John Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. This program has been extraordinarily effective. But the key to this is, it is just one step in the right direction. We need to be doing much more, much more to attract more quality students to the teaching profession, much more to hang on, retain the young people who are dedicated to teaching and want to do it for the rest of their lives. We need to make sure, No. 1, we get quality people, and, No. 2, once we get quality young men and women in the teaching profession, we keep them there with good training programs.

Mr. EDWARDS. The answer to the Senator's question is simple. Without the resources, it would have been impossible to turn those schools around in North Carolina. It could not have been done. I will give the Senator another example. On his list, he has 2,750,000 fewer children in Head Start. Every educator in North Carolina will tell you that a critical component of what we have done to improve the schools in North Carolina is our State program Smart Start. Without that, kids do not begin school ready to learn. They are not prepared to learn. All these other things are very important, but this early childhood education is absolutely critical. Another thing on Senator Kennedy's list: Opportunities for teachers to build skills by training and mentoring. We have focused in North Carolina not only on recruiting quality teachers but continuing to train them, keeping them, increasing their pay, increasing their incentive pay when they perform well. Teacher training and compensation is absolutely crucial to make this work. It gets to be a pretty simple proposition: No. 1, our kids need to start school ready to learn. That is what Head Start is about. That is what Start Smart is about. They need to have the best teachers possible. It does not do any good to have tough accountability, which we support strongly. We are proud of what we have done in my State in that area, but you cannot turn the schools around if they do not have the resources. When those assistance teams come in and make recommendations, that is great, but if the recommendations cannot be followed because the resources are not there to follow them, it serves no purpose at all. That is why it is so crucial that what we voted for in the Senate in a bipartisan way to help provide funding, $250 billion for our schools in this country--there is nothing, as Senator Kennedy well knows; he has been a champion of this for a long time--there is nothing we do that is more important than educating our young people.

Mr. EDWARDS. As the Senator well knows, there is nothing we do that is more important. These things all go together. I have been in these Head Start centers; I have been in these Smart Start centers; I see the effect they have on these kids' lives. It is absolutely amazing. You get children ready. Every study that has ever been done has shown the early years are the critical years. Once you get kids ready nationally with Head Start, Smart Start in North Carolina, then when they are in school, they need to be with quality teachers, well trained, well paid, treated as the extraordinary professionals and heroes they are. And not only that, they are in classes that are small in size so they don't have too many kids in the classrooms, particularly in those early years. It is absolutely crucial. I say to the Senator, I hope as we go forward with this debate we recognize, while we strongly support real accountability, tough measurement, identification of schools that are low performing, going into those schools and turning them around, that there are other components to this process that are critical to making them work: Early childhood education, quality teachers, the kids going to school in decent buildings and classrooms, not sitting on top of each other in classrooms, afterschool programs so the kids have a place to go where they can be safe and off the street; that is what this is about. We have an extraordinary opportunity to do great things, not only for America but for our children and the future of this country.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to note with sadness the death of a truly great North Carolinian and a great personal friend of mine, Richardson Preyer. Richardson Preyer succumbed to cancer on April 3 at the age of 82 after a long and productive life serving the people of North Carolina. Many of you may remember Richardson Preyer from his distinguished service in the House, but I'd like to share with you today a few things you may not know about this truly inspirational North Carolinian. Rich Preyer left his native Greensboro, NC as a young man to attend college at Princeton University and law school at Harvard. He served honorably in World War II, earning a Bronze Star from the Navy for his courage at Okinawa. After the war, Rich could've chosen a lucrative career in the family business, Vick Chemical, or made his mark and fortune in any number of fields. Instead, he dedicated his life to public service, and went on to become one of the finest, noblest servants of the public good my state has ever known. Richardson Preyer began his career in Greensboro as a municipal court judge before rising to the state Superior Court bench. In a landmark 1957 decision, Judge Preyer courageously upheld a ruling that allowed five African-American children to attend an all-white Greensboro school. This marked the first time that black and white children would learn together in a Greensboro school. Rich's courage and his absolute respect for the law and for people caught the eye of President John F. Kennedy, who named him to a U.S. District Court judgship in 1961. Judge Preyer stepped down in 1963 to launch an unsuccessful bid for Governor. Now, the early '60's were a contentious time in this country, particularly in the South. Many people speculated that he could win the governor's race if he would just denounce school integration, but anyone who knew Richardson Preyer knows that he could never compromise his principles for victory. An unabashed optimist, Rich turned his loss into opportunity. Four years after his defeat, he ran for Congress. Congressman Preyer went on to serve the people of North Carolina's 6th District for 6 terms, from 1968 to 1980. As a member of Congress, he won the respect of both Republicans and Democrats for his dignity, intelligence and integrity. He chaired the House Select Committee on Ethics, crafting the Congressional code of ethics. He also served on the House Select Committee on Assassinations, helping to investigate the deaths of President Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. Congressman Preyer left the House of Representatives in 1980. He and his wife Emily returned home to Greensboro, where they continued to touch the lives of so many in their community and in their state. I am personally grateful to Rich for encouraging me during my Senate campaign in 1998. Richardson Preyer was truly a blessing to those of us who knew him, and to all the people of North Carolina. We will miss him deeply. Our prayers go out to his family.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. I have town hall meetings all the time with people in North Carolina, I say to Senator Nelson. Over and over people tell me exactly the same thing, which is, they know that we need to pay off the national debt. They know it is really important to them that their kids not be saddled with this debt and the interest payments on the debt. They know that what has happened over the course of the last 8 or 9 years is we have taken a course of real responsibility. It is one of the reasons we have had such extraordinary economic growth, such extraordinary productivity. They know that in their gut. They do not need an economist to tell them. They know it. They know when they owe money they pay it back. That is what they expect our government to do. They do not want their kids saddled with this debt. So they think it is critically important. I agree with that.

Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the Senator for the question.

Mr. EDWARDS. I say to the Senator, I think that is the only responsible thing to do under the circumstances. That is what I hear from folks in North Carolina. The truth of the matter is, they do not need some fancy projection or some economist to come tell them. It is just common sense. It is the sensible thing to do. And they know it is the sensible thing to do.

Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the key to this--in this debate, and in our discussion, our dialog with the American people--is that we tell them the truth. We do not know what is going to happen 5 or 6 years from now. In addition to that, we have to be responsible when we decide what to do about this budget resolution. They can't have everything. They know it. American families can't have everything they want, and they know as a nation that we can't have everything we want. We also have to make absolutely sure that this tax cut we enact is fair; that it is fair to everybody; that the benefits are not directed at a particular part of our society. We need to make sure that everybody gets a benefit--including those people who work but only pay payroll taxes and don't pay income taxes; those people need to be included in any tax cut. We need to make sure it is balanced so that middle-income people all across this country get a substantial benefit, so that working families get a substantial benefit. So the principles we should be guided by are: No. 1, having a moderate, fiscally responsible tax cut; No. 2, making sure Social Security and Medicare are protected; and, No. 3, making sure this tax cut is fair--fair to all Americans, not unfairly benefitting one part of our society. In conclusion, we are at a remarkable moment in our country's history. We have a chance to have a real impact not only over the course of the next decade but over the course of the next century. But we can only do it if we make the right decisions, if we are careful and deliberate and thoughtful, and if we are straight with the American people. We can have a balanced, moderate tax cut, giving real tax relief to the American people. We can pay down our debt, which is the responsible thing to do. We can preserve and shore up Medicare and Social Security. And we can have a tax cut plan that is fair to all Americans. But in order to do that, we have to begin by telling the American people the truth. And the truth is, we don't know what is going to happen 5 or 6 years from now, and they can't have everything. We as a nation have important decisions to make. We have important choices to make. Those choices are going to have consequences for our country, and for our children. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes off the resolution.

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. President. We are at a unique time in our country's history. We have an opportunity to do things that we haven't had the chance to do before. But in order to take advantage of this unique moment in our country's history, we must make the right decisions and make the right choices. I think we have to begin by being straight with the American people. First, we need to be honest about the fact that none of us know what is going to happen 5, 6, or 7 years from now. For us to suggest otherwise is nonsense. The American people do not know what is going to happen, and we don't know what is going to happen. Any reputable economist in the country will say that there is no way to predict what is going to be happening 5 or 6 years from now in our economy. Second, in being straight with the American people, we need to stop suggesting that we can have it all. There is a suggestion being made by some people in Washington that, in fact, we can have it all. We can have a huge tax cut. We can do everything we need to do for our public school system. We can give you prescription drugs. We can do everything we need to do to help our military men and women. We can have everything. Well, that is not the truth. That is not being straight with the American people. And I think the American people know this. There are two basic principles around which I hope this debate will revolve. First, we don't know what is going to occur 5 or 6 years from now; second, no American family can have everything and we as a nation can't have everything. First, on the issue of what is going to happen 5 or 6 years from now, what we know from experience is that when budget surplus projections were made--actually, they were talking about the deficit at the time in the Reagan administration--the projections were off by hundreds of billions of dollars. When George Herbert Walker Bush was President of the United States, exactly the same thing occurred. The projections were off by hundreds of billions of dollars. The same occurred in the Clinton administration. Common sense would tell us that the current projections are just as speculative. The Secretary of the Treasury and Chairman Greenspan have all suggested exactly the same thing. So what we know with certainty is that we cannot predict where we will be 5 or 6 years from today. The President's tax cut is loaded to the last 5 years of their 10- year period. The bulk of the costs and the bulk of the benefits fall in that last 5 years. It is also during that last 5 years that most of the projected surplus falls. We have two things occurring simultaneously. The bulk of the costs of the tax cut and the benefits occur at exactly the same time that the bulk of the surplus projection occurs, and also at the same time that those surplus projections are riskiest, when they are least reliable. Does it make common sense for us to have a huge tax cut, the bulk of which coincides with the time when the surplus projections are at greatest risk for being wrong? We know these projections are going to be wrong. That is the one thing we don't have any doubt about. We just do not know how wrong. And we need to be straight with the American people about that. So knowing these projections are going to be wrong, what is the sensible thing to do? The sensible thing to do is to have a more moderate tax cut that protects Social Security, that protects Medicare, and make sure the tax cut is fair to all the American people. If 5 or 6 years from now--and we can't predict right now what is going to occur--the surpluses actually exist, and we have enacted a moderate tax cut, we have done everything we can to pay down the debt, and if we have protected Social Security and Medicare, we can do something else. We can do another tax cut. In the alternative, or even in addition, we can also do something about what we know is coming in the next decade--the retirement of the baby boomers. No one is talking about that, but this is going to put a tremendous strain on the Social Security system. But we know it is coming. One suggestion which has been made by the Concord Coalition is that we have mandatory IRAs; that we use some part of the surplus at that point to provide mandatory IRAs to the people around the country, which helps deal with the demographic shift that we know is coming in the next decade. This is something we can talk more about, but we need to start focusing on this before it is too late. What I am suggesting is the common sense thing to do, knowing the unreliability of the surplus projections, knowing that we need to pay down our debt, knowing that we need to protect Social Security and Medicare, is to have a more moderate tax cut now and to pay down the debt to the extent we are able to pay it down. No one in this body wants to saddle our kids with these huge interest payments that are being made now on our national debt. And we don't want to pass the debt itself on to our kids either. The best thing we can do for them is make sure we pay down this debt. In addition to that, we don't want to make our kids take care of us because Social Security is insolvent. They shouldn't have to take care of us because we failed to protect Social Security. We have an extraordinary opportunity to address these problems right now. The key is that we not squander it. Second, I want to emphasize that we must be straight with the American people and not suggest to them that they can have everything. It is just not the truth. We can have a tax cut, and we should have a tax cut. But we can't have a tax cut of the size the President is proposing and do all the other things that are being talked about--education, for example. Having been to schools all over my State in North Carolina, I know how desperately we need to make a real effort to improve our education system in this country. We have actually done some great things in North Carolina. Some of what the President is proposing is patterned after North Carolina-- tough accountability, measurement, identification of the schools that are not performing, that are low performing, and making an intense effort to turn those schools around. This is what we did in North Carolina when we went through that process and identified the schools that were low performing, in addition to having tough accountability, we sent real experts in to turn the schools around. In those schools that are in poor school districts that did not have the resources, we helped them; we gave them the resources they needed to turn the schools around. We know that needs to be done. Unfortunately, under this budget resolution, that is probably impossible. We cannot expect to have effective education reform if we don't commit ourselves to do what is needed. We have to have a balanced, thoughtful approach to this issue. Secondly, I want to mention our military men and women. We have military bases that are very important to us in North Carolina. I have been there. I have talked to our military men and women. These are people who are devoting their lives to protect us, to defend us. They have, in many cases, inadequate housing. Some of them are having to live on food stamps. This is an embarrassment to us as a nation. We have to do something for our military men and women. The problem is, we can't do everything. We can't have a huge tax cut and still do what needs to be done in these other areas. But what we can do is have a more moderate tax cut that doesn't jeopardize our commitment to important national interests and that doesn't jeopardize Social Security and Medicare. And most importantly, we can pay down the debt, not saddle our kids with it. What we ought to do is not spend money we do not have, to not spend money if we have no idea whether it will ever come into existence. Why is that not the responsible thing to do?

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I will first thank my friends Senator McCain and Senator Feingold for their extraordinary leadership. It has been a wonderful honor for me to participate in this very important debate in our history. The American people deserve a democracy where their voice is heard above the megaphone of big money and powerful interests. That is what this debate has confronted. It is not about Members of Congress; it is not about Senators or Members of the House. It is about the American people. It is not about Democrats or Republicans and who is advantaged by this bill. It is about the American people--once again, restoring their faith in the integrity of their Government, once again making the American people believe that their voice is what matters. When they go to the polls and vote, it is their vote that matters. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is a huge step in the right direction.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, let me speak in opposition to this amendment. I'll talk briefly about why I oppose the amendment, and respond to the comment by the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Louisiana, who has just modified his amendment. First, it is very important for my colleagues who aren't on the floor, in looking at the precise language of these amendments, to recognize there are really only three provisions, with the modification, that are covered by this amendment. The soft money ban is number one; the Snowe-Jeffords ban on broadcast ads paid out of union and corporation treasury funds 60 days before the election is number two; number three is the raising of the hard money limit. No one who has looked closely at this question would argue that either the soft money ban or the hard money limit increase is subject to serious constitutional challenge. The only thing the soft money ban has to do under the Buckley case is for the Court to find that there was a compelling State interest to support that ban. The Court, in fact, has already found in Buckley there is such an interest. So as these other Senators have recognized during the course of this debate, there is no serious question about the soft money ban. The soft money ban--if it passes from this Chamber, and is signed by the President and passed by the House--is going to become law. The raising of the hard dollar limit also is not subject to any serious constitutional challenge. So what we are talking about is Snowe-Jeffords. Now my friend from Kentucky points out that during the course of this debate I have argued that Snowe-Jeffords is constitutional. I don't want to repeat that argument, but I, in fact, believe that Snowe- Jeffords is constitutional. But I want my colleagues to understand, and not get caught up too much in the morass of this debate, that there is only one issue raised by this amendment as modified, and that is if Snowe-Jeffords were found to be unconstitutional by a Court at a later time, do we want the soft money ban and the raising of the hard money limits to stand? That is the simple question raised by this amendment. Now I don't believe a Court will find Snowe-Jeffords to be unconstitutional. But the U.S. Supreme Court has done many things in the past that I didn't expect, including some things in recent times. So I have no way of predicting with certainty what the Court will do when confronted with this question. I do believe Snowe-Jeffords meets the constitutional requirements. So the argument that is made is, if Snowe-Jeffords is found to be unconstitutional, we create a strategic imbalance in our electoral process. The difference I have with my friends from Kentucky and from Louisiana is why we are enacting campaign finance reform. I don't think that the focus of campaign finance reform, and the reason we are doing it, is to make sure the strategic balance that now exists is maintained. I think what we are trying to do is take these huge, unregulated soft money contributions out of the system. What we are trying to do is restore public faith in our campaign and election system in this country. It is difficult for me to understand how removing these huge soft money contributions doesn't contribute to the restoring of that integrity. It obviously does. It may be that if one of these provisions--I think the only one in play is Snowe-Jeffords--is found to be unconstitutional, somewhere down the road there is a strategic imbalance. That may be true. But this debate and this law is not about us. It is not about what is good for Democrats, it is not about what is good for Republicans, and it is not about what is good for incumbent Senators; it is about the American people. It is about whether their voice is going to be heard and whether they believe they have some ownership in their Government; or, instead, whether we continue to perpetuate a system where huge amounts of money flow, unregulated, into the campaign process and ordinary people feel as if their vote makes no difference anymore. Senator Dodd made an eloquent and passionate presentation yesterday, or the day before, on this very subject. My point is this: The disagreement I have with my colleague from Kentucky--and it is a fundamental disagreement--is why we are trying to enact campaign finance reform. I don't think we ought to be focused on ourselves, or focused on how we are going to combat a particular ad that may or may not be run against us. I am as practical as anybody else. I understand the way the system works. All of us have lived with it. But the baseline for this debate, and what I hope all of my colleagues will use as their touchstone, is not what is good for us, not what is good for Republicans, not what is good for Democrats, but what is good for the American people. I have great respect for all of my Senate colleagues, including the Senators who have authored this amendment, who I know are well intentioned, and I don't doubt that. I just think we have a fundamental difference.

Mr. EDWARDS. I will yield for a question now.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, my answer is the very answer I just gave the Senator from Louisiana. We can't stop these entities from running ads. What we can do, is stop Members of Congress from raising huge amounts of money and creating a public perception that we are involved in what is wrong with the system. You are absolutely right. As a matter of pure strategic balance, that there is the possibility there will be a strategic imbalance, I would not argue for a minute about that. But that is not what campaign finance reform is about. What campaign finance reform is about is restoring integrity to the system and causing the American people to believe, once again, that the system has integrity, that it works, and this democracy belongs to them, and that it is their Government. That is the fundamental difference. Anything we do, I strongly suspect, with or without Snowe- Jeffords, or any of these other provisions, as we have learned from experience, may turn out a year, 5 years, 10 years from now to create some result that we don't expect. I think that is just realistic. But the one thing we know for certain is that the public believes this system is awash in money. These huge, unregulated contributions that are being made to political campaigns are wrong, and we need to make a clear and unequivocal statement that we will not allow that to happen. This debate is not about us. It is about the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. EDWARDS. My answer to that question is, first, what we do, even without Snowe-Jeffords, is we prohibit candidates for political office from raising large soft dollar contributions for these very groups to which the Senator from Louisiana is referring. If our focus is on restoring integrity to the process and the public's perception of ourselves, then getting us out of the process of raising soft money dollars, getting soft money, period, out of the system is a positive thing. And my view is that it helps restore integrity.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce legislation I offered last year to promote the development of affordable, quality rental housing for low-income households in rural areas. I am pleased, along with Senator Jeffords, Senator Leahy, and Senator Wellstone, to introduce the ``Rural Rental Housing Act of 2001.'' 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. More than 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, Senator Wellstone, and I are proposing a new solution. Today, we introduce the Rural Rental Housing Act of 2001 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 more than 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 share of rural substandard units and of the rural population living in poverty, with smaller states guaranteed a minimum of $2 million. 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. 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. 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 2001 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. I request that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, we talked at great length in this debate about the need to return this democracy to the voters and to remove the influence of big money or the appearance of influence of big money. Tonight I want to talk about two things: First, the two critical provisions of the McCain-Feingold bill; and, second, I want to speak in opposition to the DeWine amendment. As most people who follow this debate know, the two most critical provisions of this bill are the ban on soft money and the Snowe- Jeffords provision. I first want to speak to the constitutionality of the ban on soft money. There has been some suggestion during the course of this debate that there is a serious question about constitutionality. In fact, there is no serious question about that. The U.S. Supreme Court in the Buckley case said that in order for the Congress to regulate these sorts of contributions, the only constitutional test that must be met is a finding of a compelling State interest. In the Buckley case, the U.S. Supreme Court went on to find, in fact, that preventing the actuality or appearance of corruption constitutes a compelling State interest. The language of the Court is: Congress was justified in concluding that the interest in safeguarding against the appearance of impropriety requires the opportunity of abuse inherent in the process of raising large monetary contributions be eliminated. What the U.S. Supreme Court held in Buckley was in order to regulate these soft money contributions, there must first be a compelling State interest. They then went on to find that, in fact, there was a compelling State interest created by the appearance of impropriety associated with raising these large monetary contributions. The Buckley case has already decided the question of whether a ban on soft money contributions is, in fact, constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that, in fact, that ban is constitutional and there is no serious or legitimate question about the constitutionality of the soft money ban. Now I want to move to the Snowe-Jeffords provision. There has been some suggestion, including by my friend from Ohio in offering his amendment, that there are very serious questions raised by the Snowe- Jeffords provision of the McCain-Feingold bill. I will first summarize what Snowe-Jeffords does. Snowe-Jeffords bans for the 60-day period prior to a general election or a 30-day period prior to a primary election broadcast television ads by unions or corporations paid for out of general treasury funds. It also contains certain disclosure provisions for other entities who may want to run such ads. The suggestion is made that under the criteria established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Buckley, Snowe-Jeffords does not meet constitutional muster. In fact, it is very clear if you look at the language of the U.S. Supreme Court in Buckley and if you look at the cases that come after Buckley, Snowe-Jeffords does exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court in Buckley required in order to meet the test of constitutionality. First I will talk about that test. The U.S. Supreme Court has established four requirements in order for the Snowe-Jeffords provision to be found to be constitutional. The first of those requirements is that it cannot be vague. The second is that it must serve a compelling State interest. The third, it must be narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The fourth, it cannot be substantially overbroad. The Court, in reaching that conclusion, first recognized that the first amendment in the case of electioneering--which is what we are talking about, campaign ads--is not absolute. There are certain circumstances where first amendment rights can be restricted, but only if these tests are met. The first question, ``cannot be vague.'' The Snowe-Jeffords provision is by any measure, a clear, easy-to-identify, bright-line test. It requires that the ad be within the 60 days before the general election or within 30 days of the primary election; second, that it contain the likeness of a candidate or the name of the candidate; and third, that it be a broadcast television ad. No one reading that definition could have any misunderstanding. It is specific. It is clear. It is a bright-line test. By any measure, it is not vague. It would meet the first test established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Buckley. Second, it ``must serve a compelling State interest.'' Just as in the case of the soft money ban, the U.S. Supreme Court has already held that avoiding the appearance of impropriety is, in fact, a compelling State interest. The Court has already held that the reason for the Snowe-Jeffords provision is a compelling State interest. So that test is easily and clearly met by the language of the Court in Buckley v. Valeo. The third, it ``must be narrowly tailored to serve that interest.'' First of all, why did Senators Snowe and Jeffords offer this provision as part of McCain-Feingold? They offered it because in order to avoid legitimate campaign election laws in this country, what has been occurring is people have been broadcasting what has been described as issue ads as opposed to campaign ads. Now there is a ban, of course, on the broadcasting of campaign ads with General Treasury funds, so instead they call these ads issue ads, not campaign ads, in an effort to avoid that legitimate legal restriction. In fact, what we know both empirically and from our own experience, many of these so-called issue ads--not many, the vast majority--of these so-called issue ads are campaign ads, particularly when they fall within that 60-day period. Let me stop on this test for just a moment and give a couple of pieces of evidence. First, the empirical studies show in the year 2000 election, 1 percent of the ads that fall within the test of Snowe- Jeffords--that is, within 60 days of the general election, mention the name or show the likeness of the candidate, broadcast television ads--1 percent constituted legitimate issue ads; 99 percent constituted campaign ads. We know what our gut would tell us, anyway. We know from our own experience from watching these television ads, and voters would know from their own experience, that when they see these ads on television, in fact, they are campaign ads. They are not issue ads. They are advocating for the election or defeat of a particular candidate, not for some particular issue. We now know empirically in the case of the 2000 election, 99 percent of those ads covered by Snowe-Jeffords are campaign ads and not issue ads. They are sham issue ads. They are a fraud under the campaign election laws that exist in this country. Snowe-Jeffords is trying to eliminate that fraud, eliminate that sham. What we now know, the ads covered by Snowe-Jeffords, 99 percent of those ads are not issue ads but are campaign ads. I have one or two examples. This is an ad run in a congressional election in 1998: Announcer: The Daily reports criminals are being set free in our neighborhoods. In May, Congressman X voted to allow judges to let violent criminals out of jail, rapists, drug dealers, and even murderers. X's record on drugs is even worse. X voted to reduce penalties for crack cocaine. And in April, X voted to use your tax dollars to give free needles to illegal drug users. Call X. Tell him he's wrong. Dangerous criminals belong in jail. This doesn't use the language used as illustrative by the U.S. Supreme Court in Buckley. It doesn't say ``vote for;'' it doesn't say ``elect;'' it says ``call.'' But any rational person, including all the people who watched this ad on television, know that this ad is aimed at defeating Congressman X in the campaign. That is exactly what it is about. That is what was demonstrated in my chart, 99 percent of the ads that fall within the test of Snowe-Jeffords are ads just like this. They are pure campaign ads, plain and simple. These ads are being paid for by contributions that otherwise would violate the legitimate election laws of this country. What we are trying to do in Snowe-Jeffords, we have a very narrowly tailored provision that catches ads that are clearly campaign ads. We now know that 99 percent of those ads that fall within Snowe-Jeffords are campaign ads, plain and simple; not issue ads. So what conclusion do we draw from this? If 99 percent of the ads are campaign ads, if, in fact, 99 percent of the ads are like the one I have just shown as illustrative, they ``must be narrowly tailored'' to pass constitutional muster. It is not vague, a clear, bright-line test, we have compelling State interest, and now we know this provision is narrowly tailored, and that goes hand in glove, by the way, with the fourth provision, which means it ``cannot be substantially overbroad.'' The Court recognized that any time you have a bright-line test that is not vague, you are, by definition, going to catch some stray advertisements that are not intended to be included. They don't just require that there be no overbreadth. There has to be substantial overbreadth in order to be unconstitutional. What we now know empirically, 99 percent of the ads that meet Snowe- Jeffords are exactly what are intended to be targeted by Snowe- Jeffords. The empirical evidence clearly supports the notion that Snowe-Jeffords is not substantially overbroad, on top of the fact that the provisions of the bill itself are not substantially overbroad. They are narrowly tailored. They do exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court has required. I suggest that, in fact, Senators Snowe and Jeffords have done a terrific job of meeting the constitutional test because they have made the provision for bright line, they have made it clear it is not vague, and at the same time it is sufficiently narrow to meet the constitutional requirements of Buckley v. Valeo. What we now know and can see by looking at the constitutional requirements is that Snowe-Jeffords meets all those requirements. The U.S. Supreme Court has established these requirements, has defined what they mean, and Snowe-Jeffords, we know, meets those requirements. The empirical evidence shows it is not overly broad, it is not substantially overbroad, that it reaches very few ads that are, in fact, issue ads. One argument made is that Buckley v. Valeo uses a test in order for an ad to be a campaign ad, as opposed to an issue ad: ``Vote for,'' ``elect,'' ``support,'' ``cast your ballot for.'' The people who are making that argument are not reading the U.S. Supreme Court opinion. Because what the Court said was, in order to make the existing election laws--as of the time of this opinion--constitutional, we are going to establish a test since Congress did not do it. They go on and invite us to do it, to establish the test. Instead of saying ``this is language that is required,'' they say: This construction would restrict the application of section 608 . . . to communications containing express words of advocacy of election or defeat, such as `vote for,' `elect'. . . . It is obvious from the ``such as'' language that the Court by no means intended this list to be exhaustive. The Court fully recognized that given the imagination of campaign managers and people who prepare these ads, that they could not even begin to do an exhaustive list. This list is nothing but illustrative, never intended to be anything but illustrative. For those who come to the floor and say, wait a minute, Snowe- Jeffords doesn't use the magic language, doesn't use ``vote for,'' doesn't use ``elect''--what the U.S. Supreme Court made clear in their case was these are nothing but illustrations of what changes an ad from an issue ad to a campaign ad. Sure, if they say ``vote for'' and ``elect'' they become a campaign ad, but as we have shown from the illustration a few moments ago, it is just as simple to have a pure campaign ad that never says ``vote for,'' that never says ``elect,'' that simply says: Call Congressman so-and- so, call Senator so-and-so. But any rational person looking at the ad would know it was calling for the election or defeat of a particular candidate and it was nothing, on its face, but a pure campaign ad. The point is, it is not a legitimate argument that because Snowe- Jeffords does not use these magic words--the language I have heard during the course of the debate--it cannot pass constitutional muster. The Supreme Court established four tests in Buckley v. Valeo. The Supreme Court, in fact, invited us, the Congress, to decide what language ought to be used to determine whether ads, in fact, are prohibited or not prohibited. They have left it to us to define what ads are prohibited. The only thing they require in order to do that is that we meet the four tests they established, which we talked about before. Snowe- Jeffords clearly meets all those tests. It is not vague. It is a clear, easy to understand bright-line test. The U.S. Supreme Court already said what we are attempting to do serves a compelling State interest, it is narrowly tailored--60 days before a general election, 30 days before a primary, likeness or name of the candidate, broadcast ads. And it is not substantially overbroad. As we have already established in the last election, 99 percent of the ads that fall within the definition of Snowe-Jeffords are, in fact, campaign ads and not issue ads. If you look carefully at the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Buckley, and if you look at the tests that have been established by the U.S. Supreme Court, first of all, the soft money ban of McCain-Feingold is, on its face, constitutional. There is not even a legitimate argument that it is not constitutional. Second, the Snowe-Jeffords provision of the McCain-Feingold bill, which bans broadcast ads during this defined period, paid for out of union or corporation treasury funds, also clearly meets all the constitutional tests established by the Court in Buckley v. Valeo. It is a critical component of the McCain-Feingold bill because without it we are going to continue to see these sham issue ads run solely for campaign purposes being paid for by funds that are not legitimate and are not legal. The only way we can bring this thing to conclusion is to not only do what we have already done during this debate, which is pass the ban on soft money; but to, second, pass the Snowe-Jeffords provision. Because, number one, it is constitutional and, number two, it is absolutely critical to going about reestablishing the public faith in our campaigns and the public faith in our election system. Because not only are people worried about the flow of money, they are worried about what happens when they turn their television sets on in the 30 or 60 days before an election. They are sitting there watching television with their kids and what do they see? They see these nasty, personal attacks, in a huge percentage of the cases being paid for as issue ads, out of funds that are not intended to be used for that purpose. That is what Snowe-Jeffords is intended to stop. Snowe-Jeffords is clearly constitutional. We should defeat the DeWine amendment as a result. I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. I will do it in 1 minute. It removes us from that process, which is a critical fact, because what we are trying to do is restore the integrity of the candidates, the integrity of the election process, and the integrity of the Congress. No longer would we be able to call and ask a contributor to make a large contribution to the NRA or some special interest group, for that money to be used in connection with our campaign. Fundamentally, the Hagel bill does not solve the problem. The problem continues to exist. McCain-Feingold moves us in the right direction.

Mr. EDWARDS. I ask for another 2 minutes.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, last night we voted on an amendment that was adopted by the Senate, the Wellstone amendment. I will add a few comments about that briefly and then talk about Senator Hagel's bill. First, I want to make clear that the idea of leveling the playing field and doing something about these 501(c)(4) advocacy groups is an idea I support. It makes a great deal of sense. So it is a substantive matter. I support the reasoning behind the Wellstone amendment, but I remain concerned about the serious constitutional questions raised by the Wellstone amendment given the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1984, ruled that these corporations, these advocacy groups, 501(c)(4) advocacy groups are treated differently than unions and for-profit corporations for purposes of electioneering. That serious question still remains, but I don't think that amendment or the fact that it has passed should in any way undermine our effort to pass McCain-Feingold, to support McCain-Feingold, and to do what is necessary to change the campaign finance system in this country. With respect to Senator Hagel's bill, first, I thank him for his work in this area. I know he is trying to do a positive thing. There are some fundamental problems with his bill. No. 1, not only does it not solve the problem of soft money, it arguably makes it worse. Although he places limits on soft money contributions to national parties, all that has to be done to avoid that problem is to raise the money through State parties. In addition, he does absolutely nothing about the fundamental issue, which is the appearance that candidates and elected officials are raising unlimited, unregulated contributions in connection with elections. There is nothing under his amendment that would prevent a candidate for the Senate from calling to a State party, raising $500,000, $1 million contributions that can then be used for issue ads in connection with that candidate's election. There is a fundamental flaw in the bill. In addition to that, it legitimizes what has been used to avoid the legitimate Federal election laws, which are soft money contributions that are flowing into these issue ads. We should not put our stamp of approval on the soft money process. Furthermore, we should not have candidates for Federal office, candidates for the Senate, continuing to be allowed to call contributors, ask for these huge contributions to be made to State parties, and that money can then be spent on that candidate's election. The problem is not solved and arguably the problem, in fact, is made worse. With respect to Senator's Breaux's argument that this long list of interest groups can continue to raise soft money and spend soft money, the response to that argument is that the McCain-Feingold bill prohibits any of us, an officeholder or a candidate for office, from calling and asking for unlimited soft money contributions from those special interest groups. It removes us, the elected officials, which is ultimately what this is all about, the integrity of the Senate, the integrity of the House of Representatives, the integrity of the Congress.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I say in response to what the Senators from Maryland and Illinois said, without regard to severability, we also have a responsibility not to pass an amendment that the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled is unconstitutional, black and white, in 1984. That is the issue.

Mr. EDWARDS. Let me also add to what Senator Feingold said. I agree with Senator Wellstone, that what he is trying to do makes a great deal of sense in terms of basic equity and fairness. The problem is that 501(c)(4) corporations, at which his amendment is aimed, have not been treated the same by the U.S. Supreme Court as unions and for-profit corporations. Snowe-Jeffords is very carefully crafted to meet the constitutional test of Buckley v. Valeo. Basically, it meets the two fundamental requirements of Buckley: First, that there can be a compelling State interest. The Buckley Court found that exactly what is being done with Snowe-Jeffords constituted a compelling State interest. Second, it be narrowly tailored. Snowe-Jeffords is limited to the 60 days before the election. It is narrowly tailored, limited to broadcast advertising. It also requires the likeness or name of the candidate to be used. What has been done with Snowe-Jeffords is a very careful effort to make sure the constitutional requirements of Buckley v. Valeo have been met. In fact, they have been met. It is not vague; it establishes a very clear bright-line test so we don't have a vagueness constitutional problem. We also don't have a problem of substantial overbreadth because all of the empirical evidence shows 99 percent of ads that meet the test are, in fact, election campaign ads and constitute electioneering. Snowe-Jeffords has been very carefully crafted. It is narrow. It specifically meets the requirements of Buckley v. Valeo, the constitutional requirement. The problem with what Senator Wellstone is attempting to do is there is a U.S. Supreme Court case, the FEC v. The Massachusetts Citizens for Life, that is directly on point, saying that these 501(c)(4)s have a limited constitutional right to engage in electioneering to do campaign ads. There are some limits, but unfortunately if you lump them in with unions and for-profit corporations, you create a very serious constitutional problem because the U.S. Supreme Court has already specifically addressed that issue. So the reason Senator Feingold and Senator McCain are opposing this amendment is the same reason that I oppose this amendment: It raises very serious constitutional problems. The U.S. Supreme Court, in fact, in 1984 specifically ruled on this question. What we urge the Members of the Senate to do is not support this amendment, to vote for tabling. Those people who are in favor of real and meaningful campaign finance reform we hope will support Snowe- Jeffords, support McCain-Feingold, and vote to table the Wellstone amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the outstanding achievement of three of North Carolina's military bases. On Friday, Secretary Rumsfield announced the winners of the 2001 Commander in Chief's Awards for Installation Excellence. Of the five awards, three went to bases in North Carolina. Ft. Bragg, located in Fayetteville, NC, was named the top Army post. Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, located in Goldsboro, NC, earned the honor of best Air Force post and Camp LeJeune in Jacksonville, NC, was chosen best Marine Corps base. The Commander in Chief's Awards are highly competitive and a distinct honor for each of our outstanding North Carolina bases. The men and women who live and work at North Carolina's military installations put their country's interest ahead of their own each and everyday. These bases have also worked hard to forge strong relationships with their communities. I have visited each of these bases and the surrounding communities and I know these bases are excellent neighbors. I congratulate the men and women of Ft. Bragg, Seymour Johnson, and Camp LeJeune on their excellent achievement. We in North Carolina are fortunate to have such a strong relationship with these bases and we are so proud these men and women call North Carolina home.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support for the McCain-Feingold bill, to add my encouragement and praise for all the hard work done by Senators McCain and Feingold, and to say how important this issue is to our democracy, to our Government, and to the American people. I would not presume to suggest to my colleagues who serve with me in the Senate that I have any more knowledge about the way the political financing system in this country works than they do. They are all experts at it. What I say is that this debate is not about us. Instead, it is about the people we were sent here to represent. I have heard, both in the media and in the course of the debate, lots of discussion about some strategic advantage that may flow to one party, or one Senator or another, as a result of this bill. What I say about that argument is that thirty years from now, the American people will not judge what we do in these 2 weeks based upon some transitory, strategic advantage that one party or another may gain as a result of the McCain-Feingold bill. Instead, they are going to judge us based on what we did for our Government, for our democracy, and what we did to allow voters, ordinary Americans, to once again believe they have some ownership in this democracy. That ultimately is what it is all about. I say to colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, that whatever in the long term is good for our democracy is good for either the Democratic or the Republican Party. I think that is the test we should use in making judgments about what ought to be done. During the course of my time in the Senate, I have held many townhall meetings around North Carolina, and over and over I hear the same refrain--folks believe that they no longer have a voice in their own democracy and, as a result, they don't feel any ownership in this Government. So Washington is some faraway place, and they don't think they do anything to help them. They think it is just some bureaucratic institution that has nothing to do with their day-to-day lives. More important, they feel impotent to do anything about it. The folks I grew up with in smalltown North Carolina, oddly enough, think if somebody writes a $300,000 or $500,000 check to a political party, or for a particular election, when they go to the polls and vote, their voices will not be equally heard. I think that is just good common sense, and there is a reason people think that way. This is an issue we need to do something about. A lot of it is perception but perception matters. It really matters when people believe this isn't their Government. It is their democracy; it belongs to them, not to some special interest group, and not to the people who are up here representing them. In fact, it belongs to the American people. A couple of examples, Mr. President: We are in the process right now of trying to pass an HMO reform bill. Senator McCain, Senator Kennedy, and I, and Congressmen Norwood, Dingell, and Ganske on the House side have introduced the same bill. Our legislation, which provides basic patient protection rights to every single American who is covered by insurance or HMOs, is supported by every health insurance group that has been fighting for patient protection for the last 5 years. The only people we have been able to identify on the other side are the big HMOs and insurance companies. Unfortunately, the big HMOs and insurance companies are very well represented in Washington, and their voice is heard loudly and clearly. It is really important for the voice of the American people to be heard on issues such as basic patient rights. Then I read in the newspaper today that at least it appears there is going to be some pulling back of the regulation of arsenic in drinking water. These are the kinds of things that, when folks around the country see them, cause them concern, and they particularly cause concern--even though they may not see a direct relationship--they particularly cause them to be worried when they know the way political campaigns are financed in this country, and they know that lots of huge, unregulated soft money contributions are being made to political campaigns in every election cycle. So the question is, What do we do to return power in this democracy to where it started and made our country so great and where it belongs today? We are trying to do two basic things in this bill. One is to ban soft money--we talked about it at length--these unregulated, totally uncontrolled contributions made by special interests, corporations, many different groups, and individuals. The simple answer is, it ought to be banned, and it ought to be banned today. We will talk at length later about constitutional issues, but it is black and white to anyone who has read Buckley v. Valeo and specifically applies the analysis of that case to a soft money ban. There is absolutely no question that a ban on soft money is constitutional under Buckley v. Valeo. We will talk about that at length at a later time. The second issue is these bogus sham issue ads. In addition to the fact folks see all this money flowing into the system, they feel cynical, they feel they do not own their Government anymore, and that they have no voice in democracy. In addition to that, they turn on their televisions in the last 2 months before an election and see mostly hateful, negative, personal attack ads posing as issue ads. Any normal American with any common sense knows these are pure campaign ads. Those are the ads we are trying to stop. Senator Snowe actually said it very well when she said these ads are a masquerade. In fact, they are more than a masquerade, they are a sham, they are a fraud on the American people, and they are nothing but a means to avoid the legitimate election laws of this country. We are trying to put an end to these so-called issue ads that are nothing but campaign ads. It is another issue that needs to be addressed. All this--these issue ads that are nothing but sham ads, really campaign ads, unregulated flow of soft money into campaigns--all this is about a very simple thing. It is not about us. It is not about the people in Washington. It is not about the people in this Congress. It is about the people we were sent to represent. We need to be able to say 20, 30 years from now when we are not around anymore--at least some of us will not be around anymore--we need to be able to say to our children and our families that we did the right thing; we did what was best for the country, and we did what was best for the democracy. We will talk about this issue later, but it is also clear that Snowe- Jeffords, under the constitutional test established in Buckley v. Valeo, is constitutional. There are only two requirements that have to be met: One, that there be compelling State interest under Buckley. The Court has already held that what we are doing in these sham issue ads and with soft money is a compelling State interest because of the need to avoid corruption or, more importantly, in this case, the appearance of corruption. Second, the legislation has to be narrowly tailored. That has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to mean it is not too broad, not substantially overbroad. Snowe-Jeffords does exactly that. It is very narrowly tailored. Two months before the general election, it requires the likeness of the candidate or the name of the candidate to be used and only applies to broadcast ads. The empirical evidence shows very clearly that something around 1 percent of the ads are not covered by that, actually issue ads that fall within that category. Ninety-nine percent of the ads in the last election cycle, in fact, were campaign ads. What that empirical evidence supports is the notion that not only does it appear that Snowe-Jeffords is narrowly tailored, in fact, the overwhelming evidence is that it is narrowly tailored, which is exactly what the Buckley U.S. Supreme Court decision required. We will talk about this later as we discuss these various provisions. The bottom line is, both the soft money ban and Snowe-Jeffords are constitutional and meet the constitutional requirements of Buckley v. Valeo. In conclusion, I thank the Senators who have worked so hard on this issue for so long. I say to my colleagues, I hope that instead of focusing on some strategic advantage that a particular campaign may have, or a particular political party may have, that instead we will focus on what is best for democracy and what is best for the American people. I thank the Chair.

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.