorations and medals including: the Defense Distinguished Service Medal with oak leaf cluster, the Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit with two oak leaf clusters, the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Meritorious Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters, the Air Medal with 11 oak leaf clusters, the Air Force Commendation Medal with two oak leaf clusters and the Vietnam Service Medal with three service stars. After serving as the commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe and commander, Allied Air Forces Central Europe, General Ryan ``took the stick'' of the Air Force as its 16th Chief of Staff. During his tenure, he has exemplified the quiet dignity and honor of that office through his leadership, integrity and foresight. A true leader who understood that his role was to set the course for our 21st Century Air Force and then clear the path to allow his commanders to truly lead their units, General Ryan personifies once said: ``I don't think leadership should be personalized. Good ideas are best when they don't have a single identity. Leadership is a team effort.'' This is a lesson those of us here in Congress would be wise to learn! Meanwhile, General Ryan's accomplishments are critical and easily quantifiable. He and his leadership team successfully arrested the Air Force's readiness decline of the last decade, and built stability into the expeditionary operations our nation demands by reorganizing the service. At the same time though, General Ryan ensured that despite the Air Force being an all-volunteer force competing in a strong job market, its retention and recruiting efforts never sacrificed quality for quantity. He also led the effort to provide lifetime health care to our men and women who willingly put their lives at risk, as well as a retirement system that properly compensates their service to country. In a period of leadership challenges and chaos, General Ryan led our Air Force, balancing reductions in forces with dramatically increased operational tasking. Without question, the U.S. Air Force is the world's premier force and our country owes a debt of gratitude to Mike Ryan. At the same time, we owe a debt of gratitude to the person General Ryan owes much of his success--his wife, Jane Ryan. With dignity and grace she selflessly gave her time and attention to the men and women of the Air Force family. Her sacrifice and devotion have served as an example and inspiration for others. The Air Force will lose not one, but two very exceptional people. In fact, General Ryan's departure from active duty will signal an historic occurrence for the first time in 63 years, there will no longer be a Ryan in the ranks of the United States Air Force. While General Ryan distinguished himself as an airmen, leader, and trusted advisor to both the President and the U.S. Congress, his father, General John Ryan, also served as the senior uniformed Air Force officer. The Air Force is a better institution today than it was four years ago. General Ryan's distinguished and faithful service provided a significant and lasting contribution to our Air Force and to our Nation's security. He has served our Nation with honor and distinction. I know the Members of the Senate will join me in paying tribute to this outstanding American patriot upon his retirement from the Air Force. We thank him and wish him and his family much health, happiness and Godspeed.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator and would like to reassert that I do not disagree with what you said about the real concerns with cost overruns that, it unchecked, will limit the space station's ability to perform as intended. I want to work with you to make sure that we do not cut off capabilities of the space station, and thereby never see the scientific contributions for which we have already made a significant investment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the Senator from Maryland and chairwoman of the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee concerning the International Space Station and NASA's funding. We are both concerned about the recently projected cost growth for the International Space Station. I support a space station that is fully functioning, and in order to achieve that goal, NASA must work within the budget that Congress has given it. At the same time, I understand the difficulty in estimating the costs of such an amazing engineering feat. We are now within a year of the station being ``core complete,'' and I believe Congress must adequately fund the station so that we can begin to see the benefits of its unique scientific research. NASA's projected 5-year cost growth of over $4 billion includes many program liens that reflect 2 years of actual operational experience for the station. That on-orbit experience has eliminated many unknowns and has significantly enhanced NASA's awareness of what it takes to operate the space station. Unfortunately, the greater awareness has come a price tag that threatens reaching the full capability of the space station as originally planned in terms of research, a permanent crew of six, and a crew rescue vehicle. I understand NASA is dealing with the budgetary challenges and has proposed a ``core complete'' plan for the station to stay within budget constraints. Importantly, NASA and OMB have put into place an independent external review board to assess the space station's budget and to assure the station will provide maximum benefit to the U.S. taxpayer. This external review board will evaluate the costs and benefits for enhancing research, a habitation module for a crew of six and a crew rescue vehicle. Does the Senator agree it is important in conference that we not preclude the full review of these potential enhancements by the independent external review board, and not preclude the ability of NASA to undertake these enhancements, in order to ensure the originally planned capability for the space station?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Maryland and chairman of the VA-HUD- Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee. As the Senator knows, several years ago, NASA established the National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI) to enlist the broad scientific community in the effort to develop solutions to the health-related problems and physical and psychological challenges men and women will face on long- duration space flights. These 2 to 3 year missions will one day allow astronauts to travel to other planets and explore our solar system. The Institute also investigates ways to deliver medical care on these missions through new technologies and remote treatment advances. While addressing these space issues, the NSBRI plans to rapidly transfer discoveries that will also benefit human health on Earth. As the distinguished Senator knows, the NSBRI is headquartered in Houston, TX at the Baylor College of Medicine. Eleven other prestigious research organizations make up the 12-member consortium of NSBRI Institutions, including the renowned Johns Hopkins University in Maryland. If we are to meet our established goals for human space flight and the continued exploration of the final frontier, we must better understand the physiological and psychological effects of space travel on the brave men and women who we launch into space. The NSBRI is the primary institution charged with this task. I know that the Senator from Maryland shares my concern that NSBRI receive adequate funding. I have been informed that in order to fully fund current NSBRI research projects, an increase above the president's Fiscal Year 2002 budget is required. I ask the Senator from Maryland to work with me in ensuring that NSBRI is provided with an increase in funding for NSBRI within the available amounts appropriated in the bill.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Not at this time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I will also read from the Austin American Statesman of July 31, 2001; the headline, ``No Matter Their Origin, Trucks Must Be Safe.'' For Central Texans, the fight over Mexican trucks on America's roads and highways is more than just an inside-the- beltway partisan political battle. Austin is ground zero for trucks coming across the border and up Interstate 35. I-35 from San Antonio to Dallas is already one of the most dangerous stretches of interstate in the Nation. Adding thousands of unsafe trucks to the mix increases the threat to accidents, injuries and fatalities. What is spirited debate and hardball politics in Washington is deadly reality in Austin. In fact, both sides may be right. A NAFTA panel said as much earlier this year when it found the United States in violation of the treaty for restricting Mexican trucks but then added, the safety of trucks crossing the border is a legitimate issue and an important responsibility of the Federal Government. That is the tribunal that was unanimously speaking with two Mexican members, two United States members, and a British chairman. It goes on to say: Congress should not abrogate NAFTA for purely political purposes and force Mexican trucks to meet stiffer standards than the American-Canadian fleets. If the Mexican trucks do not meet the standards, however, pull them off the road. It should, as President Bush suggests, step up inspections and increase enforcement of the safety standards already in place. That is exactly what the bill before us today does. It beefs up inspections. This is common sense. Of course we must beef up inspections. The Murray language does that. Of course we must pay for it. The Murray language makes it a priority. After the House passed the amendment that would shut down the inspections at the border and take the money away, I went to Senator Murray and said, this is not responsible governing. She agreed, and she has worked with a lot of different interests to try to forge what is right. Maybe it is not perfect. I do not agree with every single part of it. I think Senator Gramm and Senator McCain have made a few good points, but I do not think holding up the bill and keeping progress from going forward is the right approach. They certainly have the right to do that, as any Member of the Senate does, but I do not think we are going to get to the goal they want by holding up the bill. We have a workable bill before us. We can make some changes, and I think Senator Murray will work with us to make those changes. The Department of Inspection and President Bush have made very solid suggestions on what we need to uphold NAFTA and to uphold the integrity of safety on the U.S. highway system. I hope the games will end. I hope we can go forward with a very good start on this problem so we will be able to immediately begin the process of putting those border inspection stations in place, because without the inspections, none of this is going to make sense. I assure my colleagues, we will not have safety if we do not have the capacity to inspect, and that is the most important goal we should all have. I agree with the Austin American Statesman and the El Paso Times. These are two cities. Austin is our State capital. El Paso is the largest Texas border city with Mexico. The largest Mexican city on the entire border is Juarez. We know safety is important for every person who is on our highways: Americans, Hispanic Americans, Black Americans, Asian Americans, and foreign people traveling on our highways. We have a reputation for safety. We must uphold that reputation for the sake of our families and our children. I do not want unsafe American trucks. I do not want unsafe American cars. That is why we have inspection requirements because people traveling on our highways feel safe, and we must assure they stay that way. We are close to a compromise. I do not really think we are talking substance anymore. We are talking process. We have a solution the Department of Transportation, the President of the United States, and every Member of the Senate is going to agree is the right solution. The real donnybrook is whether we put it on the bill now or we hammer it out in conference with all sides at the table. We can do it in conference with all sides at the table. Reasonable minds can disagree on this. I certainly think every Senator has the right to hold up progress, but inevitably we are going to sit down at the table in conference and work this out. I hope that does not mean September because we will have lost a month of setting up those inspection stations and starting the process of getting our house in order to have inspections of every truck coming into our country, from Canada or Mexico. If we wait until September, because of the process initiatives that have been going on for over a week on this bill, we are not serving the best interests of our constituents and the people who depend on us to make the right decisions. I hope we will listen to the tribunal that spoke out and said we have the sovereign ability to keep our roads safe. We can come to an agreement that will do that and comply with our responsibilities under trade agreements as well. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I think it is very important that we go back and look at what has happened on the issue of Mexican trucks, NAFTA, and the safety of American highways. When NAFTA was passed, it was explicit in permitting the Federal Government and individual States to establish and enforce their own requirements for truck safety. It also said that there should be a single standard in every jurisdiction. So the standard should apply to trucks from the United States, Mexico, and Canada. However, what I think has been missed in this debate is the ruling of the international tribunal in February which, it has been pointed out, did find the United States in violation because we actually had halted the truck safety rules in 1995 in this country, and so the United States had failed to meet the deadline. But the other part of this Mexican tribunal ruling was that the United States does not have to treat applications from Mexican-based carriers in exactly the same manner as United States or Canadian firms. In fact, there are some differences in the treatment of Canadian firms because of different operating authorities in that sovereign country. The panel also said that the United States is not required to grant operating authority to any specific number of Mexican applicants. I went back and looked at the makeup of the NAFTA tribunal because I thought it would be important to know. The tribunal was two Mexican citizens, two United States citizens, and the chairman was from Britain. The vote was unanimous because it was noted that there could be different rules for certain countries because of the significant differences in the country's safety regimes. So this was not a 3-2 vote, where the Mexican nationals voted differently from the United States and British nationals. It was a unanimous vote that acknowledged there would be differences that could be addressed. The Bush administration, to its credit, is playing catchup because we have had 5 years of delays from the previous administration. Their proposed rule that came out of the Department of Transportation was a start, but it was not adequate to provide clear United States safety under any kind of term that would be considered acceptable. The original Department of Transportation rule would require that, for the first 18 months of operation, Mexican carriers would be required to comply with documentary production, insurance requirements, and undefined safety inspections. The rule was vague and insufficient. That is why I sat down with officials from the Department of Transportation and I said: These rules are inadequate. We cannot allow trucks to come into our country that haven't either been certified or inspected, and the certification would only come from inspection. That would not be prudent. It would not be responsible. The Department of Transportation authority agreed. We have been working all along--Senator Murray, Senator Shelby, Senator Gramm, and Senator McCain, along with myself--with the Department of Transportation to beef up those rules. I think it is fair to say that the Murray-Shelby language has part of the requirement for beefing up those rules, and Senators McCain and Gramm have suggested, in the form of drafts, other requirements. In fact, I have offered other requirements that are not in either bill, which I think are very important. Yes, I think we can change some of the parts in this underlying bill. I think the discussion that has been going on for almost 2 weeks on this floor is really a process discussion, not a substantive one. I say that because I think we are very close to agreeing to the parts of the underlying bill that should remain, the parts that should change; and I think all of us are in agreement that the House version is unacceptable because the House version does what has caused us to get in trouble under the NAFTA agreement, and that is shut down the regulations and act as if we are just not going to comply. That is not responsible. The House position is not tenable. On the other hand, I think we are very close to significant changes in the original Department of Transportation regulation because they were totally inadequate and they now have stepped up to the plate and agreed, working with Senator Murray, myself, and with Senators Gramm and McCain, to come up with good safety regulations. The bottom line for all of us is that we must have inspections of every truck. When we talk about whether we go into Mexico to the site of the trucking company to make the inspection, I think we should do that if we have the permission to do it. And it will be in the interest of the trucking company in Mexico to allow the inspectors in, because if you get the certification stamp on your truck as a result of being inspected onsite, then your truck will not be stopped at the border. It will have been inspected and certified, and you will be able to operate it under the same rules as a U.S. truck operates. And if the Mexicans agree that it is in their best interest--and I think they will--then that is going to alleviate a lot of problems, and it is going to ensure the inspections that will ensure the safety. Secondly, the Murray language in the underlying bill does something very important to implement this regulation, which the House failed to do, and that is, it has the $103 million that has been requested by the President to finance the infrastructure to hire and train the inspectors at the border and to provide aid to States to inspect trucks along the United States-Mexico border. Now, I cannot imagine anything worse than saying we are going to have all these regulations, but we are not going to have any inspectors. One of the reasons so many of my border constituents are concerned about the Mexican truck issue is because we have had Mexican trucks within a 20-mile limit through the border, and they have not all been inspected; they have not all met the requirements that would make people on our highways feel safe. In fact, I will quote from the AAA Texas Chapter press release in which it says: The U.S. Department of Transportation reports that more than 35 percent of trucks from Mexico, under this 20-mile rule, were taken out of service for safety violations in 2000. That compares to 24 percent for U.S. trucks and 17 percent for trucks from Canada. It is very important we look at the people who are living with this problem the most right now. We have had a lot of editorials read into the Record, and I will read two editorials from Texas newspapers, one from the El Paso Times. The heading is: ``It Is About Safety. No ifs, ands or trucks--unless they pass the test.'' Just as the U.S. Senate was voting in favor of tough safety standards for Mexican trucks crossing into the United States, a new truck-inspection site sprang up at Delta Drive and Hammond Street, near the Bridge of the Americas. It was a welcome surprise, given the extreme level of concern about the safety of Mexican trucks coming into the country and driving through El Paso. The new inspection station near the Americas Bridge should furnish a clearer picture of how bad the safety problems with Mexican trucks are or are not. Between January and June, inspectors at international bridges placed 132 American trucks out of service, and 944 Mexican trucks. This indicates a severe problem exists. So it is very important. I ask unanimous consent the editorial from the El Paso Times be made a part of the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I understand that Senator Domenici has just introduced legislation providing grant funding for communities to improve their water systems and adhere to the new arsenic regulations. This program will be very important for communities across America and also in my home State of Texas. I ask unanimous consent to be added as an original cosponsor of S. 1299.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise tonight to speak in support of the international space station in this VA-HUD appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues to pause and reflect on America's great accomplishments in space and the great successes that lie ahead with the space station. The House of Representatives has fully funded the President's request and has taken important steps to fund the space station's future needs such as a crew rescue vehicle and a six-person crew habitation module. The Senate bill cuts the space station by $150 million. I hope to work with my colleagues, Senators Mikulski and Bond, to restore some of this into the program. It should be restored with strict controls and standards to assure the station will be safe and productive and on budget. I am concerned, as I know many others are, about the recently projected cost growth for the international space station. I do want it to be fully functioning. In order to achieve that goal, NASA must work within the budget that Congress has given it. At the same time, I understand the difficulty in estimating the cost of such an amazing engineering feat. We are now within a year of the station being ``core complete,'' and I believe Congress must adequately fund the station so we can begin to see the benefits of its unique scientific research. NASA's projected 5-year cost growth of over $4 billion includes many program liens that reflect 2 years of actual operational experience for the station. That on-orbit experience has eliminated many unknowns and has significantly enhanced NASA's awareness of what it takes to operate a space station. Unfortunately, the greater awareness has come with a pricetag that threatens reaching the full capability of the space station as originally planned in terms of research, a permanent crew of six, and a crew rescue vehicle. I believe NASA is dealing with the budgetary challenges and has proposed a ``core complete'' plan for the station to stay within budget constraints. Importantly, NASA and OMB have put into place an independent external review board to assess the space station's budget and to assure the station will provide maximum benefit to the U.S. taxpayer. This external review board will evaluate the cost and benefits for enhancing research, a habitation module for a crew of six, and a crew rescue vehicle. It will be my goal in conference that we not preclude the full review of these potential enhancements by the independent external review board and not obstruct the ability of NASA to undertake these enhancements in order to ensure the originally planned capability for the space station. I want to work with Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond to make sure we do not cut off capabilities of the space station and thereby never see the scientific contributions for which we have already made a significant investment. The international space station is the greatest peaceful scientific project ever undertaken. Since 1993, the United States has worked with our international allies, including Russia, forging relationships of mutual respect, on the space station. The efforts and resources of 16 nations are involved in the construction and operation of the orbiting lab. Assembly of the space station is nearing ``core complete'' and within a year we expect new and exciting scientific experiments to begin. Its successes will be felt by all of us here on Earth. A project of this magnitude is certain to face a multitude of unknowns, and NASA has confronted many of them. As always in its courageous history, NASA has and will continue to overcome these obstacles and we will reap the rewards. Simply, the space station will maintain U.S. global leadership in space science and technology. The unparalleled scientific research opportunities aboard the space station will enable advances in medicine and engineering. Most important are the health benefits that we have in the microgravity conditions in the space station. You cannot--no matter what technology you have--reproduce on Earth the gravity conditions that are in space. We know those microgravity conditions will allow us to watch the development of breast cancer cells and osteoporosis in a weightless environment. Perhaps this will help us find the cure for breast cancer, or we will learn how to combat osteoporosis. The absence of gravity in the space station will allow new insights into human health and disease prevention and treatment, including heart, lung, and kidney function, cardiovascular disease, and immune system functions. The cool suit for Apollo missions now helps improve the quality of life of patients with multiple sclerosis. In recent years, NASA has obtained scientific data from space experiments that is five times more accurate than that on Earth. None of these benefits will be available in the future unless we have a space station on which we can perform adequate research. Some will say that similar research can be conducted on the space shuttle. Although I believe valuable research should continue to be performed on the shuttle, the fact is, a longer period of time that can only occur on the space station is absolutely necessary for many important experiments. During his last year in the Senate, Senator John Glenn spoke passionately in defense of the space station. He quoted a friend of mine, Dr. Michael DeBakey, chancellor and chairman of the surgery department at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, TX, who said: The Space Station is not a luxury any more than a medical research center at Baylor College of Medicine is a luxury. Present technology on the Shuttle allows for stays of space of only about 2 weeks. We do not limit medical researchers to only a few hours in the laboratory and expect cures for cancer. We need much longer missions in space--in months to years--to obtain research results that may lead to the development of new knowledge and breakthroughs. So you take all these scientific wonders and ask: How does it make my life better? It does make our lives better. It makes our health better. It gives patients who have multiple sclerosis, osteoporosis, or cancer a better chance for a quality of life. I reject the idea that we would walk away from the space station and from the possibilities for the future for better health and better quality of life. The international space station, along with the space shuttle program, is our future in one of the last unexplored regions of our universe. It will discover untold knowledge and could catapult us into a greater understanding of our world and, yet, undiscovered worlds. The space station will provide us with fantastic science, but that is only one of the known successes. The unknown successes are limitless. Madam President, if we do not continue funding of the international space station at the anticipated cost levels, valuable experiments and progress will be abandoned. The project is long underway and, for the sake of future generations, we should not leave it unfinished. I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member of this subcommittee to make sure we do fully fund the space station, but with strict requirements for budgetary control and making sure we do everything to keep our costs in line. But let's not walk away from this important research for our future. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have been listening to the debate today and yesterday. I think we have gone beyond the realm of reasonableness. This is a debate about safety on American highways. We are voting on technical amendments that mean nothing. We are not moving the debate forward. A lot of people are being inconvenienced by votes that don't mean anything. We could all be here voting on substantive amendments until midnight. That is what we are here to do. But to just have technical amendments in order to wait it out and see how many people will leave is wrong. I am very interested in safety on American highways. I think we can do it within the terms of NAFTA. We are smart enough to figure that out. The question is not whether we have safety on American highways or we violate NAFTA. It is when we make the agreement. Make no mistake about it, that is the debate. I ask all of my colleagues to sit down and let's come to a reasonable agreement on when we are going to address the merits of this issue. No one who has an IQ of 25 believes that changing the effective date on this bill every 30 minutes or tabling a motion to change the effective date is moving the ball on the substance one bit further. Mr. President, I think it is time for us to act as a Senate; that all of the parties who have quite reasonable substantive arguments to make, who are very close to an agreement, sit down and determine when that agreement will be made so that we can come to a reasonable and responsible conclusion. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield myself time under my time allotment. Mr. President, I have been watching the debate intermittently this afternoon on the issue of trucks under the NAFTA agreement. I am really amazed that we are having this debate because I don't think there should be a question at all that we are going to make the safety of our highways the highest priority. I don't think anything in NAFTA says you can't. NAFTA does say that we will agree there is parity among Canada, the United States, and Mexico. There are ways to implement the differences in safety rules through negotiations. But the idea that we would give up the right to control the safety of our highways is a nonstarter. I think we are very close in agreement on what those safety requirements should be. I think the administration and the Department of Transportation have been sitting at the table with many of us who are debating this issue. I think we are very close in substance with Senator Gramm, Senator McCain, Senator Murray, and Senator Shelby. Everyone has been involved in the process. I think we all agree that we have the ability for safe highways, to assure that we have safety on our highways, and that we are going to be evenhanded. I really think what we are talking about is process. We are really talking about when we come to that determination. Many of us are concerned that if we don't talk about exactly what is going to be the end result, maybe it is not going to come out that way. But I think we have the ability to talk across the aisle. I am certainly supportive of the stricter definitions that are in the bill. It is certainly better than what the House passed, which abrogates the responsibility under NAFTA. I do not think we are very far apart. For all the heat that is being generated, I think we are very close to the language in the Murray amendment with the language the Department of Transportation is seeking. I think we are very close to coming to a conclusion. I hope we can agree in due time on that final language, or at least a process to get there. I think we are talking process, even though it seems there is a lot of heat being generated on the issue. I am going to call up an amendment at the appropriate time, No. 1133, that will assure we have the ability to weigh trucks at a crossing where at least 250 trucks a year go across, where there will be commercial scales available to weigh trucks. One of the differences between Mexico and the United States is weight limits. There is also a difference between Canada and the United States on this issue. This is an important issue because, of course, our highways are maintained based on our weight limits. The heavier a truck is, the more wear and tear there is on our highways. So we do need to make sure that we have a system, once we agree on what the weight limits are going to be, to check those weights and assure that everyone is meeting the requirements. So I am hoping my amendment No. 1133 will be adopted in due course. Senator Domenici is a cosponsor of my amendment. We are two Senators from border States who understand very much the wear and tear on highways. I would also say that the bill that is before us, thanks to Senator Murray and Senator Shelby, has enough money to equip these stations. Another action that the House took was to wipe out the money that would allow us to inspect these trucks. The House just went into a hole and hid. We cannot do that. The bill before us that has been laid out by the appropriations subcommittee does have good regulations. There should be some changes in the language, but I think we are close to coming to that agreement. And it does have the money for the inspection stations. I want to make sure that included in that agreement also are weigh stations, if there are going to be any number of trucks that go through at any one time. We have lived with the 20-mile commercial zone in Texas, which has the most border crossings. Texas has 1,200 miles of border of the 2,000-mile border with Mexico. So we do have the most crossings, of course. We have the most highways. We have had a 20-mile commercial zone that was established by NAFTA in the interim period while we were working on these regulations. There have been some problems within these commercial zones. Many people who live on the border are very concerned about seeing trucks that do not have the clear safety standards that American trucks are required to have. Only 2 of the 27 U.S.-Mexico border crossings are currently properly equipped with infrastructure and manpower to enforce the safety regulations. That is why I have worked so hard with Senator Murray and Senator Shelby on the committee to restore the President's request for border safety activities. This bill does have $103 million dedicated to border safety activities. So most certainly, I think we are on the right track to making sure that families who are traveling on American highways are not going to have to worry about substandard trucks from any other country being on that highway. We agree that we should have agreements with Mexico and that Mexico should be comfortable in that they are not being discriminated against. That is not even a question, although it has certainly been a question in the Senate debate. I hear from my border constituents. I talk to people in El Paso and Laredo and McAllen and Harlingen. They are the most concerned of all about the trucks they are seeing in this 20-mile commercial zone, where we have Mexican trucks that are legal as NAFTA provided in this early transition time. It is those people who are complaining the most about Mexican trucks that might not meet the same safety standards. We have had a lot of debate. It is legitimate debate. But I do not think anyone in this Senate Chamber intends to violate NAFTA. I do not think anyone in this Senate Chamber intends for us to have unsafe trucks on American highways. So if we can all agree on those two points, I think it is time for us to come to an agreement on the process. Let's have strict safety requirements; let's have a process by which we can inspect Mexican trucks, where Mexican authorities can inspect U.S. trucks that want to go into Mexico, and where we can have a certification process that requires that every truck must be inspected; but if it is inspected at a site before it crosses the border, and it gets a sticker, then we will agree that that truck can go through. But we also must have the facilities for those trucks that are not inspected and will not have that certification sticker. We have to make sure that we provide the money for those inspection stations. This bill has the money. I want to make sure that weighing stations are as much a part of those border safety inspection facilities as are the checks that we would make for brakes, for fatigue, for driver qualifications, for good tires, and all of the other things that we would expect if we had our families in a car going on a freeway. We would hope that we would be safe from encroachment by a truck that did not meet the standards that we have come to expect in our country. So I hope very much that we can come to a reasonable and expedited conclusion. I think we are all going for the same goal. I think there is no place in this debate for pointing fingers or name-calling. We do not need that. We need good standards, good regulations for the safety of our trucks, and to treat Mexican trucks and United States trucks in a mutually fair way. That is what we are trying to do. I want to work with all of the parties involved. I think we have a good start in this bill, and I think we will be able to perfect this language in conference. I think everyone has shown the willingness to do that. I hope we can roll up our sleeves and pass what I think is a very good Transportation Appropriations Committee product. I think it is a good bill. It certainly adequately funds the major things that we need to do. With some changes in the Mexican truck language, which the sponsors of the legislation are willing to do, I think we can have a bill that the President will be proud to sign. That is my goal. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Missouri for talking about his trip with the Vice President, and once again emphasizing a promise made is a promise kept. I thank the Senator from Missouri. I yield up to 5 minutes to the Senator from Idaho.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today to talk about the tax rebate checks that started going in the mail this very week. In fact, I have already talked to someone who has received a tax rebate. It made me feel so good to know that something we have worked so long to do and so hard to do is now beginning to reach the American people. I think it is a very timely opportunity for the American people to have a little extra money in their pocketbooks, to be able to do some of the things that maybe they weren't going to be able to do, and also, hopefully, to help spur this economy that is certainly in a stagnant phase. We are very excited that July 23 is the week that the first set of checks go out. They will be going out between now and the end of September. And everyone who paid taxes last year will receive a rebate. If you paid taxes and you are a single person, you will receive $300. If you paid $300, you will receive $300 back. If you are a single person who is the head of a household--a single mom or dad--you will receive $500 in the mail. If you are a married couple, you will receive $600 in the mail if you paid taxes and if you filed your taxes for 2000. Starting July 23, those checks will be in the mail during the course of the next 2 months. Now, we are very hopeful that people will be able to take this money and do something that they might not have been able to do otherwise. It might be just helping buy the children back-to-school supplies or clothes or shoes; it might be a little added something for a vacation-- if you are getting your check in time for vacation, or maybe you are planning on doing it. It could be investing for your pension. It could be that little added bonus of $300 or $600 that you would put into retirement. Whatever a person does with their money will help the economy because it will be an investment--an investment in something for use today or an investment in something for use over the next few years. All of that will be helpful. We are looking at layoffs being advertised in the newspaper now, so people are needing that little extra boost in many ways. I think it is just a great opportunity to say that we do have a surplus in our Government. We are doing the job that we were elected to do in a responsible way by covering the expenses that we know we must cover--expenses such as a strong national defense, expenses for Medicare and Social Security, expenses for the welfare needs for our country. A lot of money is going into education. We are increasing education spending by 14 percent. But there is still money left over because we have been careful with our taxpayer dollars, and we thought that the people should share in that surplus. They created that surplus and they should share in it. They pay for it. The taxpayers of our country fund the Government, and when we are efficient, we think the taxpayers who pay the bills should get the return. We are very proud of the fact that the checks are starting to come in the mail today and people will start seeing they have money coming. I am proud all of us in Congress have come together to do this, and I am very pleased this rebate is just the beginning. In fact, we are going to see rate cuts. Many people who have taxes withheld will see their withholding has gone down 1 percent. So less is being taken out of their paycheck. They will be paying fewer taxes next year and every year for the next 10 years. Over the next 10 years, we will gradually decrease the marriage tax penalty. This is a tax that hits married couples where there are two working spouses and they pay more in taxes because of a quirk in the Tax Code, and we are eliminating that quirk or at least we are whittling it away. We have not totally eliminated it, but hopefully we will get to do that someday as well. We are lowering the marriage tax penalty. We are going to eliminate the death tax, a tax that I think is the wrong approach. If one is seeking the American dream, we want them to keep the money they earn and we want them to be able to pass it to their children if they choose to do that. We certainly do not think Uncle Sam should tax a person's death, and we especially do not want people to have to sell assets-- small business assets or property--in order to pay the death tax. There is more coming. The downpayment is in the mail today, and we are very proud to be able to talk about it. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor to the Senator from Missouri.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Idaho. I appreciate all the work he has done to make this tax relief package a reality. He has been working on it for a long time. He is one of our leaders and we appreciate his keeping the promises he made to the people of Idaho in helping every American have a little more money in the next 2 months to spend on the needs that he described, such as the mom of four children going to Wal-Mart to buy the clothes for her children to start school. Now, Madam President, I yield up to 5 minutes to Senator Thomas from Wyoming.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for working on this ever since he has been in the Senate, for being committed to tax relief for every hard-working American, and for being one of our leaders, speaking out on this issue and talking about how important it is that we not only give tax relief right now, but also hopefully will have another tax relief package in the near future. We want to have all the surplus used wisely. That means part of it should go back to the taxpayers who have worked so hard to earn it. I am pleased to yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I commend Senator Murray and Senator Shelby for drafting an amendment that is attempting to address the issue of safe trucks on American highways. This is an issue that has caused a lot of disagreement. I know it is a very controversial issue. I want to speak about it because my State is most certainly affected. But I think every State is affected by whether we have safe trucks on our highways. We do not yet have an agreement on this issue that everyone can live with, but I think we are a lot closer than anyone thinks. I ask Senators Murray, Shelby, McCain, Gramm, and the administration to work together to try to make sure we come out with regulations that will assure that we have the facilities and manpower to inspect every truck coming into our country, whether it is from Mexico or from Canada. Second, we must make sure we have foreign-owned trucks and drivers meet U.S. safety standards, while ensuring fair treatment for our trading partners. That is our responsibility and our commitment under NAFTA. Third, I think it is very important that we commit to providing the financial resources for the inspection stations and other border infrastructure. The administration asked for about $88 million for this purpose. The Murray-Shelby committee report that is on the floor has more than $100 million to make sure we have the border inspection stations, without which we couldn't possibly comply with NAFTA. If we have good regulations and the money to conduct the inspections, I think we can come up with language that will be acceptable to everyone and keep our commitment under NAFTA. I voted for NAFTA. I support free trade. But there are provisions in the underlying bill that I think could keep the United States from keeping its commitment under NAFTA. I also believe the Department of Transportation regulations are not quite strong enough to assure that we will have inspections of every truck. I don't think we have been able to fix this yet. I hope we will be able to work together on language that will assure that we will have real inspections, that will ensure safety on our highways, and comply with our commitments under NAFTA. I don't think we are there yet, but I think we are working on it. I ask everyone to come to the table. Senator Stevens has been a leader on this issue. Senator McCain, chairman of the Commerce Committee, certainly is a leader on this issue. Senator Shelby and Senator Murray as the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee are leaders on this issue. I am a member of the Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee as well as the Commerce Committee. But mostly I am a person who is going to be on highways where there is going to be a lot of NAFTA traffic. When we are looking at 8,500 Mexican commercial trucking companies having the authority to operate in commercial zones today, I think we are talking about a lot of Mexican traffic on our freeways. We want a lot of Mexican and Canadian commerce, as long as the trucks meet our standards. We have to assure that those inspection stations are there to make sure it happens. In 1999, both United States and Mexican commercial motor vehicles made an estimated 4.5 million crossings on the border. Seventy percent of those were in Texas. This debate is not merely hypothetical to Texas, nor to the other border States. The added burden of overweight and potentially unsafe trucks is a daily reality in south Texas. The reason for low inspection statistics is the lack of adequate space to conduct safety inspections. Currently, the only permanent inspection facilities at the United States-Mexico border are at the State facilities in Calexico and Otay Mesa, CA. At the other 25 border crossings, Federal and State inspectors have limited access to the existing U.S. Customs lots. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration inspectors do not have the equipment nor the space they need to do the job. Those inspectors have space to inspect only one or two trucks at a time. The construction of dedicated motor carrier safety inspection facilities at or near the existing Federal border crossing would improve inspection statistics. Working with the Department of Public Safety in Texas, we have identified funding needs of $100 million to construct safety inspection stations. So it is very important that all of us focus on this issue and that we all look for a resolution of this issue. I think we are very close, but we are not there yet. I hope everyone will come together either to fashion an answer right now in this bill before it goes out of this Chamber or agree that we will not do that now, that we will write something in conference, but most certainly we would not stand on the language that is in the underlying bill nor the language that is in the House underlying bill that was passed that would prohibit Mexican trucks from coming into the United States at all. I think we can come up with language that will be acceptable to the administration and acceptable to our Mexican counterparts. But the bottom line is, we are not going to have unsafe trucks on our highways as long as I have a voice in the Senate, because we have standards. The whole concept of NAFTA was that we would have parity, parity of our truck standards with the truck standards of Canada and Mexico. That means there would be a level playing field in trucking company competition, so that there would not be an unfair advantage to another country and, secondly, so that there would be safety on all of our highways, to make sure we are not in any way discriminating against any country nor are we lowering the standards that we have in our country. So I intend to be very active in this debate. I intend to be very active in bringing the groups together to try to come to that compromise. My bottom line is only one; and that is that there is parity, safety, and a level playing field for the truckers of our country and the countries in NAFTA with whom we trade.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Madam President.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, is the order that we are in morning business with Senators allowed to speak for up to 5 minutes?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an energy bill I am re-introducing this year, marginal well tax credits. I am proud to introduce the Hutchison-Breaux-Collins Marginal Well Preservation Act of 2001. As we look to long-term solutions to the high cost of gasoline, electricity and home heating oil, marginal well tax incentives are critical to increasing supply and retaining our energy independence. Our crisis of volatile fuel prices in the U.S. has led this year to historically high gasoline prices, airline ticket surcharges for rising jet fuel costs, and expected problems with high home heating oil costs this coming winter. This problem is real, it is growing, and it demands a response from Congress to join with the Administration to find a comprehensive, long-term solution. Senators representing all regions of the country, including the Northeast and Midwest have a common interest: to make the United States less susceptive to the volatility of world oil markets by reducing America's dependence on foreign oil. I understand that when the price of home heating oil spikes in the Northeast, it hurts those Senators' constituents. They understand when the price of oil falls below $10 a barrel, as it did just over two years ago, and we lose 18,000 jobs as we did in Texas, that hurts my constituents. We understand that these are merely two sides of the same coin: growing dependence on foreign oil. In fact, at the heart of my legislation is the goal of reducing our imports of foreign oil to less than 50 percent by the year 2010. While it is incredible to me that we have let America slide into greater than 55 percent dependence today, from the 46 percent dependence we saw in 1992, nevertheless a goal of producing at least half of our oil needs right here in the United States is a laudable and, I believe, an achievable one. The core problem with our growing dependence on foreign oil is an underutilized domestic reserve base of both crude oil and natural gas. In 1992, we imported 46 percent of our oil needs from overseas. It is equally important to realize that in 1974, when America was brought to her knees by the OPEC oil embargo, we imported only 36 percent of our oil. Today, as I mentioned, we stand at over 55 percent imports. While it is true that OPEC controls less, in percentage terms, of the world oil market than it did in 1974, if the major oil producing countries of the world were ever to get their collective act together, they cold not only wreak havoc with the American economy, they could literally shut it down. As the sole remaining superpower in the world, and as the country with an economy that is the envy of the industrialized world, this threat to our economic as well as our national security is simply and totally unacceptable. We simply must take steps today to increase the amount of oil and natural gas we produce right here at home. It is estimated that, in total, the United States possesses as much as 160 billion barrels of oil and as many as 1,700 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. This is enough to fuel the U.S. economy for at least 60 years without importing a single drop of foreign oil. While shutting-off foreign oil completely may not be realistic, it is realistic to utilize our reserves much more than we do today. Believe it or not, much of this oil and gas could be produced in areas where it is being produced today and has for decades that is not environmentally sensitive. That is why I have advocated for tax incentives that would make it economically feasible for production to continue and actually increase in areas largely where production takes place today. Much of this production is from so-called ``marginal'' wells, those wells that produce less than 15 barrels of oil and less than 90 thousand cubic feet of natural gas per day. Many of these wells are so small that, once they close, they never reopen. There were close to 500,000 such wells across the U.S. Together, they have the capacity to produce 20 percent of America's oil. This is roughly the same amount of oil the U.S. imports from Saudi Arabia. During the oil price plummet over two years ago, more than a quarter of these wells closed, many of them for good. The overwhelming majority of producing wells in Texas are marginal wells. A survey by the Independent Producers Association of America, IPAA, found that marginal wells account for 75 percent of all crude production for small independent operators; up to 50 percent for mid- sized independents; and up to 20 percent for large companies. A more sensible energy independence policy would be to offer tax relief to producers of these smaller wells that would help them stay in business when prices fall below a break-even point. When U.S. producers can stay in business during periods of low prices, supply will be higher and help keep prices from shooting up too high. My legislation provides a maximum $3 per barrel tax credit for the first 3 barrels of daily production from a marginal oil well, and a similar credit for marginal gas wells. The marginal oil well credit would be phased in-and-out in equal increments as prices for oil and natural gas fall and rise. For oil, it would phase in between $18 and $15 per barrel. A counter-cyclical system such as this would help keep producers alive during the record low prices, so they can be producing during the record highs. This would gradually ease our dependence on overseas oil. There's another benefit to encouraging marginal well production: it has a multiplier effect. In 1997, these low-volume wells generated $314 million in taxes paid annually to State governments. These revenues are sued for State and local schools, highways and other state-funded projects and services. Another idea in my plan is to offer incentives to restart inactive wells by offering producers a tax exemption for the costs of doing so. This would ensure greater oil availability and also increase Federal and State tax revenues paid by oil producers and energy sector employees. Everyone wins. More jobs, more State and Federal revenue, and, most importantly, more domestic oil. Studies and actual results have borne this out. In Texas, a program similar to this has met with considerable success. Over 6,000 wells have been returned to production, injecting approximately $1.65 billion into the Texas economy each year. We should try this nationwide. We do not have to be at the whim of market forces beyond our control. The only way out, though, is to be part of the price setting process, rather than be price takers. To do that, we've got to increase our domestic supply. We have an excellent opportunity to unite around this bill, Democrats and Republicans, energy production and energy consumption States. Marginal well tax incentive legislation is a positive, proactive approach that I believe can garner a majority of support in Congress and that will begin to reverse the slide toward greater and greater dependence on foreign oil.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an energy bill I am re-introducing this year, marginal well tax credits. I am proud to introduce the Hutchison-Breaux-Collins Marginal Well Preservation Act of 2001. As we look to long-term solutions to the high cost of gasoline, electricity and home heating oil, marginal well tax incentives are critical to increasing supply and retaining our energy independence. Our crisis of volatile fuel prices in the U.S. has led this year to historically high gasoline prices, airline ticket surcharges for rising jet fuel costs, and expected problems with high home heating oil costs this coming winter. This problem is real, it is growing, and it demands a response from Congress to join with the Administration to find a comprehensive, long-term solution. Senators representing all regions of the country, including the Northeast and Midwest have a common interest: to make the United States less susceptive to the volatility of world oil markets by reducing America's dependence on foreign oil. I understand that when the price of home heating oil spikes in the Northeast, it hurts those Senators' constituents. They understand when the price of oil falls below $10 a barrel, as it did just over two years ago, and we lose 18,000 jobs as we did in Texas, that hurts my constituents. We understand that these are merely two sides of the same coin: growing dependence on foreign oil. In fact, at the heart of my legislation is the goal of reducing our imports of foreign oil to less than 50 percent by the year 2010. While it is incredible to me that we have let America slide into greater than 55 percent dependence today, from the 46 percent dependence we saw in 1992, nevertheless a goal of producing at least half of our oil needs right here in the United States is a laudable and, I believe, an achievable one. The core problem with our growing dependence on foreign oil is an underutilized domestic reserve base of both crude oil and natural gas. In 1992, we imported 46 percent of our oil needs from overseas. It is equally important to realize that in 1974, when America was brought to her knees by the OPEC oil embargo, we imported only 36 percent of our oil. Today, as I mentioned, we stand at over 55 percent imports. While it is true that OPEC controls less, in percentage terms, of the world oil market than it did in 1974, if the major oil producing countries of the world were ever to get their collective act together, they cold not only wreak havoc with the American economy, they could literally shut it down. As the sole remaining superpower in the world, and as the country with an economy that is the envy of the industrialized world, this threat to our economic as well as our national security is simply and totally unacceptable. We simply must take steps today to increase the amount of oil and natural gas we produce right here at home. It is estimated that, in total, the United States possesses as much as 160 billion barrels of oil and as many as 1,700 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. This is enough to fuel the U.S. economy for at least 60 years without importing a single drop of foreign oil. While shutting-off foreign oil completely may not be realistic, it is realistic to utilize our reserves much more than we do today. Believe it or not, much of this oil and gas could be produced in areas where it is being produced today and has for decades that is not environmentally sensitive. That is why I have advocated for tax incentives that would make it economically feasible for production to continue and actually increase in areas largely where production takes place today. Much of this production is from so-called ``marginal'' wells, those wells that produce less than 15 barrels of oil and less than 90 thousand cubic feet of natural gas per day. Many of these wells are so small that, once they close, they never reopen. There were close to 500,000 such wells across the U.S. Together, they have the capacity to produce 20 percent of America's oil. This is roughly the same amount of oil the U.S. imports from Saudi Arabia. During the oil price plummet over two years ago, more than a quarter of these wells closed, many of them for good. The overwhelming majority of producing wells in Texas are marginal wells. A survey by the Independent Producers Association of America, IPAA, found that marginal wells account for 75 percent of all crude production for small independent operators; up to 50 percent for mid- sized independents; and up to 20 percent for large companies. A more sensible energy independence policy would be to offer tax relief to producers of these smaller wells that would help them stay in business when prices fall below a break-even point. When U.S. producers can stay in business during periods of low prices, supply will be higher and help keep prices from shooting up too high. My legislation provides a maximum $3 per barrel tax credit for the first 3 barrels of daily production from a marginal oil well, and a similar credit for marginal gas wells. The marginal oil well credit would be phased in-and-out in equal increments as prices for oil and natural gas fall and rise. For oil, it would phase in between $18 and $15 per barrel. A counter-cyclical system such as this would help keep producers alive during the record low prices, so they can be producing during the record highs. This would gradually ease our dependence on overseas oil. There's another benefit to encouraging marginal well production: it has a multiplier effect. In 1997, these low-volume wells generated $314 million in taxes paid annually to State governments. These revenues are sued for State and local schools, highways and other state-funded projects and services. Another idea in my plan is to offer incentives to restart inactive wells by offering producers a tax exemption for the costs of doing so. This would ensure greater oil availability and also increase Federal and State tax revenues paid by oil producers and energy sector employees. Everyone wins. More jobs, more State and Federal revenue, and, most importantly, more domestic oil. Studies and actual results have borne this out. In Texas, a program similar to this has met with considerable success. Over 6,000 wells have been returned to production, injecting approximately $1.65 billion into the Texas economy each year. We should try this nationwide. We do not have to be at the whim of market forces beyond our control. The only way out, though, is to be part of the price setting process, rather than be price takers. To do that, we've got to increase our domestic supply. We have an excellent opportunity to unite around this bill, Democrats and Republicans, energy production and energy consumption States. Marginal well tax incentive legislation is a positive, proactive approach that I believe can garner a majority of support in Congress and that will begin to reverse the slide toward greater and greater dependence on foreign oil.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Tennessee if he needs further time to finish his statement. His statement was very thoughtful, and this is a crucial issue facing our country. If he would require added time, I would be happy to yield.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate very much what Senator Frist, who is the only physician in the Senate, is contributing to the issue of stem cell use for research purposes. We have just spent several hours in a hearing learning from scientists and many others about the differing viewpoints on the need for the use of stem cells for research into many diseases where it is hoped we can find an answer through the use of these embryonic stem cells. The debate is valid. Senator Frist has pointed out some of the legitimate ethical questions. I hope we can move forward in a way that does increase the ability to use these types of stem cells and cord blood for looking into the causes and, more importantly, even the treatment of some of the cancers and diseases, such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, multiple myeloma, many forms of cancer where there is great hope that we might have treatment that would allow people to live healthy lives, normal lives, with this kind of treatment, even though they have these diseases. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his thoughtful contribution to this debate.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will never forget this day last year when it was announced that we had lost our friend and colleague, Paul Coverdell. His death was a shock to all of us. It was something that most of us were so emotional about that we could not speak in the first few days after learning of his death because we knew that we would not be able to get the words out. Those who did speak will be remembered; they did, indeed, have a hard time getting through the words they wanted to say. It is very rare that after a year from losing a Senator or a Member of Congress that loss is still so vivid, but that is the case with Paul Coverdell. I miss him today just as much as I missed him a year ago today. He had that kind of impact. The interesting thing is he accomplished so much in a very short time. And there is not anyone who knew him who did not like him. He was also a leader. In his career in public service, which he actually did after a very successful private sector career, he made a difference wherever he was. In 1989, Paul Coverdell took the reins of the Peace Corps. He looked at the Peace Corps in 1989 and said: What should be the mission? He did not just take the reins of the agency and do more of the same. He stepped back and said: What does the world need today from the Peace Corps? Of course, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia at the time were emerging from the Iron Curtain. So Paul Coverdell said: We have these countries now emerging from the cold war, trying to seek democracy. Maybe the Peace Corps can play a part in keeping the peace. He began to send volunteers from the Peace Corps into Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union countries. He blazed a new trail for the agency that made a difference, maybe in a small way, but a lot of small things build, to Poland and Hungary where the first Peace Corps volunteers went after the fall of the Iron Curtain. Those are two countries now firmly in the democratic camp. They are countries that have just joined NATO. Paul Coverdell made a difference because he stepped back and was thoughtful. He was a leader in the truest sense. The Coverdell education savings accounts were an extension of his leadership at the Peace Corps and his interest in education. He said: What can we do to help parents who have a hard time buying a band uniform, a computer, or something that will give a child that extra opportunity to excel and succeed? He came up with the concept of education savings accounts. As usual in Congress, it does not happen easily, even if it is a great idea. But Paul Coverdell was dogged in his determination that being able to save tax free to buy your children the things that would help them succeed in their educational experience was worth a fight. He fought and he won. It is fitting that we named the education savings accounts the ``Coverdell education savings accounts.'' The other thing that is significant about Paul Coverdell is that he built the two-party system in Georgia. Georgia, like Texas, 15 years ago was an entirely Democratic State. They did not have Republican county officials in very many counties in Georgia or Texas. They did not have Republicans in numbers in the State legislature. In fact, Paul Coverdell was the minority leader of the State senate in Georgia, and I believe there were three Republicans in the entire State senate. He was the person who came in and said I think democracy works best when there is a strong two-party system. He became the first Republican every elected to the Senate from Georgia. At the same time, Paul Coverdell was respected and liked by Democrats. At his funeral, Governor Barnes, the Democratic Governor of Georgia, made a wonderful presentation about his friendship with Paul Coverdell from their days in the legislature. He said Paul Coverdell was his mentor in politics. We have heard former Governor Zell Miller, now Paul Coverdell's successor, speak eloquently about his relationship and the impact that Paul Coverdell had on Georgia, as well as Senator Cleland and other Democrats who have spoken in the Chamber about what a wonderful person Paul Coverdell was. He was a leader through being creative and innovative. He was a fighter for what he believed was right. He persevered. He usually won. He built the Republican Party while having a loyal following of Democrats. He had the kind of respect it took to walk that kind of very fine line. He could bring people together. He could calm the waters. When tempers flared, he would tell a joke and dissolve the tension. He was an extraordinary person. The most telling of all the things one could say about Paul Coverdell is he is truly talked about and missed every day, even a year later. The vacuum left by Paul Coverdell's sudden death last year at this very time has not been filled. I am glad we are taking time to pay tribute to this extraordinary man. I am proud I was able to be his friend.