John Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Law Enforcement Officers Due Process Act of 2001. Every day our nation's police officers put their lives on the line in the fight against crime. Every time they patrol a beat they put their own safety at risk to protect our children and make our country a better place to live and work. We all owe a great deal to these brave men and women. Working police officers spend their lives among the public safeguarding the innocent and apprehending those who have committed crimes. Much of this contact can be stressful for everyone involved. Perhaps an individual has been stopped by an officer for the suspected violation of a law. Or maybe the officer is assisting someone who is the victim of a crime. Due to the circumstances, these are often unpleasant situations. And unfortunately, in some instances, contact with the police officer may become adversarial and generate complaints about the officer's actions. These complaints range from accusations that an officer took too long to arrive at a crime scene, used too much force, or was not forceful enough, to claims that the officer was rude or didn't show proper respect. Some complaints against officers are legitimate. However, some complaints are generated to intimidate an officer who is simply doing his or her job, into dropping charges. Any one of these complaints can get an officer fired, suspended, or otherwise punished without the benefit of due process. A patchwork of state and local laws currently governs the rights of officers when they are involved in a case that may lead to dismissal, demotion, suspension or transfer. Thirty-five states have state and/or local laws in place that govern the administrative due process rights of law enforcement officers. However, 15 states do not have any of these much-deserved due process protections for their law enforcement officers. The Law Enforcement Officers Due Process Act is a common-sense measure designed to replace arbitrary and ad hoc investigatory procedures with consistent standards. The legislation will provide additional funding to law enforcement agencies that either have in place, or currently do not have but certify they will implement, administrative due process for their law enforcement officers. An agency will be eligible for grant money if its administrative procedures include the right of a law enforcement officer under investigation to: (1) a hearing before a fair and impartial board or hearing officer; (2) be represented by an attorney or other officer at the expense of the officer under investigation; (3) confront any witness testifying against him or her; and (4) record all meetings he or she attends. In many instances, an employer with direct control over an officer is also the investigator. That is why providing basic, explicitly stated rights to officers under investigation is crucial to maintaining impartial investigations. These rights will not interfere with the management of state and local internal investigations. They will merely ensure that officers receive the benefit of fair and objective investigations, whether a complaint against them is legitimate or not. Some individuals may be concerned that providing these rights would delay removal of an officer who is ultimately found to have deserved disciplinary action taken against them. However, I'd like to emphasize that my legislation would not prevent the immediate suspension of an officer whose continued presence on the job is considered to be a substantial and immediate threat to the welfare of the law enforcement agency or the public; who refuses to obey a direct order issued in conformance with the agency's rules and regulations; or who is accused of committing an illegal act. The Law Enforcement Officers Due Process Act does not force a law enforcement agency to implement due process rights for its officers. Rather, it encourages agencies to do the right thing by offering them additional funds if they establish written procedures for determining if a complaint is valid or merely designed to cause trouble for the officer. I urge my colleagues who represent states that do not have law enforcement officers' due process rights laws to cosponsor my bill and give their police officers the protections they deserve. I also urge my colleagues who represent states that have various local laws in place to cosponsor my bill. By doing so they will help eliminate the disparity that exists among local jurisdictions, and guarantee that every single officer in their state will have a minimum baseline of rights to help guarantee fair and impartial investigations. Crime rates are down across the nation. We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to our nation's police officers for helping make this happen. Our communities, our schools, and our places of business would not enjoy the level of security they have today without the efforts of law enforcement. Enacting the Law Enforcement Officers Due Process Act is the least we can do to show officers that we will fight for all of them just like they fight for all of us every day. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the School Support and Improvement Act of 2001, a bill designed to help ensure that every child in America has access to a quality public school, with good teachers, adequate facilities and a safe environment to learn. Mr. President, every child deserves and every parent has the right to expect a top-notch, quality education. For example: Every child should enter 1st grade healthy and prepared to succeed; Every child should attend a school that is well-built, well-lit, well-equipped and well-connected to our modern world; and Every child should be instructed by a well-trained, well-paid and qualified teacher. But some public schools in America do not meet that standard today. Some of our public schools are failing our children and shortchanging their future. We need to refocus our energy on turning these schools around and getting them back on track. This must be the nation's number one priority. A quality public school is not a partisan goal; it's not a conservative or liberal goal; it's not a big city or rural goal; it's not a goal which separates rich from poor. It's a simple, common-sense goal we can all agree upon. And if we can agree, then we should be able to do something about it. The School Support and Improvement Act is one step in achieving this common sense goal. The legislation is based on a very important lesson we have learned in my home state of North Carolina. As many of you know, North Carolina has been at the forefront of the effort to reform public education for many years. In fact, President Bush's new Education Secretary, Rod Paige, called North Carolina's education system ``a model for the Nation.'' The School Support and Improvement Act is designed to translate one of the lessons we learned in North Carolina to the nationwide education reform effort. At the heart of the North Carolina school reform program is a very simple idea: immediately after we identify a school that is in trouble, we assign a special team of experienced, specially trained educators, principals and administrators to go to the school and help them devise a plan to turn that school around. The team begins with an intensive evaluation of teachers, administration and curriculum. Teachers and local school district officials work with the Assistance Team to develop a plan tailored to the school's needs and designed to improve student performance. Assistance Teams have been remarkably successful in North Carolina. Since the program started in 1997, Assistance Teams have been assigned to 33 schools across North Carolina. Of those 33 schools, 29 have improved significantly and are no longer considered low-performing. The overall percentage of low-performing schools has also decreased, from 7.5 percent in the 1996-97 school year to 2.1 percent in the 1999-2000 school year. In short, Assistance Teams are a proven method to get low-performing schools back on the path of providing quality education. Our bill would accomplish two things: First, it would make the North Carolina model of sending Assistance Teams into low performing schools a priority throughout the country. Second, it would require that the utilization of Assistance Teams be a priority in every States' efforts to turn around low performing schools. In order to carry out this task, the bill provides additional resources to the States. Mr. President, with the right tools, and adequate resources, we can begin to put low-performing schools back on the right track. Our legislation utilizes a proven model and provides the necessary resources while still ensuring flexibility for the state and local educational agencies. I hope that this legislation will allow other states to benefit from the sucessful model we have implemented in North Carolina. When the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee considers the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the coming days, I intend to offer this proposal as part of that effort. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the School Support and Improvement Act of 2001, a bill designed to help ensure that every child in America has access to a quality public school, with good teachers, adequate facilities and a safe environment to learn. Mr. President, every child deserves and every parent has the right to expect a top-notch, quality education. For example: Every child should enter 1st grade healthy and prepared to succeed; Every child should attend a school that is well-built, well-lit, well-equipped and well-connected to our modern world; and Every child should be instructed by a well-trained, well-paid and qualified teacher. But some public schools in America do not meet that standard today. Some of our public schools are failing our children and shortchanging their future. We need to refocus our energy on turning these schools around and getting them back on track. This must be the nation's number one priority. A quality public school is not a partisan goal; it's not a conservative or liberal goal; it's not a big city or rural goal; it's not a goal which separates rich from poor. It's a simple, common-sense goal we can all agree upon. And if we can agree, then we should be able to do something about it. The School Support and Improvement Act is one step in achieving this common sense goal. The legislation is based on a very important lesson we have learned in my home state of North Carolina. As many of you know, North Carolina has been at the forefront of the effort to reform public education for many years. In fact, President Bush's new Education Secretary, Rod Paige, called North Carolina's education system ``a model for the Nation.'' The School Support and Improvement Act is designed to translate one of the lessons we learned in North Carolina to the nationwide education reform effort. At the heart of the North Carolina school reform program is a very simple idea: immediately after we identify a school that is in trouble, we assign a special team of experienced, specially trained educators, principals and administrators to go to the school and help them devise a plan to turn that school around. The team begins with an intensive evaluation of teachers, administration and curriculum. Teachers and local school district officials work with the Assistance Team to develop a plan tailored to the school's needs and designed to improve student performance. Assistance Teams have been remarkably successful in North Carolina. Since the program started in 1997, Assistance Teams have been assigned to 33 schools across North Carolina. Of those 33 schools, 29 have improved significantly and are no longer considered low-performing. The overall percentage of low-performing schools has also decreased, from 7.5 percent in the 1996-97 school year to 2.1 percent in the 1999-2000 school year. In short, Assistance Teams are a proven method to get low-performing schools back on the path of providing quality education. Our bill would accomplish two things: First, it would make the North Carolina model of sending Assistance Teams into low performing schools a priority throughout the country. Second, it would require that the utilization of Assistance Teams be a priority in every States' efforts to turn around low performing schools. In order to carry out this task, the bill provides additional resources to the States. Mr. President, with the right tools, and adequate resources, we can begin to put low-performing schools back on the right track. Our legislation utilizes a proven model and provides the necessary resources while still ensuring flexibility for the state and local educational agencies. I hope that this legislation will allow other states to benefit from the sucessful model we have implemented in North Carolina. When the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee considers the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the coming days, I intend to offer this proposal as part of that effort. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment in President Bush's decision to discontinue funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Project Impact. Project Impact is a nationwide public-private partnership designed to help communities become more disaster resistant. Each year, Congress appropriates literally billions of dollars in disaster relief money. Project Impact is our only program that provides financial incentives and support to State and local governments that want to mitigate the damage of future disasters. Project Impact involves all sectors of the community in developing a mitigation plan that meets that community's unique needs. One of the program's pilot projects is in Wilmington, NC. In that coastal community, the city government has teamed with the State and county government and private groups like Lowe's Hardware Store to retrofit schools and shelters to make them less vulnerable to the frequent hurricanes that plague my State. The University of North Carolina at Wilmington also provides support for the city's efforts. That is the great thing about the Project Impact communities--they are using all available agencies and organizations to ensure safe and smart development. Project Impact is a relatively new program, but it has already shown important results. In his recent budget submission to Congress, the President described Project Impact as ``ineffective.'' I strongly disagree, and there are community leaders around the Nation that would take exemption to this description. For example, one of the first Project Impact communities was Seattle, WA. Experts agree that without the area's mitigation efforts spurred by Project Impact, the damage from last week's earthquake could have been much worse. We cannot stop a hurricane, an earthquake, or a tornado. But we can save precious lives and limited Federal resources by encouraging States and local governments to take preventative measures to mitigate the damage. By discontinuing funding for Project Impact, this administration will severely undercut ongoing mitigation programs in all 50 States. Most importantly, by discontinuing this program rather than working to refine it, the administration sends a dangerous signal to States and local governments that the Federal Government no longer supports their efforts. I call on President Bush to reassess the benefits of this program and include it in his final budget he sends to Congress. For the nearly 300 Project Impact communities that are working to make their communities safer, fully funding Project Impact is the least we can do.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague Senator Dodd to re-introduce the College Fire Prevention Act. This measure would provide federal matching grants for the installation of fire sprinkler systems in college and university dormitories and fraternity and sorority houses. I believe the time is now to address the sad situation of deadly fires that occur in our children's college living facilities. The tragic fire that occurred at Seton Hall University on Wednesday January 19th, 2000 will not be long forgotten. Sadly, three freshman, all 18 years old, died. Fifty-four students, two South Orange firefighters and two South Orange police officers were injured. The dormitory, Boland Hall, was a six-story, 350 room structure built in 1952 that housed approximately 600 students. Astonishingly, the fire was contained to the third floor lounge of Boland Hall. This dormitory was equipped with smoke alarms but no sprinkler system. Unfortunately, the Boland Hall fire was not the first of its kind. And it reminded many people in North Carolina of their own tragic experience with dorm fires. In 1996, on Mother's Day and Graduation Day, a fire in the Phi Gamma Delta fraternity house at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill killed five college juniors and injured three others. The 3-story plus basement fraternity house was 70 years old. The National Fire Protection Association identified several factors that contributed to the tragic fire, including the lack of fire sprinkler protection. Sadly, there have been countless other dorm fires. On December 9, 1997, a student died in a dormitory fire at Greenville College in Greenville, Illinois. The dormitory, Kinney Hall, was built in the 1960s and had no fire sprinkler system. On January 10, 1997, a student died at the University of Tennessee at Martin. The dormitory, Ellington Hall, had no fire sprinkler system. On January 3, 1997 a student died in a dormitory fire at Central Missouri State University in Warrensburg, Missouri. On October 21, 1994, five students died in a fraternity house fire in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania. The list goes on and on. In a typical year between 1980 and 1998, the National Fire Protection Association estimates there were an average of 1,800 fires at dormitories, fraternities, and sororities, involving 1 death, 70 injuries, and 8 million dollars in property damage. So now we must ask, what can be done? What can we do to curtail these tragic fires from taking the lives of our children, our young adults? We should focus our attention on the lack of fire sprinklers in college dormitories and fraternity and sorority houses. Sprinklers save lives. Indeed, the National Fire Protection Association has never recorded a fire that killed more than 2 people in a public assembly, educational, institutional, or residential building where a sprinkler system was operating properly. Despite the clear benefits of sprinklers, many college dorms do not have them. New dormitories are generally required to have advanced safety systems such as fire sprinklers. But such requirements are rarely imposed retroactively on existing buildings. In 1998, 93 percent of the campus building fires reported to fire departments occurred in buildings where there were smoke alarms present. However, only 34 percent of them had fire sprinklers present. At my state's flagship university at Chapel Hill, for example, only six of the 29 residence halls have sprinklers. A report published by The Raleigh News & Observer in the wake of the Seton Hall fire also noted that only seven of 19 dorms at North Carolina State University are equipped with the life-saving devices, and there are sprinklers in two of the 10 dorms at North Carolina Central University. At Duke University, only five of 26 dorms have sprinklers. The legislation I introduce today authorizes the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the United States Fire Administration, to award grants to States, private or public colleges or universities, fraternities, or sororities to assist them in providing fire sprinkler systems for their student housing and dormitories. These entities would be required to produce matching funds equal to one-half of the cost. This legislation authorizes $100 million for fiscal years 2002 through 2006. In North Carolina, we decided to initiate a drive to install sprinklers in our public college and university dorms. The overall cost is estimated at 57.5 million dollars. Given how much it is going to cost North Carolina's public colleges and universities to install sprinklers, I think it's clear that the $100 million that this measure authorizes is just a drop in the bucket. But my hope is that by providing this small incentive we can encourage more colleges to institute a comprehensive review of their dorm's fire safety and to install sprinklers. All they need is a helping hand. With this modest measure of prevention, we can help prevent the needless and tragic loss of young lives. Parents should not have to worry about their children living in fire traps. When we send our children away to college, we are sending them to a home away from home where hundreds of other students eat, sleep, burn candles, use electric appliances and smoke. We must not compromise on their safety. In short, the best way to ensure the protection of our college students is to install fire sprinklers in our college dormitories and fraternity and sorority houses. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. Thank you. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague Senator Dodd to re-introduce the College Fire Prevention Act. This measure would provide federal matching grants for the installation of fire sprinkler systems in college and university dormitories and fraternity and sorority houses. I believe the time is now to address the sad situation of deadly fires that occur in our children's college living facilities. The tragic fire that occurred at Seton Hall University on Wednesday January 19th, 2000 will not be long forgotten. Sadly, three freshman, all 18 years old, died. Fifty-four students, two South Orange firefighters and two South Orange police officers were injured. The dormitory, Boland Hall, was a six-story, 350 room structure built in 1952 that housed approximately 600 students. Astonishingly, the fire was contained to the third floor lounge of Boland Hall. This dormitory was equipped with smoke alarms but no sprinkler system. Unfortunately, the Boland Hall fire was not the first of its kind. And it reminded many people in North Carolina of their own tragic experience with dorm fires. In 1996, on Mother's Day and Graduation Day, a fire in the Phi Gamma Delta fraternity house at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill killed five college juniors and injured three others. The 3-story plus basement fraternity house was 70 years old. The National Fire Protection Association identified several factors that contributed to the tragic fire, including the lack of fire sprinkler protection. Sadly, there have been countless other dorm fires. On December 9, 1997, a student died in a dormitory fire at Greenville College in Greenville, Illinois. The dormitory, Kinney Hall, was built in the 1960s and had no fire sprinkler system. On January 10, 1997, a student died at the University of Tennessee at Martin. The dormitory, Ellington Hall, had no fire sprinkler system. On January 3, 1997 a student died in a dormitory fire at Central Missouri State University in Warrensburg, Missouri. On October 21, 1994, five students died in a fraternity house fire in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania. The list goes on and on. In a typical year between 1980 and 1998, the National Fire Protection Association estimates there were an average of 1,800 fires at dormitories, fraternities, and sororities, involving 1 death, 70 injuries, and 8 million dollars in property damage. So now we must ask, what can be done? What can we do to curtail these tragic fires from taking the lives of our children, our young adults? We should focus our attention on the lack of fire sprinklers in college dormitories and fraternity and sorority houses. Sprinklers save lives. Indeed, the National Fire Protection Association has never recorded a fire that killed more than 2 people in a public assembly, educational, institutional, or residential building where a sprinkler system was operating properly. Despite the clear benefits of sprinklers, many college dorms do not have them. New dormitories are generally required to have advanced safety systems such as fire sprinklers. But such requirements are rarely imposed retroactively on existing buildings. In 1998, 93 percent of the campus building fires reported to fire departments occurred in buildings where there were smoke alarms present. However, only 34 percent of them had fire sprinklers present. At my state's flagship university at Chapel Hill, for example, only six of the 29 residence halls have sprinklers. A report published by The Raleigh News & Observer in the wake of the Seton Hall fire also noted that only seven of 19 dorms at North Carolina State University are equipped with the life-saving devices, and there are sprinklers in two of the 10 dorms at North Carolina Central University. At Duke University, only five of 26 dorms have sprinklers. The legislation I introduce today authorizes the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the United States Fire Administration, to award grants to States, private or public colleges or universities, fraternities, or sororities to assist them in providing fire sprinkler systems for their student housing and dormitories. These entities would be required to produce matching funds equal to one-half of the cost. This legislation authorizes $100 million for fiscal years 2002 through 2006. In North Carolina, we decided to initiate a drive to install sprinklers in our public college and university dorms. The overall cost is estimated at 57.5 million dollars. Given how much it is going to cost North Carolina's public colleges and universities to install sprinklers, I think it's clear that the $100 million that this measure authorizes is just a drop in the bucket. But my hope is that by providing this small incentive we can encourage more colleges to institute a comprehensive review of their dorm's fire safety and to install sprinklers. All they need is a helping hand. With this modest measure of prevention, we can help prevent the needless and tragic loss of young lives. Parents should not have to worry about their children living in fire traps. When we send our children away to college, we are sending them to a home away from home where hundreds of other students eat, sleep, burn candles, use electric appliances and smoke. We must not compromise on their safety. In short, the best way to ensure the protection of our college students is to install fire sprinklers in our college dormitories and fraternity and sorority houses. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. Thank you. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to note with sadness the tragic death of Dale Earnhardt. For the past week, the Nation has mourned the loss of a racing legend. But in my home State of North Carolina, his death has a special significance because we have lost a cherished native son. Dale Earnhardt was a hero to countless NASCAR fans in North Carolina and across our country. His success on the track helped elevate stock-car racing from a regional pastime to a national sport. Racing brought Dale fame and wealth, but he never forgot his roots in Kannapolis, North Carolina or the hometown fans who backed him from the beginning. He never let them down. They always knew they could count on Dale to give it his all every time. Dale Earnhardt was a champion from the start, winning NASCAR rookie- of-the-year honors back in 1975. In 26 years of racing, Dale won 7 Winston Cup Series titles, 76 races in all, including the 1998 Daytona 500, and became the leading all-time money winner in racing history. His fans and his fellow racers called him ``The Intimidator''--not just because he won so many races--but because he was a fierce competitor. Dale Earnhardt was more than a great race car driver. He was also a great American success story, rising from poverty and a ninth-grade education to become a racing legend and extraordinarily successful businessman. He was also a great husband to his wife Teresa, and a great father to his children, Taylor, Dale Jr., Kelley, and Kerry. Our hearts go out to them. North Carolina has lost one of her favorite sons, and NASCAR has lost perhaps its greatest champion. Our prayers go out to his family, friends, and fans.

Mr. EDWARDS

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

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam President, for too long the law has been on the side of HMO's and big insurance companies. It is time we give power back to patients and families and doctors. Nearly every one of us has had some sort of bad experience with an HMO or an insurance company, either personally or through a family member or a friend. Sometimes the problems are frustrating, sometimes the problem is just red tape and bureaucracy, sometimes it is simply impersonal treatment. Sometimes the problems are much more serious than that. Sometimes the problems are dangerous: when an HMO, for example, refuses to authorize a visit to a specialist or the nearest emergency room, or denies treatment that is desperately needed by a patient, or refuses to be held accountable for any of the decisions it makes. Americans have the right to expect that decisions about their health care and their family's health care will only be made by the patient, in consultation with physicians and family members, and that physicians will be able to help them make those decisions on the basis of the patient's best medical interests. Those decisions should not be made by HMOs and insurance companies concerned only about the bottom line. That is why we need a Patients' Bill of Rights. That is why last week I joined Senator John McCain, along with a bipartisan group of Members of the House and the Senate, to introduce a bill that builds on the progress that has already been made in this Congress to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights. The Bipartisan Patient Protection Act provides comprehensive patient protection for all Americans. It will, No. 1, guarantee access to specialists for all people who have private insurance, so that women, for example, can go directly to an OB/GYN or a child can go directly to a pediatrician for care. No. 2, it strengthens the right to go to an emergency room, to the ER, immediately after an emergency arises, without first having to be concerned about calling some 1-800 number and asking permission from an insurance company or an HMO. When a family is involved in a medical emergency, the last thing they need to be worried about is calling the insurance company. They need to be able to do what is best for their family and go immediately to the emergency room that is closest to them. Our bill provides for that. We also eliminate the gag rule. What we need to do is give doctors the ability to speak freely with their patients about the treatment options that ought to be considered by the patient. What we have done is prohibit clauses between insurance companies and doctors--the so- called ``gag rule''--that restrict doctors from talking to their patients about the various treatment options, and instead only allow doctors to talk about the cheapest treatment options. We prohibit that practice and prohibit gag rules. Scope. Our bill covers every single American who has private insurance through an HMO or an insurance company. Some of my colleagues have argued, during the course of the debate about a real Patients' Bill of Rights, for a more limited approach. I do not agree. I believe every single American who has health insurance or receives coverage through an HMO deserves, and is entitled to, exactly the same rights. The same basic rights and freedoms that we provide for some people ought to be available for every single American who has HMO or health insurance coverage. Make no mistake, in States like Texas where strong protections already exist under State law, the State's own efforts in this area should be respected. Under our bill, if the State law is comparable or more protective of patients than those we enact here in the Congress, State law will remain in effect. In most cases, HMOs and other health care providers respect the decisions that are made by patients and doctors. This is usually not a problem. The people get the treatment they are entitled to, the treatment their doctor recommends, and they get better. But if the patient or the doctor believes that the quality of their health care may be at risk because of what the HMO is doing, because of some bureaucrats sitting behind a desk somewhere who decides that they know better what care or treatment the patient should receive, that they know better than the doctor or specialist who is taking care of the patient, then we need to provide some way for the patient to appeal that decision. What we have done here is provide an alternative recourse whenever the HMO or insurance company decides that coverage for treatment should be denied. Under existing law, the HMO's decision is final. If the HMO, no matter what its reasoning for the decision is, decides that this care, this treatment--for example, that a sick child should not be able to go directly to a pediatric oncologist--the patient, the family, the child can do nothing. The HMO holds all the power. The law is completely on the side of the HMO and the insurance company, and patients are left totally defenseless. What we are doing today, through this legislation, is putting accountability back into the system so that, like all other Americans, HMO's are held accountable for what they do. As a first resort, patients are guaranteed both an internal and an external appeals process. If they go to an HMO and the HMO says that they won't pay for a particular treatment or a particular doctor, patients have a place to go to appeal. All patients will have a right to appeal treatment denials to an external review authority with outside medical experts, which is critical. The independence of the appeals process is crucial. We have provided for extensive protections to ensure that the independence is in fact there. Once the appeal is made and the independent board decides that coverage should have been provided, the decision is final and binding on the HMO or the insurance company. As a matter of last resort--and I emphasize last resort--if the HMO has denied coverage, and the appeals process fails, the patients should have the ability to go to court. I want to emphasize that the ability to go to court is a matter of absolute last resort. For example, in States such as Texas that have enacted legislation--about 3 years ago, Texas enacted legislation providing patients the right to go to court--experience has proven that actual litigation virtually never happens. It does not happen for a very practical reason: because, first of all, the HMO has to deny coverage; second, there is an internal review and appeal process; and third, there is an external appeal process to an independent body. So it is a very rare circumstance where anybody feels the need to go to court. In States such as Texas that have enacted patient protection legislation, there have been very few lawsuits filed. What the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act does is ensure that medical judgment cases go to State court. The basic reasoning here is that if the HMO or the insurance company is making a medical judgment, if they make the decision that they are going to insert their judgment in the place of the physician or the health care provider, then normally those are cases that are decided in State court, under State law, using State standards. Our belief is that the HMO, if they are going to exercise medical judgment, if they are going to substitute their own judgment for the judgment of the doctor involved, ought to be subject to the same standards to which doctors are subject. If a case were brought against a doctor for exercising his or her medical judgment, that case would go to State court. What we have provided here is simple: when the HMO steps in and inserts itself into the process of exercising medical judgment, their case goes to State court just as a medical negligence case would go to State court. We should not preempt State law. State law has traditionally controlled these kinds of cases. Under our bill, the law that the Governor at the time--now President Bush--enacted in Texas, the HMO protection law would be respected, as would HMO patient protection laws that exist all over the country. So essentially what we are doing in our legislation is deferring almost entirely to the oversight of medical judgment that has traditionally been regulated by State law. I point out that the Judicial Conference of the United States has spoken on this issue. The Chief Justice of the United States, Chief Justice Rehnquist, is the presiding officer of the Judicial Conference of the United States. The Judicial Conference, through its executive committee, adopted the following position on February 10, 2000: The Judicial Conference urges Congress to provide that in any managed care legislation agreed upon-- This is the legislation we are talking about today-- that State courts be the primary forum for the resolution of personal injury claims arising from the denial of health care benefits. The Judicial Conference of the United States, a nonpartisan, nonpolitical body headed by the Chief Justice, decided that cases involving medical judgment should go to State court. These types of cases have been traditionally resolved in State court. Federal courts, of course, are courts of limited jurisdiction. And these are not cases that should go to Federal court. Our bill does exactly what the Judicial Conference, headed by our Chief Justice, has recommended. It sends these cases to the place where they have traditionally been decided. Contract cases, based solely on what the terms of the contract are-- for example, if there were a provision requiring that insurance coverage be in place for 60 days before payment can be made for any particular treatment--if there were a dispute about whether 60 days had actually passed, or whether the coverage or the contract applies, that would be an interpretation of the contract and would go to Federal court. In those limited cases where there is a dispute about the actual language of the contract, those cases go to Federal court. There are limitations contained in our bill about any recovery in Federal court. The basic structure here is simple: medical judgment cases, where the HMO is inserting its judgment for that of the health care provider, go to State court. Cases that have always traditionally been decided in State court go to State court, just as our Chief Justice in the Judicial Conference is recommending. The only cases that go to Federal court, a court of limited jurisdiction, are cases involving pure interpretation of the contract--cases that have historically been decided in Federal court under ERISA. So they essentially maintain the same bifurcation that the U.S. Supreme Court suggested. We have included a balanced approach and imposed some limitations. Under our bill, there are no class actions. Appeals have to be exhausted, except for the very rare circumstance where the patient can show an immediate and irreparable harm. In all other cases, internal and external appeals have to be exhausted before a patient can go to court. Third, the vast majority of cases go to State court and are therefore subject to whatever State court limitations apply. For example, the limitations that exist under State law in Texas would apply to cases that go to State court in Texas. We are attempting to balance interests and create really meaningful and enforceable rights for the patient, giving the patient the ability to enforce those rights through an appeals process, and then, as a matter of absolute last resort--and as history has proven, it happens very rarely--giving them the right to take the HMO to state court, where these kinds of cases are traditionally decided. We have debated this issue over and over on the floor of the Senate. Many Members of the Senate have been involved. Congressmen Norwood and Dingell have led the effort on the House side in the debate. It is time for us to get past simply talking about this issue and debating the various parties' positions. Senator McCain and I, along with others in support of this bill, are making an effort to resolve our differences and get this legislation enacted. It is time, finally, that we enact legislation that puts law on the side of the patients, on the side of families, and on the side of doctors, and not on the side of big HMOs and insurance companies. I yield the floor.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the Nation is emerging from an extraordinarily close election that has left much of the country feeling divided. It is a time when all of us have an enormous responsibility to unite our country. In order to unite this country, we have to turn to leaders who inspire confidence and bring us together. In my judgment, with the nomination of Senator Ashcroft, President Bush has fallen short of that goal. Why has he fallen short? Because in a time when our country desperately needs a unifier, the President has nominated a man to be the chief law enforcement officer of the country--the people's lawyer, the lawyer for all the people--who has a long record of divisive and inflammatory rhetoric which results in him being viewed as a polarizing figure. There are some folks who argue that his positions are just the result of very deeply held beliefs. Some people believe his positions are extreme. In the end, the one thing that is certain is that he is, in the view of many Americans, a polarizing and divisive figure. Senator Ashcroft opposed the nomination of Ronnie White, a very well- respected African American justice on the Missouri Supreme Court, for what at least appeared to be simply political reasons. In opposing the nomination of Justice White, Senator Ashcroft used words and language that not only were inflammatory but showed a fundamental disrespect for a man who had lifted himself out of poverty, worked his entire life to become a justice on the Missouri Supreme Court, and committed his professional life to the fair administration of justice. It is not unfair for some Americans to question whether Senator Ashcroft can adequately represent their public interests given his history. Some argue that Senator Ashcroft, in fact, has given his word that he will follow the law and enforce the law. The problem is that the realities of the Justice Department are that there are daily choices the Attorney General will be required to make. He will be required to decide which laws will be vigorously enforced and which laws will be defended from attack. Senator Ashcroft has spoken very eloquently about the reasons he pursued certain cases while he was attorney general of Missouri and why he challenged certain laws and legislation. Whether you agree or disagree with what Senator Ashcroft did as attorney general of Missouri, you can count on the fact that those same situations can and will arise, in fact, during the term of the next Attorney General of the United States. The Attorney General will be required to make daily decisions, discretionary decisions, that are critical to the lives of very many Americans. Again, it is not unfair for some Americans to question whether Senator Ashcroft, even keeping his word, which he has given us, will make decisions that will adequately represent and protect them given his prior statements and actions. The question is whether he will, in fact, be all the people's lawyer, as he has a responsibility to be. The post of the Attorney General is very different from other Cabinet posts. The Attorney General advises the President about the constitutionality of the legislation he is being asked to sign. He makes recommendations to the President about judicial nominations. As I already discussed and as others have discussed, Senator Ashcroft's history does not support the notion that he will recommend candidates for nomination to the Federal bench solely on the basis of their qualifications and abilities to serve. It is critical to note that the Attorney General is not the President's lawyer, he is the people's lawyer. He represents our Nation before the U.S. Supreme Court. Senator Ashcroft once called a U.S. Supreme Court decision ``illegitimate.'' Again, such statements show a fundamental disrespect for the rule of law which we believe is so critical in this country. When our U.S. Supreme Court speaks, whether we agree or disagree with them, they are the final word and they are the law of the land. It is very important to recognize also that the vast majority of the decisions that will be made by our Attorney General over the next four years will be difficult judgments made behind closed doors and under the national radar screen, outside the television cameras. When so many Americans believe that when the doors are closed and the lights and the cameras are off, Senator Ashcroft will not protect their interests, our responsibility is to do what is best for the country. The people have to believe that the Attorney General is the people's lawyer and that he will serve all Americans. Some of Senator Ashcroft's supporters suggest that the opposition to him is about his religion and about his faith. I want to make clear that I think strong faith is an enormous asset in any public servant. In fact, personal touchstones of faith and morality are critical to providing leadership and governance in this country. I served with Senator Ashcroft in the Senate. I know him, and I absolutely believe his strong faith is deep and sincere. I applaud and, in many ways, share the strength of his religious conviction and his religious faith. It is certainly not because of his faith that I reach the decision I do today. In fact, it is in spite of it. In conclusion, at a time when our Nation desperately needs unifying leaders, Senator Ashcroft is the wrong man for the wrong job at the wrong time. So it is with deep regret that I will not be able to support the nomination of Senator Ashcroft. I yield back the remainder of my time. (Disturbance in the galleries.)

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, how would you feel if someone was eavesdropping on your private phone conversations without your knowledge? Well, if it happened to me, I would be very disturbed. And I think that most Americans would be very disturbed to know that something similar may be happening every time they use their computers. The shocking fact is that many software programs contain something called spyware. Spyware is computer code that surreptitiously uses our Internet connection to transmit information about things like our purchasing patterns and our health and financial status. This information is collected without our knowledge or explicit permission and the spyware programs run undetected while you surf the Internet. Spyware has been found in Quicken software, which is manufactured by Intuit, Inc. So let me use this as an example. Imagine you purchase Quicken software or download it from the Internet. You install it on your computer to help you with your finances. However, unbeknownst to you, Quicken does more than install financial planning tools on your computer. It also installs a little piece of spyware. The spyware lies dormant until one day when you get on the Internet. As you start surfing the Internet, the spyware sends back information to Intuit about what you buy and what you are interested in. And all of this happens without your knowledge. You could be on Amazon.com or researching health issues and at the very same time Intuit spyware is using your Internet connection, transmitting some of your most private data to someone you never heard of. In the months since it was reported that Quicken contained spyware, the folks at Intuit may have decided to remove the spyware from Quicken. However, Quicken is not the only software program that may contain spyware. One computer expert recently found spyware programs in popular childrens' software that is designed to help them learn, such as Mattel Interactive's Reader Rabbit and Arthur's Thinking Games. And, according to another expert's assessment, spyware is present in four hundred software programs, including commonly used software such as RealNetworks RealDownload, Netscape/AOL Smart Download, and NetZip Download Demon. Spyware in these software programs can transmit information about every file you download from the Internet. Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce the Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act. I first introduced this legislation during the 106th Congress. At that time, Congress was debating how to best address the Internet privacy issue. Unfortunately, Congress failed to enact meaningful Internet privacy legislation before the close of the Congress. I am hopeful that the story will end differently during the 107th Congress. I hope we will pass comprehensive legislation that enables Americans to regain control over their personal information, and that helps protect their privacy and the privacy of their families. I believe my spyware bill is essential to ensuring that these computer privacy protections are complete, and I will work to make sure it is incorporated into any Internet privacy legislation that moves in the Senate. My proposal is common-sense and simple. It incorporates all four fair information practices of notice, choice, access and security practices that I believe are essential to effective computer privacy legislation. First, the Act requires that any software that contains spyware must provide consumers with clear and conspicuous notice--at the time the software is installed--that the software contains spyware. The notice must also describe the information that the spyware will collect and indicate to whom it will be transmitted. Another critical provision of my bill requires that software users must first give their affirmative consent before the spyware is enabled and allowed to start obtaining and sharing users' personal information with third parties. In other words, software users must ``opt-in'' to the collection and transmission of their information. My bill gives software users a choice whether they will allow the spyware to collect and share their information. The Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act allows for some common-sense exceptions to the notice and opt-in requirements. Under my proposal, software users would not have to receive notice and give their permission to enable the spyware if the software user's information is gathered in order to provide technical support for use of the software. In addition, users' information may be collected if it is necessary to determine if they are licensed users of the software. And finally, the legislation would not apply to situations where employers are using spyware to monitor Internet usage by their employees. I believe that this last issue is a serious one and deserves to be addressed in separate legislation. Another important aspect of the Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act is that it would incorporate the fair information practice known as ``access.'' What this means is that an individual software user would have the ability to find out what information has been collected about them, and would be given a reasonable chance to correct any errors. And finally, the fourth fair information practice guaranteed by my bill is ``security.'' Anyone that uses spyware to collect information about software users must establish procedures to keep that information confidential and safe from hackers. Mr. President, spyware is a modern day Trojan horse. You install software on your computer thinking it's designed to help you, and it turns out that something else is hidden inside that may be quite harmful. I have been closely following the privacy debate for some time now. And I am struck by how often I discover new ways in which our privacy is being eroded. Spyware is among the more startling examples of how this erosion is occurring. Most people would agree that modern technology has been extraordinarily beneficial. It has enabled us to obtain information more quickly and easily than ever before. And companies have streamlined their processes for providing goods and services. But these remarkable developments can have a startling downside. They have made it easier to track personal information such as medical and financial records, and buying habits. In turn, our ability to keep our personal information private is being eroded. Even sophisticated computer software users are unlikely to be aware that information is being collected about their Internet surfing habits and is likely being fed into a growing personal profile maintained at a data warehouse. They don't know that companies can and do extract the information from the warehouse to create a so-called cyber-profile of what they are likely to buy, what the status of their health may be, what their family is like, and what their financial situation may be. I believe that in the absence of government regulation, it is difficult, if not impossible for people to control the use of their own personal information. Consumers are not properly informed, and businesses are under no legal obligation to protect consumers' privacy. I believe that the Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act is a reasonable way to help Americans regain some of their privacy. My legislation does not prevent software providers from using their software to collect a consumer's online information. However, it gives back some control to the consumer by allowing him or her to decide whether their information may be gathered. My bill protects consumer privacy, while enabling software companies and marketing firms to continue obtaining consumers' information if the consumer so chooses. Confidence in these companies will be enhanced if they are able to assure their customers that they will not collect their personal information without their permission. Privacy protections should not stop with computer software. I am proud to have cosponsored the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, a much- needed measure offered by Senator Hollings. This legislation would prevent Internet service providers, individual web sites, network advertisers, and other third parties from gathering information about our online surfing habits without our permission. I intend to be an original cosponsor of the bill when it is re-introduced. And during the last Congress, I introduced the Telephone Call Privacy Act in order to prevent phone companies from disclosing consumers' private phone records without their permission. I will be re- introducing this bill soon. Increasingly, technology is impacting our lives and the lives of our families. I believe that while it is important to encourage technological growth, we must also balance new developments with our fundamental right to privacy. Otherwise, we may wake up one day and realize that our privacy has been so thoroughly eroded that it is impossible to recover. I urge my colleagues to support the Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, how would you feel if someone was eavesdropping on your private phone conversations without your knowledge? Well, if it happened to me, I would be very disturbed. And I think that most Americans would be very disturbed to know that something similar may be happening every time they use their computers. The shocking fact is that many software programs contain something called spyware. Spyware is computer code that surreptitiously uses our Internet connection to transmit information about things like our purchasing patterns and our health and financial status. This information is collected without our knowledge or explicit permission and the spyware programs run undetected while you surf the Internet. Spyware has been found in Quicken software, which is manufactured by Intuit, Inc. So let me use this as an example. Imagine you purchase Quicken software or download it from the Internet. You install it on your computer to help you with your finances. However, unbeknownst to you, Quicken does more than install financial planning tools on your computer. It also installs a little piece of spyware. The spyware lies dormant until one day when you get on the Internet. As you start surfing the Internet, the spyware sends back information to Intuit about what you buy and what you are interested in. And all of this happens without your knowledge. You could be on Amazon.com or researching health issues and at the very same time Intuit spyware is using your Internet connection, transmitting some of your most private data to someone you never heard of. In the months since it was reported that Quicken contained spyware, the folks at Intuit may have decided to remove the spyware from Quicken. However, Quicken is not the only software program that may contain spyware. One computer expert recently found spyware programs in popular childrens' software that is designed to help them learn, such as Mattel Interactive's Reader Rabbit and Arthur's Thinking Games. And, according to another expert's assessment, spyware is present in four hundred software programs, including commonly used software such as RealNetworks RealDownload, Netscape/AOL Smart Download, and NetZip Download Demon. Spyware in these software programs can transmit information about every file you download from the Internet. Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce the Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act. I first introduced this legislation during the 106th Congress. At that time, Congress was debating how to best address the Internet privacy issue. Unfortunately, Congress failed to enact meaningful Internet privacy legislation before the close of the Congress. I am hopeful that the story will end differently during the 107th Congress. I hope we will pass comprehensive legislation that enables Americans to regain control over their personal information, and that helps protect their privacy and the privacy of their families. I believe my spyware bill is essential to ensuring that these computer privacy protections are complete, and I will work to make sure it is incorporated into any Internet privacy legislation that moves in the Senate. My proposal is common-sense and simple. It incorporates all four fair information practices of notice, choice, access and security practices that I believe are essential to effective computer privacy legislation. First, the Act requires that any software that contains spyware must provide consumers with clear and conspicuous notice--at the time the software is installed--that the software contains spyware. The notice must also describe the information that the spyware will collect and indicate to whom it will be transmitted. Another critical provision of my bill requires that software users must first give their affirmative consent before the spyware is enabled and allowed to start obtaining and sharing users' personal information with third parties. In other words, software users must ``opt-in'' to the collection and transmission of their information. My bill gives software users a choice whether they will allow the spyware to collect and share their information. The Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act allows for some common-sense exceptions to the notice and opt-in requirements. Under my proposal, software users would not have to receive notice and give their permission to enable the spyware if the software user's information is gathered in order to provide technical support for use of the software. In addition, users' information may be collected if it is necessary to determine if they are licensed users of the software. And finally, the legislation would not apply to situations where employers are using spyware to monitor Internet usage by their employees. I believe that this last issue is a serious one and deserves to be addressed in separate legislation. Another important aspect of the Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act is that it would incorporate the fair information practice known as ``access.'' What this means is that an individual software user would have the ability to find out what information has been collected about them, and would be given a reasonable chance to correct any errors. And finally, the fourth fair information practice guaranteed by my bill is ``security.'' Anyone that uses spyware to collect information about software users must establish procedures to keep that information confidential and safe from hackers. Mr. President, spyware is a modern day Trojan horse. You install software on your computer thinking it's designed to help you, and it turns out that something else is hidden inside that may be quite harmful. I have been closely following the privacy debate for some time now. And I am struck by how often I discover new ways in which our privacy is being eroded. Spyware is among the more startling examples of how this erosion is occurring. Most people would agree that modern technology has been extraordinarily beneficial. It has enabled us to obtain information more quickly and easily than ever before. And companies have streamlined their processes for providing goods and services. But these remarkable developments can have a startling downside. They have made it easier to track personal information such as medical and financial records, and buying habits. In turn, our ability to keep our personal information private is being eroded. Even sophisticated computer software users are unlikely to be aware that information is being collected about their Internet surfing habits and is likely being fed into a growing personal profile maintained at a data warehouse. They don't know that companies can and do extract the information from the warehouse to create a so-called cyber-profile of what they are likely to buy, what the status of their health may be, what their family is like, and what their financial situation may be. I believe that in the absence of government regulation, it is difficult, if not impossible for people to control the use of their own personal information. Consumers are not properly informed, and businesses are under no legal obligation to protect consumers' privacy. I believe that the Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act is a reasonable way to help Americans regain some of their privacy. My legislation does not prevent software providers from using their software to collect a consumer's online information. However, it gives back some control to the consumer by allowing him or her to decide whether their information may be gathered. My bill protects consumer privacy, while enabling software companies and marketing firms to continue obtaining consumers' information if the consumer so chooses. Confidence in these companies will be enhanced if they are able to assure their customers that they will not collect their personal information without their permission. Privacy protections should not stop with computer software. I am proud to have cosponsored the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, a much- needed measure offered by Senator Hollings. This legislation would prevent Internet service providers, individual web sites, network advertisers, and other third parties from gathering information about our online surfing habits without our permission. I intend to be an original cosponsor of the bill when it is re-introduced. And during the last Congress, I introduced the Telephone Call Privacy Act in order to prevent phone companies from disclosing consumers' private phone records without their permission. I will be re- introducing this bill soon. Increasingly, technology is impacting our lives and the lives of our families. I believe that while it is important to encourage technological growth, we must also balance new developments with our fundamental right to privacy. Otherwise, we may wake up one day and realize that our privacy has been so thoroughly eroded that it is impossible to recover. I urge my colleagues to support the Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to note with sadness the recent death of North Carolina author Elizabeth Sewell. Dr. Sewell succumbed to her third bout with cancer on January 12, at the age of 81. Dr. Sewell was a writer of international renown. She authored four novels, three volumes of poetry, and 5 volumes of criticism, as well as scores of short stories. Dr. Sewell was born in India and educated at Cambridge University in England. She made Greensboro, North Carolina her home starting in 1960 and became a citizen of the United States in 1974. A gifted writer and thinker, Dr. Sewell studied and wrote on topics as diverse as race relations in the South, the role of the imagination in science and literature, and life in the academic world. Her work garnered the prestigious poetry, fiction and non-fiction award from the American Academy and Institute of Arts and Letters in 1981. Elizabeth Sewell was more than a prolific writer. She was also a talented teacher who shared her love of great literature with students in North Carolina and elsewhere. She served as a visiting professor and writer-in-residence at Vassar College, the University of Notre Dame, and Bennett College in Greensboro. She became Joe Rosenthal Professor of Humanities at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro in 1974. As North Carolinians, we are proud to claim Elizabeth Sewell as one of our own. All Americans--indeed, people all over the world--were privileged that she chose to share her many gifts with us.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleagues for supporting Kristen's Act. Representative Sue Myrick introduced this essential crime prevention legislation on the House side, and I introduced the Senate companion. With the Senate's action today, this measure will be set to become law. I am grateful to Representative Myrick for her tireless efforts towards ensuring that Kristen's Act becomes law. The legislation will help public agencies and nonprofit organizations provide desperately needed assistance to law enforcement and families in locating involuntarily missing adults. I would also like to thank Senators Leahy and Hatch. They deserve special praise for their constant support of victim advocacy initiatives and their fight to put a stop to crime in our Nation. Kristen's Law was inspired by the story of a young woman from North Carolina, Kristen Modafferi. On June 23, 1997, just three weeks after her 18th birthday, Kristen disappeared. Despite tireless efforts by law enforcement to locate Kristen, she has not been seen since. And tragically, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children was unable to assist with the search, all because Kristen had passed the age of 18. Unfortunately, Kristen's story is not unique. Numerous other cases involving the disappearance of young adults are reported to authorities every year. During 1999, in North Carolina, the Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office received reports of 132 missing persons ages 18 through 21. That's the number for just one age group, in just one county, in just one state in the country. When we look at nationwide statistics for missing adults, what we find is staggering. For example, as of February 1999, the FBI reported that there were more than 38,000 active missing person entries for adults over the age of eighteen. This is frighteningly large number. That is why I believe that Kristen's Act is a necessary protective measure. It will not only provide some comfort to the millions of parents who send their children to college every year and worry about their safety, but it will help ensure that when an adult of any age is determined missing due to foul play, a national effort will be mobilized to help. When a person involuntarily disappears, time is of the essence. Search efforts must begin quickly, and they must reach across jurisdictions. Abducted individuals are often taken across state lines. In order to effectively coordinate a search, the groups conducting the search must have an easy way to share information with each other, no matter how far away from one another they may be. Kristen's Act will help facilitate communication between search parties through the establishment of a national database to track involuntarily missing adults. The greater the number of agencies helping in the search, the more likely it is that the person will be found. But there is no central organization that exists to aid law enforcement in their efforts to locate missing adults. Unfortunately, Kristen's tragic story illustrates the need for such an organization. Kristen's Act will help enable this to happen by providing funds to help establish a national clearinghouse for missing adults. Mr. President, I believe that it is important to mention that it is true that some individuals may disappear because they want to. Some of these individuals may live in abusive households. Others may want to start a new life. And because they are considered legal adults, they have the choice to remain missing. In these cases, it may not make sense of law enforcement, the Center, or anyone else to launch a search. That is why I believe the Attorney General should ensure that under Kristen's Act, grants will be given out only to organizations that have demonstrated they have in place clear, effective methods of distinguishing between disappearances that are voluntary and those that may involve foul play. And that is why Kristen's Act specifies that if a national database is set up, it will be used to track only those missing adults who have first been determined by law enforcement to be endangered due to age, diminished mental capacity or suspicious circumstances. There are many individuals who really do need help. In those instances, Kristen's Act sends a message to families that they deserve whatever assistance is necessary to locate endangered and involuntarily missing loved ones. The bill will help ensure that all involuntarily missing adults--regardless of age--will receive not only the benefit of search efforts by law enforcement, but also by experienced, specialized organizations. Mr. President, I believe we must do everything we can to prevent situations like the one that Kristen Modafferi and her family have suffered through. The bill we passed today goes a long way toward achieving this goal. Again, I commend my colleagues for recognizing its importance.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to promote the development of affordable, quality rental housing for low- income households in rural areas. I am pleased, along with Senator Jeffords and Senator Leahy, to introduce the ``Rural Rental Housing Act of 2000.'' There is a pressing and worsening need for quality rental housing for rural families and senior citizens. As a group, residents of rural communities are the worst housed of all our citizens. Rural areas contain approximately 20 percent of the nation's population as compared to suburbs with 50 percent. Yet, twice as many rural American families live in bad housing than in the suburbs. An estimated 2,600,000 rural households live in substandard housing with severe structural damage or without indoor plumbing, heat, or electricity. Substandard housing is a particularly grave problem in the rural areas of my home state of North Carolina. Ten percent or more of the population in five of North Carolina's rural counties live in substandard housing. Rural housing units, in fact, comprise 60 percent of all substandard units in the state. Even as millions of rural Americans live in wretched rental housing, millions more are paying an extraordinarily high price for their housing. One out of every three renters in rural America pays more than 30 percent of his or her income for housing; 20 percent of rural renters pay more than 50 percent of their income for housing. Most distressing is when people living in housing that does not have heat or indoor plumbing pay an extraordinary amount of their income in rent. Over 90 percent of people living in housing in the worst conditions pay more than 50 percent of their income for housing costs. Unfortunately, our rural communities are not in a position to address these problems alone. They are disproportionately poor and have fewer resources to bring to bear on the issue. Poverty is a crushing, persistent problem in rural America. One-third of the non-metropolitan counties in North Carolina have 20 percent or more of their population living below the poverty line. In contrast, not a single metropolitan county in North Carolina has 20 percent or more of its population living below the poverty line. Not surprisingly, the economies of rural areas are generally less diverse, limiting jobs and economic opportunity. Rural areas have limited access to many forces driving the economy, such as technology, lending, and investment, because they are remote and have low population density. Banks and other investors, looking for larger projects with lower risk, seek metropolitan areas for loans and investment. Credit in rural areas is often more expensive and available at less favorable terms than in metropolitan areas. Given the magnitude of this problem, it is startling to find that the federal government is turning its back on the situation. In the face of this challenge, the federal government's investment in rural rental housing is at its lowest level in more than 25 years. Federal spending for rural rental housing has been cut by 73 percent since 1994. Rural rental housing unit production financed by the federal government has been reduced by 88 percent since 1990. Moreover, poor rural renters do not fair as well as poor urban renters in accessing existing programs. Only 17 percent of very low-income rural renters receive housing subsidies, compared with 28 percent of urban poor. Rural counties fared worse with Federal Housing Authority assistance on a per capita basis, as well, getting only $25 per capita versus $264 in metro areas. Our veterans in rural areas are no better off: Veterans Affairs housing dollars are spent disproportionately in metropolitan areas. To address the scarcity of rural rental housing, I believe that the federal government must come up with new solutions. We cannot simply throw money at the problem and expect the situation to improve. Instead, we must work in partnership with State and local governments, private financial institutions, private philanthropic institutions, and the private and nonprofit sectors to make headway. We must leverage our resources wisely to increase the supply and quality of rural rental housing for low-income households and the elderly. Senator Jeffords, Senator Leahy, and I are proposing a new solution. Today, we introduce the Rural Rental Housing Act of 2000 to create a flexible source of financing to allow project sponsors to build, acquire or rehabilitate rental housing based on local needs. We demand that the federal dollars to be stretched by requiring State matching funds and by requiring the sponsor to find additional sources of funding for the project. We are pleased that over 70 housing groups from 26 states have already indicated their support for this legislation. Let me briefly describe what the measure would do. We propose a $250 million fund to be administered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The funds will be allotted to states based on their shares of rural substandard units and of the rural population living in poverty. We will leverage federal funding by requiring states or other non-profit intermediaries to provide a dollar-for-dollar match of project funds. The funds will be used for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and construction of low-income rural rental housing. The USDA will make rental housing available for low-income populations in rural communities. The population served must earn less than 80 percent area median income. Housing must be in rural areas with populations not exceeding 25,000, outside of urbanized areas. Priority for assistance will be given to very low income households, those earning less than 50 percent of area median income, and in very low- income communities or in communities with a severe lack of affordable housing. To ensure that housing continues to serve low-income populations, the legislation specifies that housing financed under the legislation must have a low-income use restriction of not less than 30 years. The Act promotes public-private partnerships to foster flexible, local solutions. The USDA will make assistance available to public bodies, Native American tribes, for-profit corporations, and private nonprofit corporations with a record of accomplishment in housing or community development. Again, it stretches federal assistance by limiting most projects from financing more than 50 percent of a project cost with this funding. The assistance may be made available in the form of capital grants, direct, subsidized loans, guarantees, and other forms of financing for rental housing and related facilities. Finally, the Act will be administered at the state level by organizations familiar with the unique needs of each state rather than creating a new federal bureaucracy. The USDA will be encouraged to identify intermediary organizations based in the state to administer the funding provided that it complies with the provisions of the Act. These intermediary organizations can be states or state agencies, private nonprofit community development corporations, nonprofit housing corporations, community development loan funds, or community development credit unions. This Act is not meant to replace, but to supplement the Section 515 Rural Rental Housing program, which has been the primary source of federal funding for affordable rental housing in rural America from its inception in 1963. Section 515, which is administered by the USDA's Rural Housing Service, makes direct loans to non-profit and for-profit developers to build rural rental housing for very low income tenants. Our support for 515 has decreased in recent years--there has been a 73 percent reduction since 1994--which has had two effects. It is practically impossible to build new rental housing, and our ability to preserve and maintain the current stock of Section 515 units is hobbled. Fully three-quarters of the Section 515 portfolio is more than 20 years old. Currently $60 million of the $115 million appropriation in fiscal year 2000 is used to preserve existing stock. The time has come for us to take a new look at a critical problem facing rural America. How can we best work to promote the development of quality rental housing for low-income people in rural America? My colleagues and I believe that to answer this question, we must comply with certain basic principles. We do not want to create yet another program with a large federal bureaucracy. We want a program that is flexible, that fosters public-private partnerships, that leverages federal funding, and that is locally controlled. We believe that the Rural Rental Housing Act of 2000 satisfies these principles and will help move us in the direction of ensuring that everyone in America, including those in rural areas, have access to affordable, quality housing options. Mr. President, I request that the text of the legislation be included in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Law Enforcement Officers Due Process Act of 2000. Every day our Nation's police officers put their lives on the line in the fight against crime. Every time they patrol a beat they put their own safety at risk to protect our children and make our country a better place to live and work. We all owe a great deal to these brave men and women. Working police officers spend their lives among the public safeguarding the innocent and apprehending those who have committed crimes. Much of this contact can be stressful for everyone involved. Perhaps an individual has been stopped by an officer for the suspected violation of a law. Or maybe the officer is assisting someone who is the victim of a crime. Due to the circumstances, these are often unpleasant situations. And unfortunately, in some instances, contact with the police officer may become adversarial and generate complaints about the officer's actions. These complaints range from accusations that an officer took too long to arrive at a crime scene, used too much force, or was not forceful enough, to claims that the officer was rude or didn't show proper respect. Some complaints against officers are legitimate. However, some complaints are generated to intimidate an officer who is simply doing his or her job, into dropping charges. Any one of these complaints can get an officer fired, suspended, or otherwise punished without the benefit of due process. A patchwork of state and local laws currently governs the rights of officers when they are involved in a case that may lead to dismissal, demotion, suspension or transfer. Thirty-five states have state and/or local laws in place that govern the administrative due process rights of law enforcement officers. However, 15 states do not have any of these much-deserved due process protections for their law enforcement officers. The Law Enforcement Officers Due Process Act is a common-sense measure designed to replace arbitrary and ad hoc investigatory procedures with consistent standards. The legislation will provide additional funding to law enforcement agencies that either have in place, or currently do not have but certify they will implement, administrative due process for their law enforcement officers. An agency will be eligible for grant money if its administrative procedures include the right of a law enforcement officer under investigation to: (1) a hearing before a fair and impartial board or hearing officer; (2) be represented by an attorney or other officer at the expense of the officer under investigation; (3) confront any witness testifying against him or her; and (4) record all meetings he or she attends. In many instances, an employer with direct control over an officer is also the investigator. That is why providing basic, explicitly stated rights to officers under investigation is crucial to maintaining impartial investigations. These rights will not interfere with the management of state and local internal investigations. They will merely ensure that officers receive the benefit of fair and objective investigations, whether a complaint against them is legitimate or not. Some individuals may be concerned that providing these rights would delay removal of an officer who is ultimately found to have deserved disciplinary action taken against them. However, I'd like to emphasize that my legislation would not prevent the immediate suspension of an officer whose continued presence on the job is considered to be a substantial and immediate threat to the welfare of the law enforcement agency or the public; who refuses to obey a direct order issued in conformance with the agency's rules and regulations; or who is accused of committing an illegal act. The Law Enforcement Officers Due Process Act does not force a law enforcement agency to implement due process rights for its officers. Rather, it encourages agencies to do the right thing by offering them additional funds if they establish written procedures for determining if a complaint is valid or merely designed to cause trouble for the officer. I urge my colleagues who represent states that do not have law enforcement officers' due process rights laws to cosponsor my bill and give their police officers the protections they deserve. I also urge my colleagues who represent states that have various local laws in place to cosponsor my bill. By doing so they will help eliminate the disparity that exists among local jurisdictions, and guarantee that every single officer in their state will have a minimum baseline of rights to help guarantee fair and impartial investigations. Crime rates are down across the Nation. We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to our Nation's police officers for helping make this happen. Our communities, our schools, and our places of business would not enjoy the level of security they have today without the efforts of law enforcement. Enacting the Law Enforcement Officers Due Process Act is the least we can do to show officers that we will fight for all of them just like they fight for all of us every day. I ask unanimous consent that the Law Enforcement Officers Due Process Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, how would you feel if someone was eavesdropping on your private phone conversations without your knowledge? Well, if it happened to me, I would be very disturbed. And I think that most Americans would be very disturbed to know that something similar may be happening every time they use their computers. The shocking fact is that many software programs contain something called spyware. Spyware is computer code that surreptitiously uses our Internet connection to transmit information about things like our purchasing patterns and our health and financial status. This information is collected without our knowledge or explicit permission and the spyware programs run undetected while you surf the Internet. Spyware has been found in Quicken software, which is manufactured by Intuit, Inc. So let me use this as an example. Imagine you purchase Quicken software or download it from the Internet. You install it on your computer to help you with your finances. However, unbeknownst to you, Quicken does more than install financial planning tools on your computer. It also installs a little piece of spyware. The spyware lies dormant until one day when you get on the Internet. As you start surfing the Internet, the spyware sends back information to Intuit about what you buy and what you are interested in. And all of this happens without your knowledge. You could be on Amazon.com or researching health issues and at the very same time Intuit spyware is using your Internet connection, transmitting some of your most private data to someone you never heard of. In the months since it was reported that Quicken contained spyware, the folks at Intuit may have decided to remove the spyware from Quicken. However, Quicken is not the only software program that may contain spyware. One computer expert recently found spyware programs in popular children's software that is designed to help them learn, such as Mattel Interactive's Reader Rabbit and Arthur's Thinking Games. And, according to another expert's assessment, spyware is present in four hundred software programs, including commonly used software such as RealNetworks RealDownload, Netscape/AOL Smart Download, and NetZip Download Demon. Spyware in these software programs can transmit information about every file you download from the Internet. I rise today to introduce the Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act of 2000. I believe that this legislation will help Americans regain some control over their personal information and will help stop the loss of their privacy and the privacy of their families. My proposal is common-sense and simple. It incorporates all four fair information practices of notice, choice, access and security--practices that I believe are essential to effective computer privacy legislation. First, the Act requires that any software that contains spyware must provide consumers with clear and conspicuous notice--at the time the software is installed--that the software contains spyware. The notice must also describe the information that the spyware will collect and indicate to whom it will be transmitted. Another critical provision of my bill requires that software users must first give their affirmative consent before the spyware is enabled and allowed to start obtaining and sharing users' personal information with third parties. In other words, software users must ``opt-in'' to the collection and transmission of their information. My bill gives software users a choice whether they will allow the spyware to collect and share their information. The Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act allows for some common-sense exceptions to the notice and opt-in requirements. Under my proposal, software users would not have to receive notice and give their permission to enable the spyware if the software user's information is gathered in order to provide technical support for use of the software. In addition, users' information may be collected if it is necessary to determine if they are licensed users of the software. And finally, the legislation would not apply to situations where employers are using spyware to monitor Internet usage by their employees. I believe that this last issue is a serious one and deserves to be addressed in separate legislation. Another important aspect of the Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act is that it would incorporate the fair information practice known as ``access.'' What this means is that an individual software user would have the ability to find out what information has been collected about them, and would be given a reasonable chance to correct any errors. And finally, the fourth fair information practice guaranteed by my bill is ``security.'' Anyone that uses spyware to collect information about software users must establish procedures to keep that information confidential and safe from hackers. Spyware is a modern day Trojan horse. You install software on your computer thinking it's designed to help you, and it turns out that something else is hidden inside that may be quite harmful. I have been closely following the privacy debate for some time now. And I am struck by how often I discover new ways in which our privacy is being eroded. Spyware is among the more startling examples of how this erosion is occurring. Most people would agree that modern technology has been extraordinarily beneficial. It has enabled us to obtain information more quickly and easily than ever before. And companies have streamlined their processes for providing goods and services. But these remarkable developments can have a startling downside. They have made it easier to track personal information such as medical and financial records, and buying habits. In turn, our ability to keep our personal information private is being eroded. Even sophisticated computer software users are unlikely to be aware that information is being collected about their Internet surfing habits and is likely being fed into a growing personal profile maintained at a data warehouse. They don't know that companies can and do extract the information from the warehouse to create a so-called cyber-profile of what they are likely to buy, what the status of their health may be, what their family is like, and what their financial situation may be. I believe that in the absence of government regulation, it is difficult, if not impossible for people to control the use of their own personal information. Consumers are not properly informed, and businesses are under no legal obligation to protect consumers' privacy. I believe that the Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act is a reasonable way to help Americans regain some of their privacy. My legislation does not prevent software manufacturers from using their software to collect a consumer's online information. However, it gives back some control to the consumer by allowing him or her to decide whether their information may be gathered. My bill protects consumer privacy, while enabling software companies and marketing firms to continue obtaining consumers' information if the consumer so chooses. Confidence in these companies will be enhanced if they are able to assure their customers that they will not collect their personal information without their permission. Privacy protections should not stop with computer software. I am also proud to be a cosponsor of the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, a much- needed measure that would prevent Internet service providers, individual web sites, network advertisers, and other third parties from gathering information about our online surfing habits without our permission. And last fall, I introduced the Telephone Call Privacy Act in order to prevent phone companies from disclosing consumers' private phone records without their permission. Although there are only a few weeks left in this congressional session, it is my hope that Congress will pass meaningful privacy legislation soon. Increasingly, technology is impacting our lives and the lives of our families. I believe that while it is important to encourage technological growth, we must also balance new developments with our fundamental right to privacy. Otherwise, we may wake up one day and realize that our privacy has been so thoroughly eroded that it is impossible to recover. I urge my colleagues to support the Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. I want to associate my self with the concern expressed by the Senator from Arkansas. Panda Energy has a major gas-fired co- generator in northwestern North Carolina. That plant, in Roanoke Rapids, was the first project completed by this corporation and has been a significant supplier of electricity to the citizens of my state for the past ten years. I, too, have been briefed about the difficulties Panda has faced in their effort to improve China's electricity-generating infrastructure. The commitment to approve and issue a formal tariff to the Panda Project in Luannan County, that the municipal and provincial governments agreed to, is not being honored. By failing to honor their commitment to grant a reasonable tariff rate, these governments have precluded the commercial generation of power. If this continues, the U.S. bondholders will have no choice but to foreclose on what represents the first U.S. capital markets power project financing in China. This is a difficult situation for both sides, but the bottom line is that the international trading system breaks down if agreements are not honored, especially for large infrastructure projects like this one with long lead times. People invest money based on these agreements. They put their companies at risk. I would like to yield to my colleague, Senator Kerry, who has been working on this issue for some time.

Mr. EDWARDS. Would the Senator yield?

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. The Senator's understanding is correct. That is our intention.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I am pleased that today we are discussing some of the vacancies that exist in the Federal judiciary. There was a discussion this morning about an issue that is near and dear to my heart and important to the folks in North Carolina, which is the vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Senator Robb came down and discussed Judge Gregory's nomination. Chairman Hatch responded. I would like to say a few words about that discussion. There are 15 authorized judgeships on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. There are presently only 10 active judges on that court. By tradition, my State of North Carolina, which is the largest, most populous State in the Fourth Circuit, is allocated three of those judgeships. Out of those 10 judgeships --presently active judges on the Fourth Circuit--how many come from North Carolina? None. We are the only State in the nation that is not represented on a Federal circuit court, along with Hawaii. We are the largest State in the circuit. We have the largest population in the circuit, and we don't have a judge representing our State on this court. That has been true since Judge Ervin died in 1999. The people of North Carolina, who have cases regularly heard in the Fourth Circuit, have no one there representing them. In addition, to the extent the court is regularly interpreting matters of North Carolina law, which it is required to do in diversity cases, there is no judge in this court who is trained in North Carolina law. Now, this Congress recognized some time ago how important it was for States to be represented on their circuit courts of appeal by enacting a law--in fact, requiring that States have a judge on their Federal circuit court of appeals. We have none. As I indicated before, along with Hawaii, we are the only two States in the country that are not represented on our circuit court of appeals. Now, Chairman Hatch had some discussion this morning about Judge Gregory and his nomination to the Fourth Circuit in the State of Virginia, and the fact that that was a slot traditionally allocated to my State of North Carolina. My question to Chairman Hatch is: What are we doing about the nomination of Judge Wynn? Judge Wynn is a very well-respected, very moderate, centrist jurist from North Carolina, who has been nominated for over a year from my State to fill a vacancy that is traditionally allocated to North Carolina. There is no question that Judge Wynn would be approved by this body if he ever got a hearing and a vote on the floor. Unfortunately, that has not happened. It is easy to understand why the Clinton administration believed they needed to take some action. That action has turned out to be to nominate Judge Gregory. I have to admit it was somewhat frustrating to me, representing North Carolina, to have Judge Gregory nominated for the slot he was nominated for because it was traditionally allocated to North Carolina. But, I do support Judge Gregory's nomination. In addition to having no judge from North Carolina being on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, our court does not presently have, nor has it ever had, an African American judge. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has the largest African American population in the country and does not now have, nor has it ever had, an African American judge. Obviously, there is a huge part of our population in the Fourth Circuit that has never been represented on this court. They are entitled to representation by a well-qualified judge. In fact, Judge Wynn who was nominated over a year ago--from my State that has no judge on the Fourth Circuit--is also an African American judge. I urge Chairman Hatch to grant Judge Wynn a hearing and to push forward his vote on the floor of this Senate where he will be approved. The bottom line is that Judge Gregory is a well-respected and well- qualified African American lawyer from the State of Virginia who also deserves a hearing, and also deserves a vote in this body this year. The argument that is made--and Chairman Hatch made it this morning-- is we only need 10 judges on the Fourth Circuit, we don't really need the 15 that Congress in fact has authorized. The reason is that the chief judge of that circuit, Judge Wilkinson, says they do not need any more judges, they are operating perfectly efficiently. I point out several things. No. 1, the Fourth Circuit issues more one-sentence opinions than any Federal circuit court in the country. Litigants come before it and make their case. Instead of getting a reasoned decision about why they won or lost their case, they get one sentence. What does that tell them about how much attention in fact is being paid to their case? This same argument was made when there were 13 judges on the court. Now we are down to l0. Since when do we let the chief judge of the circuit court decide how many judges go on the court? That is a function we in Congress have responsibility for--not him. You can certainly make an argument that this is a partisan decision that the chief judge has made--that he likes the present composition of the court. He was a Republican-nominated judge.

Mr. EDWARDS. I ask unanimous consent for another 3 minutes.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, here we have the chief judge, who is a Republican-nominated judge, and a court that now has a majority of Republican judges. You can certainly make the argument that he likes the composition of the court the way it is; he never wants that to be changed. That is so fundamentally wrong and so fundamentally different from the way our Constitution provides. We should be nominating judges. Whether it is a Democratic or a Republican administration, it shouldn't make any difference in nominating well-qualified judges. This body should act on the qualification of those men and women to serve on the court, not based upon the Republican or Democratic composition of the court. It is just that simple. This should be totally nonpartisan. My State has no one representing them on the Fourth Circuit. There is not, nor has there ever been, an African American judge on this court. The simple bottom line is that we have the responsibility of deciding how many judges should be authorized for that court. We have made that decision--15. It is now down to 10. Of those 10, North Carolina has none. The people of North Carolina are entitled to be represented on this court. In addition to that, we should deal with the issue that there has never been an African American judge on this court. We presently have pending the nomination of two well-respected and very well qualified African American jurists. This is what I would say to the Chairman Hatch. Let us have a hearing on Judge Wynn. Let Judge Wynn have a vote on the floor of this Senate, and let the people of North Carolina have what, by law enacted by this body, they are entitled to, which is a judge representing them on their Federal court of appeals so that when my people go to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to have their case heard, they have at least one judge representing them on that court. Aren't they entitled to that? I yield the floor.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Hatch's resolution commemorating our Olympic athletes for the spirit, enthusiasm and patriotism they displayed in Sydney at the XXVII Summer Games. I am proud to represent a state that sent to Sydney two of the nation's most recognizable athletes, Marion Jones and Mia Hamm, as well as numerous other athletes who valiantly competed in these Olympic games. The nation's eyes were on Marion Jones as she set out to win an unprecedented five gold medals in Sydney. While Marion didn't win five golds, she made us all proud with her commanding performance. She set a track and field record by winning more medals in a single Olympics than any other woman in history. Her three gold and two bronze medals have put Marion atop the track and field world. More important than winning her events, Marion accepted each of her medals with grace and style, epitomizing what Olympic competition is all about. Mia Hamm has captivated children and adults alike with her charisma and passion for the game of soccer. Thousands of girls across North Carolina take to the soccer fields in hopes of being the next Mia Hamm. Watching Mia play in Sydney, I understand why. In the women's soccer semifinals against Brazil, Mia was pushed, shoved and thrown to the ground time and time again. She did not once complain, letting her actions speak louder than words by scoring the only goal of the match. The United States Women's Soccer team went on to claim the silver medal, led by other Tar Heels such as goal keeper Siri Mullinix of Greensboro and Carla Overbeck of Chapel Hill. I am also extremely proud of other North Carolinians who competed in Sydney. While these athletes haven't received the attention Mia Hamm and Marion Jones have, they are equally important and should be commended for their accomplishments. Robert Costello of Southern Pines competed in equestrian events. Tim Montgomery and Jerome Young, both of Raleigh, Lynda Blutreich of Chapel Hill and Melissa Morrison of Kannapolis competed in track and field. Charlie Ogletree of Columbia competed in sailing. Rich DeSelm of Charlotte swam in Sydney. Calvin Brock of Charlotte represented the United States in boxing. George Hincapie and Fred Rodriguez both of Charlotte competed in cycling. Hunter Kemper of Charlotte competed in the triathlon and Henry Nuzum of Chapel Hill competed in rowing. The United States should be proud of every athlete who competed in the Olympics. I am especially proud of the North Carolinians who represented the United States in Sydney, and I am pleased to support this resolution with them in mind.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President I rise today in support of H.R. 4444, which would grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations to China. I do so only after long and careful consideration of this proposal. I believe that granting permanent normal trade relations with China is the right thing to do. It will significantly alter our nation's relations with China. Trade between U.S. companies and the Chinese will likely explode in the coming years--generating jobs and revenues in this country. It could easily be the keystone in the continuing prosperity of this nation. And it could be the vital catalyst for democracy and a free-market system in China. During the last few months as I have traveled through North Carolina and met with my constituents, I have heard from hundreds of men and women who believe that their future prosperity and their jobs turn upon this vote. Many of them eagerly support this legislation. I believe that North Carolina workers can compete with anyone and win. This bill opens a world of opportunity to North Carolina businesses and workers. The farmer, the high- tech worker, the furniture manufacturer, the factory worker, and the banker all will get a real chance to capture a part of the Chinese market. The farmer who is working so hard and struggling believes that China's agricultural market will be opened. For example, China already imports 12 percent of its poultry meat. If China joins the WTO, it will cut its poultry tariffs in half and accept all poultry meat that is certified wholesome by the USDA. A similar situation holds for pork and tobacco products. China's agreement to lower its tariffs, to eliminate quotas, and to defer to U.S. health standards provides North Carolina farmers with real opportunity. The high- tech worker who is producing software or fiber optics cable will also benefit. China has agreed to eliminate its duties on these products in the next few years and has agreed to eliminate many of its purchase and distribution rules that inhibit sales of U.S. products. Meanwhile, tariffs on furniture will be eliminated. Tariffs on heavy machinery will be reduced by nearly one half. Banks and insurance companies will be able to do business with the Chinese people without arbitrary restrictions. The list goes on. As U.S. goods and services flow into China and as our engagement grows, the opportunity for real change in China grows. We are all aware that China has a long way to go in improving its record on human rights, religious liberty, environmental protection and labor rights. The abuses in that nation are serious. And I am committed to continued efforts to end those abuses. As American ideas, goods, and businesses surge into China, I believe China's record will improve. But I am mindful that globalization and this bill in particular may have a real downside. As a Senator from North Carolina, I am well- positioned to see both the enormous benefits and the large costs of this measure. Textile and apparel workers, many of whom live in North Carolina, face real challenges as a result of this measure. While in almost every respect the agreement with China benefits our country, textiles is the major exception. As a result of joining WTO, quotas on Chinese textiles and apparel will be eliminated in 2005. As a result, Chinese apparel will flow into the United States. By and large, the Chinese imports will likely displace imports from other countries. However, there is no doubt that an additional burden will be placed on the textile industry. To be sure, the industry can try to protect itself through the anti- surge mechanism put in place by this legislation. Yet it does us no good to pretend that these remedies are perfect and that people will not be hurt. I know that textile workers will work their hearts out competing with the Chinese. I know these people; I grew up with them. When I was in college, I worked a summer job in a textile mill. My father spent his life working in mills. The impact of PNTR on them is personal to me. Dealing with the impact of this bill on them will always be a top priority for me. And I will fight throughout my career to protect them. Mr. President, China's entry into the World Trade Organization and its attainment of permanent normal trade relations with America is not without its risks. No one can predict with certainty that China will live up to its commitments. I vote for this bill because I believe that we must turn our face toward the future. But we must be mindful of the risks. So I warn that I will monitor China's compliance with its agreements like a hawk. If they renege, I will lead the charge to force them to live up to their obligations. But to vote against this measure--to deny PNTR--not only fails to accomplish anything productive but also denies us enormous opportunities. We cannot hide our heads in the sand. China will join the WTO. The Senate has no impact on that decision. The only question we face is whether the U.S. will grant China permanent normal trade relations or whether it will fall out of compliance with its WTO obligations. If we fall out of compliance, the U.S. will be denied the Chinese tariff reductions and rule changes, while every other country in the world takes advantage of the Chinese concessions. We must decide whether the U.S. will be able to compete with other countries--Germany, France, Japan--as they enter the Chinese market. American companies and workers deserve the right to enter those markets. On balance, I believe that China's admission into the World Trade Organization and its attainment of permanent normal trading relations is for the good. And so I vote for this legislation, mindful of the risks, prepared to watch the results carefully and optimistic about the future.