John Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I recently came to the Senate floor to publicly thank my staff. Unfortunately, not all staff names were listed in the Record. Therefore, I enter the following names of my staff for the Record. Tracy L. Allen; Laurie G. Armstrong; William O. Austin; Alexis Bar; Victoria Bassetti; Jared J. Bataillon; William Beane; Austina L. Bennett; Crystal M. Bennett; David G. Berard; Sonceria Ann Berry; Joshua L. Brekenfeld; Michael D. Briggs; Erica Buehrens; Derek H. Chollet; Marilyn J. Dixon; Charles R. Dorrier; Paul D. Dryden; Robert W. Elliott. Justin E. Fairfax; Colette Forrest; Alice D. Garland; Katherine L. Garland; Laura Godwin; Robert Gordon; Steven K. Gryskiewicz; Wanda Haith; Peter Harbage Emma Harris; Kate G. Heath; Robert Hines; Lisa Hyman; Morgan Jackson; Stephanie Jones; Mildred J. Joyner; Jeremy Kyle Kinner; Jeffrey I. Kovick; James R. Kvaal; Miles M. Lackey. Jeffrey Lane; Louise D. Learson; Lawrence (Andy) Magill; Maureen Mahon; Sharyn J. Malone; Kenneth F. Mansfield; Kathryn J. Marks; John J. Maron; Cory S. Menees; Heather L. Messera; Sophie Milam; Blair B. Milligan; Joyce Mitchell; Carlos A. Monje; Kevin A. Monroe; Robert Morgan; Matthew L. Nelson; Elizabeth E. Nicholas; Ashley I. O'Bryant; Sacha M. Ostern. Joseph W. Parry-Hill; Lauren Partner; Elizabeth Pegram; Philip J. Peisch; Sarah L. Pendergraft; Anthony Petty; Aaron S. Pickrell; Lesley Pittman; Sally Bussey Plyler; Mary Margaret Propes; Hunter L. Pruette; Jacqueline F. Ray; Karen A. Robb; David E. Roberts; Judith M. Rossabi; David A. Russell; Craig J. Saperstein; Heidi Schneble. David G. Sewell; David L. Sherlin; Joseph L. Smalls; Julianna Smoot; Joshua H. Stein; Michael Sullivan; Jonathan Sumrell; Adrian Talbott; Noelle Shelby Talley; Bradford T. Thompson; Cindy E. Townes; Brooke I. Turner; Ann S. Vaughn; Jannice T. Verne; Rebecca Walldorff; Jewell E. Wilson; Jessica F. Wintringham; Andrew A. Young; Lisa E. Zeidner.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, we couldn't do the work we do here without the support and help of all those who work so hard with us every single day. You show up every day. You show up every day, in my case as I saw it, with a simple question: What can I do to make my country better? And you did. Those of you who worked with me, I know that you did; I saw it. I saw the hard work you did, and you will continue to do it because you believe public service is an important and noble calling. I thank you personally. I thank you on behalf of the people of North Carolina and the people of this country. I have seen the hard work you have done, and it is important. This fight goes on. I will be home in a place I love, North Carolina, the place that made me love America to begin with. I am going to have God's gift--more time to hear the screen door slam when my young kids run through the house after school. I still have a couple of young kids, Emma Claire, who is 6, and Jack, who is 4. I will be able to spend more time with my older daughter Kate, who graduated from college and was out on the campaign trail. I am very proud of her. I will have more time to spend with my own parents and my family and more time to be there for the woman I love and have loved for a long time now, my wife Elizabeth. It is bittersweet knowing what we have accomplished. And it is also bittersweet knowing what is left to be done. There is so much work left to be done in this country. And in the end, I always think of North Carolina's own Thomas Wolfe. He said: I believe that we are lost here in America, but I believe we shall be found. And this belief, which mounts now to the catharis of knowledge and conviction, is for me--and I think for all of us--not only our own hope but, America's everlasting, living dream. Our job is making sure that no one--no one--is lost in America; that that dream is everlasting. And together we will continue to make it stronger and more alive for all who grace our lives.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, life has a great way of handing us moments that are bittersweet. I am sad today to rise for the final time to represent the State of North Carolina as their Senator, but I am also filled with a great deal of joy because I will be heading home to the place and the people and the family I love so much. I also want to thank everyone who is listening and all Members of the Senate and the staff who have been so extraordinary about my wife Elizabeth for their prayers and their support. Elizabeth and I and our family draw so much strength from all of you. We are comforted by your words and your prayers. We are grateful to the more than 50,000 people who have sent e-mails and letters to Elizabeth. As Elizabeth's brother said when he was asked about it, he would not want to be cancer inside of Elizabeth's body, and I agree with that. She is the love of my life and a woman of great strength. I am sure she will be successful in this fight. Both of us hope and pray that by talking about it in the way that Elizabeth has, and with the grace and courage that she has shown, it will help other women who are faced with the same kind of struggle so they can avoid the same kind of struggle. Sometimes when hardship comes, one feels alone, but thanks to all of you and our family in the Senate, we know that we are not alone. We are blessed to have the love, affection, and support of our friends and our family, our great staff in Washington, DC, in the Senate office and back in North Carolina and our Senate offices there, and also the staff in the Senate. Those who serve on the floor of the Senate who have been wonderful friends and so much help and support for all of us, we thank all of them. To Marty and to Lula, whom Elizabeth and I adore, who have been wonderful friends to us and have advised us and shown us our way around here, we appreciate both of them. To the people in the cloakroom who have helped us and taken care of us for the last 6 years, and to the men and women--and I hope they will hear my voice--who take us up and down the elevators, whom we see as we go in and out of these office buildings and the Capitol, who serve all of us and who are wonderful, extraordinary people, I have to say, since I have come back from the campaign trail, to a person they have spoken their support and affection for Elizabeth and for our family and what we are going through. I just want them all to know how much they mean not only to us but to all of us who serve in the Senate. And, of course, to all the men and women I have had the privilege to serve with here in the Senate. To those who think the men and women who serve in this institution do not work hard, I wish they could spend one day here and see how hard it is and how devoted everyone who serves in the Senate is, and how much they want to do good things for the country--whatever our disagreements are. We have many and they are strong. The truth is, everyone here serves because they love their country and they want to do good things for their country. All of you, you keep us strong. You keep us going. You remind us, in good times and in bad, when we work together, everything is still possible here in America. It is the North Carolina way. That is the way I like to look at it. I have never loved my home State or my country more than I do today. We have had some triumphs, we have had some tragedies over the last 6 years. But one thing is clear: I will never stop representing the people of North Carolina, the values they represent and the values that I grew up with there and the values I believe in. The truth is, it is who I am. It is what I learned in Robbins, NC growing up, watching my father and the men and women who worked alongside him in the mill for all those years. It is what I learned from going to church, from going to our schools, and from going to all 100 counties in North Carolina, which I am proud to have done, and listening to the people of North Carolina. It is what I learned when I shook the hands of the people who came on Tarheel Thursday, which we had on Thursday when we were here in the Senate. I will never forget you. I will never forget the first struggle we had in the wake of Hurricane Floyd, hard-working people like Bobby Carraway. He owned a restaurant in Kinston near the Neuse River. It sat under 3 feet of water for days. He lost everything. He and so many like him didn't want a Government handout, they wanted a hand up and a chance to do what they were capable of doing and a chance to go back to work, which is all he and his family had ever known their entire lives. What we did then for so many, and this year, too, in the western part of our State, which has been hit by hurricanes and flooding, is we worked together, we picked ourselves up, we dusted away the disappointment, and we got back to work to make North Carolina stronger. I will also never forget the men and women who worked at Pillowtex. They did everything right. They took care of their families. They went to work every day, some of them for days and years, some of them for decades. They still couldn't stop their jobs from moving overseas. I met one woman whose question I hear over and over--I heard it over and over again as I traveled around the country. She looked at me and said: What am I supposed to do now? Have I not done what is right in America? I worked hard, I raised my family, I was responsible. Now my job is gone and what am I supposed to do? Together we fought to help her pay for health care and get training for a new job but, most importantly, we fought to keep North Carolina jobs in North Carolina where we need them so badly. We stood up against tax breaks that shipped our jobs overseas. We fought for fair trade that gave our workers and businesses a chance to compete, and represented the values we believe in. I will also never forget Dr. Clay Ballantine. He works at Mission St. Joseph's Hospital in Asheville, NC. Every day he sees kids and adults and seniors who come in with respiratory problems, problems with asthma. He told his story as we fought the battle to protect the quality of our air for our children and for our seniors. I will never forget the farmers and the men and women who live in our small towns, our rural areas where I grew up. That is who I am. The truth is, you are the heart and soul of North Carolina. When our farmers were struggling, especially our tobacco farmers, I am proud in the end we were able to do something, to do something to help them, because they deserve it. They have done so much for their towns and their communities and for my State. They deserve something, finally, to be done to help them and support them. All of us together were able to do that. It also matters, it matters to good, hard-working people like Blythe and Gwendolyn Casey. They have had a family farm for decades. They did their part and they never dreamed they would be close to retiring, mired in debt, debt they can never recover from. Together we helped them and we maintained family farms across our State of North Carolina. I will never forget the mothers and the fathers, the husbands and the wives, the brothers and the sisters who wanted nothing but to make sure their loved one got the care they needed in their darkest hour. Together with Senator John McCain and Senator Kennedy, my friends and my colleagues, two men for whom I have enormous respect and affection, we went to work on something that matters--making sure you and your doctors could make your own health care decisions, especially when they were important to you and your family. It wasn't easy. There were lobbyists all over this place from every drug company, HMO, and big insurance company. They prowled these halls, but we did it and we got the Patients' Bill of Rights passed in the Senate. I have absolute faith that the Senate will do it again and the President will sign the Patients' Bill of Rights into law for all Americans. I will also never forget the brave soldiers I met in Afghanistan on a dark night. They are so proud--they were so proud and still are--of serving their country, going after terrorists and Osama bin Laden. I will never forget the thousands of men and women from Fort Bragg, Camp Lejeune, Cherry Point, Seymour Johnson, and Pope Air Force bases, who were serving this country abroad and who were serving the country at home, and whose families were there to support them. I represented them and represented their families and it was an extraordinary honor for me to be able to represent them. It is simple for me. If you take care of us, if you serve our country to protect the freedoms and ideals we cherish, we should be there for you. Your country should be there for you. That means health care and housing, it means relief on your student loans, and help covering your child care cost when your spouse has to go to work. The men and women who wear the uniform of the United States of America, they are who we think of and pray for when we look at our flag. The Stars and Stripes wave for them. The word ``hero'' was made for them. They are the best and the bravest, and we will always stand with you when you are standing in harm's way. This is what we have fought for together. It is something of which we should all be proud. We built on North Carolina's model to improve our schools, to strengthen standards, to expand afterschool, and to pay teachers more. We fought to strengthen security at our ports and our borders, chemical and nuclear plants, and to give our police and firefighters the support they needed to keep this country safe. We fought to make Washington live within its budget, to make sure Washington did what most families in America do every single day, to live within their means, and to restore fiscal responsibility. And we fought to reward work--not just wealth, work--and to ensure that the American dream stays alive and available to every single American, no matter where they live or who their family is or what the color of their skin. This is the America we believe in. This is the America we fought for. All my life I have fought for those who do not have a voice. I did it before I came to the Senate. I have done it here in the Senate. I will do it for the rest of my life. It is what my life has been about: Fighting for people who need someone to fight for them. I thank Senator Byrd for all of his guidance and for showing me the ropes during the time I have been here in the Senate. I want to take a moment and say a word about Senator Reid, who has also been a great leader here in the Senate and who I want to wish Godspeed in the important work in front of him. Again, my thanks to my leader, to our leader, Senator Daschle, for the work he has done and the leadership he has shown and the grace and strength and courage he has shown in leading in very difficult times, as others have said. He is a good and decent man and we all look up to him and respect him. I thank Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy for including me in working on the Patients' Bill of Rights, two great leaders in this Senate, two great leaders for the country, two Americans that Americans do and should look up to and respect. I thank my friend, my seatmate, Senator Evan Bayh, for all the times we have spent together, working here on the floor of the Senate, running together. He and his wife and his family are great friends of ours. His friendship means the world to me. I also thank my fellow Senate retirees Senator Breaux and Senator Hollings. One thing I guarantee you: Our accents will be missed here on the floor of the Senate. Hopefully, there will be others who will be able to speak the way we speak. I also want to say a word about my friend Senator Kerry. I embarked a few months ago on a journey with Senator Kerry, a fight, as we traveled across the country and fought for the things in which we believe. We shared our hopes for this country together. We worked hard to make America stronger. I developed a very strong, close, personal friendship with John Kerry during that time. John Kerry is a good man and he is a good American. I got the chance to see him when others didn't, when there were no cameras around, when there were no crowds. This is a man of strength and conviction and courage. He loves his children. He has a beautiful family, by the way. He and his wife Teresa and their kids became very close with my family and our children. We feel an enormous affection for them and enormous connection with them because we were engaged in what we thought was a very important cause. It still is a very important cause. But the reality is that John Kerry is somebody who has loved this country his entire life. He stood up and fought for this country his entire life. I am proud to have been able to spend the last few months fighting alongside him as he traveled throughout the country and the work that he did not just in this campaign but for all the years he served in this Senate before this campaign, and the years he will serve from here on are important. Every day he walks onto the floor of this Senate, the American people will be better for it. He is my friend. He is my colleague. I trust him. I believe, of course, that he would have made a great President, and I believe he has great work to do for this country in the days and years to come. It is an honor for me to be able to serve with him in this term. I also want to thank my staff. I ask unanimous consent to have their names printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I first join the voices of my friends and my colleagues in talking about our dear and great friend, Tom Daschle, with whom I had the privilege to serve for the last 6 years, and to be led by for the last 6 years. I have never known a better human being or a better public servant than Tom Daschle. He is a good, honest, decent, and honorable man. The Senate will miss him. The country has benefited from his long and extraordinary service to this country.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the late President Ronald Reagan. We were of different parties and very different political philosophies but I respected him as a strong leader--a man of principle and dignity. He was also good-natured and affable, never letting political differences drag him down into bitter partisanship. I was always impressed with President Reagan's ability to communicate and persuade and his talent for soothing our Nation in difficult times. In good times and bad, he sought to appeal to the best in all of us, to our hopes and better instincts, not our doubts and fears. And while he enjoyed a good political fight, he never demonized his opponents or accused those who differed with him of being unpatriotic. Ronald Reagan seemed to understand that we could disagree without being disagreeable and that we all love our country, even as we debate the best way to move toward a more perfect Union. All of us can learn from his example. As we pay tribute to our 40th President, this man who rose from humble beginnings to the greatest heights, I offer my condolences to Nancy Reagan and the Reagan family. I join my colleagues in saying farewell to Ronald Reagan, a modest man who was larger than life. Thank you, President Reagan, for your service to our Nation and for the important example you set for us all. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on Saturday, our Nation lost a good man and a great American, the 40th President of the United States, Ronald Wilson Reagan. A former sports announcer, actor, television performer, and Governor, this man from a small mid-western town was eventually elected to our Nation's highest office, not once, but twice, in landslide victories. His was a success story, an American success story. He demonstrated that the key to the American dream is still determination, hard work, and perseverance. He did it by appealing to our ``best hopes,'' not ``our worst fears.'' Historians will study and evaluate the impact of the Reagan administration--his role in ending the cold war and the results of his domestic policies. What is beyond debate was his uncanny ability to connect with the American people. He knew where he wanted to take the country and attempted to do it with remarkable determination and charm. He restored a much needed sense of optimism in America, and he did it with a cheerfulness that was absolutely contagious. His optimism was prevalent and penetrating and inspiring even during the darkest moments of his administration. With the Challenger explosion, we grieved and despaired, but when President Reagan spoke of how those courageous astronauts reached out and ``touched the face of God,'' suddenly all of us realized that we, as a country, would make it through this grievous hour, and the American adventure into space would go on. He was truly the Great Communicator. I came to know and work with Mr. Reagan from a unique and important perspective. I was the leader of the opposition party in the U.S. Senate during both of President Reagan's terms. From this position, I came to understand and appreciate, probably even more than his strongest supporters, his hold on the American people, and the importance of the leadership that he provided. In fact, I found him to be as charming in person as he was when speaking to an audience or appearing on television. Never once did I hear him engage in personal attacks on his challengers. When we disagreed, which was more often than not, it was always in civil tones. He was always smiling, patting you on the back, asking you about your family, and wishing you the best. You simply could not help but like him. He seemed not to confuse differences of opinion with differences of ideals or values. After all, he liked to point out, ``we are all Americans.'' That is the way American politics is supposed to be. That was the decency of Ronald Wilson Reagan. He might consider me a political opponent, but never a personal enemy. Just as I understood his difficulties as the leader of the free world during 8 years of trial and turmoil, he understood my role as the loyal opposition As much as I admired and respected him when he was President, never was my appreciation for him and his wife Nancy stronger than in their dealing with his last and greatest struggle--the struggle he eloquently and heartbreakingly called the ``journey'' that would lead him ``into the sunset'' of his life--his battle with Alzheimer's disease. He and Nancy confronted this cruel, crippling disease with an openness and dignity that inspired a Nation. Mr. President, my wife Erma and I extend our most heartfelt condolences to Mrs. Reagan. She has been an inspiration to America, gracefully fulfilling the role of loyal, loving spouse even as she has watched her greatest love drift away into the fog of Alzheimer's. In the years when they should have been able to enjoy the warm memories of their storybook life together, she endured personal emotional tortures that are difficult to imagine. In these last years, the vigilance and caring she displayed throughout their marriage led her to become an outspoken advocate for medical research, a role for which she has earned the immense respect and gratitude of the Nation. A Sunset Fancy (A poem by an unknown author) I saw the sun sink in the golden west No angry cloud obscured its latest ray; Around the couch on which it sank to rest Shone all the splendors of a summer day, And long--though lost of view--its radiant light Reflected from the skies, delayed the night. Thus when a good man's life comes to a close, No doubts arise to cloud his soul with gloom; But faith triumphant on each feature glows And benedictions fill the sacred room; And long do men his virtues wide proclaim, And generations rise to bless his name. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, 50 years ago on a Monday in May, the Supreme Court revealed the soul of our Constitution when it said, ``. . . in the field of education, separate but equal has no place.'' It was a moral decision just as much as it was a legal decision that ended discrimination in every place across America. Some of you remember that day. I was just born and can only imagine what it was like to experience that moment of truth. To hear those words ``has no place'' To see those headlines, ``Supreme Court bans . . . '' To feel the advance of justice. It was a glorious day in America and for all those families, children, teachers, and heroes of the last two centuries who risked their lives to move America to that moment. All of that effort and success and history was wrapped in the family name, Brown. But we can never forget that there were other families involved in that case. One of these cases began in my birth state of South Carolina. The African-American kids had to walk up to nine miles each way between their homes and their only school in Summerton. The white kids had 30 school buses to take them back and forth to their schools. The African American parents went to the Clarendon County School Board with a simple request--one school bus. The school board said no. So J.A. De Laine, a minister, convinced a humble farmer named Levi Pearson to sue the Clarendon County school district for buses. That case was Briggs v. Elliott and became one of the five cases from around the country that were consolidated and eventually became known as Brown v. Board of Education. The long journey from the back roads of South Carolina to the chambers of the Supreme Court was mapped out and led by attorney Charles Hamilton Houston. Together with his protege Thurgood Marshall, Charlie Houston patiently, painstakingly and brilliantly used the Constitution to correct itself and end legal segregation forever. And the other cases were from Delaware, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The other names were Belton, Davis, and Bolling. And in Topeka, there were 12 other families involved, nearly 200 total. This wasn't one case and one person and one school, but the cause of millions, and ultimately a cause for all of America. You and I know that this country has made progress. The ``White Only Signs'' have come down. Thurgood Marshall went on to serve on the Supreme Court. We have Congressman and women and Senators who have taken their place in our national leadership. And we have doctors and lawyers and storeowners in every neighborhood and in any town. We have come far, but we're not there yet. I grew up in an America that was growing up too with this landmark decision. This is something I've lived with my entire life living in the South in the '50s and '60s. We all have a responsibility when it comes to issues of race and equality and civil rights, but as a Southerner, I feel an especially enormous responsibility to lead on this issue. We Southerners have this special responsibility, not only because we know America's tragic and painful history on race, but also because we have led the way in breaking free from that history. From the time I was very young, I saw up close the ugly face of segregation and discrimination. I saw young African-American kids shuttled upstairs in movie theaters. I saw white only signs on restaurant doors and luncheon counters. When I was in the sixth grade, my teacher walked into the classroom and said he wouldn't teach in an integrated school. But even in the struggle's darkest days, countless Southerners stood as profiles in courage. For every George Wallace, we had a Terry Sanford. There were four Southern Justices on the Court that decided Brown. And it was Lyndon Johnson, a Texan, who told a joint session of Congress in 1965, ``We SHALL overcome!'' I have heard some of these pundits and politicians on television debate where and when in America we can talk about this issue. They think it is fine to stop and pat ourselves on the back on special days like today or Martin Luther King Day or during Black History Month. But they don't think we should talk about race and equality and civil rights any other time. But we need to talk about this everyday and everywhere. Why? Because this is not an African-American issue. This is not a Hispanic-American issue or an Asian-American issue. This is an American issue. It is about who we are. What our values are. What kind of country we want to live in. What kind of country we want our children and grandchildren to live in. We have come far, but we are not there yet. We need leaders who not only talk the talk of civil rights and equality, but are willing to DO something about it. We need leaders who understand that 50 years after Brown v. Board of Education we still have two public school systems in America: one for students who live in affluent communities and another for students who don't. There are still students in our rural areas and in our cities who try to learn in a crowded trailer, learn to read under a crumbling ceiling, and try to study science with equipment that ought to be seen only in their history books. Yes, there are signs of hope. In my own State, for example, schools in Charlotte and Durham and elsewhere are raising test scores while also closing the achievement gap. But the truth is that while our best public schools are among the best in the world--the state of many of our schools remains the shame of our Nation. Education has made all the difference in my life. I was the first member of my family to go to college. But millions of our children are being denied the opportunities I had. Poor and minority students come to school with greater challenges, and our education system then turns around and gives them less of everything that matters. We spend less in their classrooms. We give them fewer qualified teachers. And we teach them a weaker curriculum. One Washington, DC, high school enrolls three times more students in ``office reprographics''--training on photocopiers--than in pre- calculus and calculus combined. Millions of our young people drop out, turning their backs on their futures. Minority students have only a 50-50 chance of finishing high school. Those who do make it to their senior year are four years behind their peers in reading and math. That's right--minority seniors test at the same level as white eighth-graders. And just last week, a judge in Topeka, KS, of all places, ordered the public schools shut down because the funding was so inequitable that it utterly failed to serve the needs of poor, minority, disabled and non- English speaking children. In his opinion, Judge Bullock quoted directly from Brown: ``Today, education is perhaps the most important function of State and local governments. . . . It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. . . . In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the State has undertaken to provide it, must be made available to all on equal terms.'' We have come far, but we are not there yet. Fifty years later, we are still fighting that fight. But thank God we have some courageous judges who uphold our civil rights laws and ensure equal justice for all. We have to continue to fight for judges who will enforce our civil rights laws and stand up for equality in America. We have so much work to do with economic equality and educational equality. That takes leadership, not slogans and photo ops. The administration can talk about ``No Child Left Behind'' all they want. It is great rhetoric. But the reality is that children are being left behind all over the country. They sit in the back of the classroom, wishing they could do better, but no one hears them, no one sees them. They walk the halls and go unnoticed because our schools are so crowded now that no one knows their names. They try their best, but drop out of high school-- they give up on their education because the education system has given up on them. None of us would tolerate that for our own children. Well, these ARE our children. Every single one of them. Their failure is our failure. And their success is our success. We've got to do better by them. Yes we must have high expectations of them. But as David Broder noted in a recent column, we also have to provide the resources they need to meet those standards. And that takes real leadership not rhetoric. Real leadership is courage, and commitment, and action. It means doing everything we can to make equality a reality--not only in our laws, but in our lives, in communities where poverty and discrimination remain a scar on our Nation. More than anything, leadership means recognizing that social justice is not a zero-sum game where ``we'' give something to ``them''--whether it's women or minorities or immigrants. The Brown decision was not about some ``them.'' It was about ``us.'' All of us. We have come so far, but we are not there yet. I believe that the best way to mark the 50th anniversary of the Brown decision is to push onward with all of the strength and determination we can muster to ensure that the promise of Brown is finally realized. It is time to honor those heroes who would not quit, who would not settle for anything less than the right book to read, a school bus to ride on, and a great teacher to guide them. In moving forward, we honor the Little Rock Nine who walked passed angry mobs, and inspired the Nation with their grace. We honor James Meredith, who persevered despite the full weight of Mississippi demanding that he stay home. We honor little Ruby Bridges, who needed U.S. Marshals to protect her from the wall of human hate that stood between her and her new school--a scene so compelling that Norman Rockwell used it as the basis for his painting, ``The Problem We All Live With'' that I have hanging in one of my Senate offices. And all of the families who joined the NAACP to take down Plessy vs. Ferguson once and for all. When those walls were raised; when all the doors and gates were locked, the African American community found its own gateway to a good education. Despite all of the odds, despite those in power who said, ``You can't have this chance,'' ordinary people stood together tall and strong and said, ``Yes we can!'' These moments of history shadow us today. These heroes are looking right over our shoulders. They are urging us to move forward. They are telling us, ``we've brought you this far, but you're not there yet.'' Our journey to one America is the greatest mission of our history. Our work, our effort, our commitment must be constant. I know mine is. Together, from the heights of national power to every local Head Start center, we must strive to open doors, to make sure that there's always a seat at the table, and the voices of all Americans will be heard. I believe that wherever you live, whoever your family is, and whatever the color of your skin is, if you are willing to work hard, you ought to be able to go as far as your God-given talents and hard work will take you. We believe in bringing people together. What we believe, what I believe, is that the family you are born into and the color of your skin will never control what you are able to do or how far you can go in this, our America. That is the America we should all believe in. That is the promise of the Brown decision. And that is the America we can create, not just for a precious few, but for everyone. We have come far and we are not done, but I do believe that we WILL get there yet. I ask unanimous consent to print an article from the Washington Post written by David Broder entitled ``Still Separate and Unequal.''

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, although I must be necessarily absent for the vote this afternoon, I want to express my support for this important resolution and briefly speak on the issue that has shocked all of us during the past two weeks--the horrific abuse sustained by the prisoners and detainees in Iraq. All of us condemn what has happened in Iraq's prisons. The acts the world has now seen are deplorable; they are inhumane; they are appalling. Every day brings new evidence of horrors. These actions are completely inconsistent with our values, and completely counterproductive to our efforts to help the Iraqi people achieve security, stability, and freedom. These images cast a dark shadow on all our efforts in Iraq, and they make the work of our brave military men and women in Iraq only harder. These shameful acts of a few have put many in harm's way. As we condemn these acts and punish those responsible all the way up the chain of command, we must continue to support our soldiers in Iraq and around the world. We cannot let the images and stories from the last week--and the images and stories that will certainly emerge in the coming weeks-- distort the fact that the vast majority of men and women serving their country today in Iraq and elsewhere are doing so with great dignity, skill and patriotism. This is not just a major setback for our efforts in Iraq. Just think about the damage that these acts have done to America and our authority to promote peaceful, democratic change around the world. At the same time when we are trying to reach out to Arab countries--and to help their societies develop more opportunities so their people can live in greater freedom--these photographs and the behavior they depict do tremendous harm to America's ability to lead. That is why we must stand together today to condemn these actions in the strongest terms. But our words will not be enough. We must follow up our words with deeds. There must be a full investigation into how these acts were allowed to happen, and an exhaustive effort to see that measures are put in place so that they never happen again. Many questions must be answered, and we must have the administration's full cooperation. The American people--and the Iraqi people--deserve answers. We must hold accountable those responsible all the way up the military chain of command, and they must be punished to the fullest extent of the law. I also believe that these acts reveal such a fundamental failure of leadership that we need to have accountability here in Washington. We cannot just blame this on the individual soldiers involved. We must show the world that no one can shirk responsibility no matter how high that responsibility goes, or what office one might hold. So if we want to signal to the rest of the world that we in fact emphatically reject what happened; if we want to send the message that what happened in that prison was inconsistent with American values; if we want to say to the rest of the world that we as a nation want to change course here, then we need to hold our leadership at the highest levels accountable.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Better Future for American Families Act. Today's legislation will strengthen progressive tax credits to help middle-class families save, invest, and get ahead. For more than 200 years, our country has been propelled by this single, powerful idea: All Americans should have the opportunity to rise as far as their hard work and God-given potential can take them. In the last generation, however, the American Dream of building something better has been replaced with the hope of just getting by. Due to the rising costs of housing, health care, and other necessities, many families are no longer saving for the future. In fact, they need to borrow to get through the present. Personal bankruptcies reached an all-time high of 1.6 million a year in 2002. Almost one in five households approaching retirement can expect to retire in poverty, and this rate is even higher for African American and Hispanic households. The middle-class--the foundation of this country--is sinking. If we want to create new wealth in this country, we should start by rewarding the work and responsibility of America's families. What's right for our economy, our democracy, and our society is consistent with our values as well: Every American should have the chance to be an owner--to buy a home, save for college, invest in America, or put money aside for a secure retirement. In current law, there is a Saver's Credit that matches retirement savings of low-income families up to dollar-for-dollar. The credit has been a success, but it does suffer from some limitations. First, the Saver's Credit will expire in 2006. The Republican budget plan fails to extend it, even as it extends other tax cuts enacted in 2001. My legislation would make it permanent. Second, the credit phases out rapidly, providing only a small benefit to many middle-income families and creating high marginal tax rates for millions of savers. My legislation would expand benefits for families earning less than $50,000. Finally, although 57 million taxpayers are eligible for the maximum credit on paper, 80 percent of them cannot actually benefit from it because they lack income tax liability. These are families that need help as much as anyone, and my legislation would make them eligible for the credit. This legislation would make a real difference for American families. A family that saves the maximum under this plan every year from age 25 to retirement will have a nest egg of $200,000 on top of any other savings, pensions, and Social Security. Here in Congress, it is our responsibility to make sure that families working for a living have the tools they need to move forward. My legislation is not about creating another government program to protect families; it is about helping families help themselves. If we help families save, we can unleash a new era of possibilities with a stronger economy because we're saving and investing more; with families at ease because they have financial security; and with our children prospering because they have a strong foundation on which to build. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this effort. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Better Future for American Families Act. Today's legislation will strengthen progressive tax credits to help middle-class families save, invest, and get ahead. For more than 200 years, our country has been propelled by this single, powerful idea: All Americans should have the opportunity to rise as far as their hard work and God-given potential can take them. In the last generation, however, the American Dream of building something better has been replaced with the hope of just getting by. Due to the rising costs of housing, health care, and other necessities, many families are no longer saving for the future. In fact, they need to borrow to get through the present. Personal bankruptcies reached an all-time high of 1.6 million a year in 2002. Almost one in five households approaching retirement can expect to retire in poverty, and this rate is even higher for African American and Hispanic households. The middle-class--the foundation of this country--is sinking. If we want to create new wealth in this country, we should start by rewarding the work and responsibility of America's families. What's right for our economy, our democracy, and our society is consistent with our values as well: Every American should have the chance to be an owner--to buy a home, save for college, invest in America, or put money aside for a secure retirement. In current law, there is a Saver's Credit that matches retirement savings of low-income families up to dollar-for-dollar. The credit has been a success, but it does suffer from some limitations. First, the Saver's Credit will expire in 2006. The Republican budget plan fails to extend it, even as it extends other tax cuts enacted in 2001. My legislation would make it permanent. Second, the credit phases out rapidly, providing only a small benefit to many middle-income families and creating high marginal tax rates for millions of savers. My legislation would expand benefits for families earning less than $50,000. Finally, although 57 million taxpayers are eligible for the maximum credit on paper, 80 percent of them cannot actually benefit from it because they lack income tax liability. These are families that need help as much as anyone, and my legislation would make them eligible for the credit. This legislation would make a real difference for American families. A family that saves the maximum under this plan every year from age 25 to retirement will have a nest egg of $200,000 on top of any other savings, pensions, and Social Security. Here in Congress, it is our responsibility to make sure that families working for a living have the tools they need to move forward. My legislation is not about creating another government program to protect families; it is about helping families help themselves. If we help families save, we can unleash a new era of possibilities with a stronger economy because we're saving and investing more; with families at ease because they have financial security; and with our children prospering because they have a strong foundation on which to build. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this effort. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two joint resolutions to fight predatory mortgage lending. The resolutions would strike down the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's recent regulations that put millions of families in the sights of predatory lenders. The middle class--the foundation of our country--is sinking. In the last generation, families have gone from saving for the future to borrowing just to get by. Home foreclosure rates have tripled in the last 25 years. This year, more middle-class children will see their parents declare bankruptcy than will see their parents get divorced. Working families are vulnerable. They cannot save because they must spend more for housing, health care, child care, and college tuition. These expenses are not luxuries. They are the necessities. Without savings, a bump in the road--a lost job or sudden illness--could become the end of the road. There is a lot of work to be done to help families get ahead and build a secure future. The legislation I am introducing today deals with just one aspect of the problem, but it is an important one: the fight against predatory mortgage lenders. There are mortgage companies that cheat people, plain and simple. Excessive fees leave families on a treadmill, forcing them to make large mortgage payments while draining the wealth they have saved in their home. Many families lose their home altogether. All told, predatory lending costs homeowners an estimated $9 billion a year. I am proud that my State of North Carolina is a leader in fighting predatory lending. The strong law it passed in 1999 is saving consumers $100 million a year, while mortgage credit remains widely available. Unfortunately, the Federal Government is not doing as well. In fact, we are losing ground. In January, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency in the U.S. Department of the Treasury issued new regulations exempting national banks--which hold more than half of bank assets-- from State predatory lending laws. Strong consumer protection laws have been States' responsibility for more than a century. The new rules ignore that tradition, which has served our country well, to create a safe haven for predatory lenders in national banking law. They also create an incentive for State- chartered banks to escape tough laws by converting to national banks. The resolutions that I am introducing today would strike down the OCC rules that preempt State law. It would restore States' ability to enforce their predatory lending laws within their boundaries and protect their homeowners against abusive loans. These protections are badly needed. About half of subprime borrowers are paying extra interest and fees, when they qualify for better rates. That's hundreds of thousands of Americans who are each paying thousands of dollars more than they should for their homes. Even worse, some families see their loans refinanced again and again, their equity diminished time and again, until one day they lose their home. It is offensive, but predatory lenders target African-American and other minority communities. If you are an upper-income African-American family, you are twice as likely to get a subprime loan than a lower- income white family is. Think about that: even though you are doing better, you get a worse loan if you are African-American. That is dead wrong. We need a strong national law to fight predatory lending. We don't need a prohibition of the strong State laws now on the books with weak national rules. I urge my colleagues to support these resolutions. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the resolutions be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, every so often, someone comes along and changes the way we look at things. Marc Miringoff was such a person. We note his passing last week in New York at the age of 58. Marc was a gifted social scientist who had the crucial insight that progress ought not be measured in economic terms alone. Gross national product, gross domestic product, net foreign investment, balance of payments, net savings rates--all of these thrown together, properly weighted and critically analyzed could certainly tell us much about the state of our economy. But Marc asked whether they would give us the true measure of our society. He concluded they did not. In the 1980s, Marc sought to change that. He founded the Fordham Institute for Innovation in Social Policy in 1985, where he worked to develop an index to measure the Nation's social health. The index consisted of a number of measures that reflected the worlds of public health, education, the justice system, and violence. Marc burrowed beneath the numbers to find the underlying, often invisible, structures of poverty that undermined economic progress. I was privileged to know Marc. I benefited from his counsel and was challenged by his insights. I know that Marc was no dry-as-dust academic. He relished the political arena as much as he enriched the academic forum. He was an evangelist for the concept of social health. His eyes sparkled when an elected official got hooked on his ideas. He worked hard, bringing others along, encouraging them to look more deeply at the fabric of American society and to work harder to make it a richer, stronger fabric. I will miss Marc. We all will miss him. Right now, the country needs more people like him. I offer my condolences to his wife, Marque, and to his family.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I wish the honor to life of a remarkable North Carolinian. Jay Jenkins was one of North Carolina's finest. He was a member of a large and distinguished family descended from 18th century Scottish missionaries, and he left his own mark on our State and the South. With his passing, we have lost a great humanitarian. Jay's long career spanned his early years as a political reporter and later as a leader at the University of North Carolina. Many in North Carolina believe he was the best political reporter the State has ever known. He was always the one with the scoop. He had the best contacts and knew how to work them. He was a mentor to many, including Charles Kuralt, whose own distinguished career took him to CBS News, David Cooper, retired editorial page editor of the Akron, OH, Beacon-Journal, James Batten, the late president of the Knight-Ridder Publishing Co., Joe Doster, retired publisher of the Winston-Salem Journal and Eugene Roberts, retired managing editor of The New York Times. His competitors admired him at the same time they were wondering how he always managed to get the story. The qualities that made him such a good reporter were his straightforwardness and his integrity. He was concerned about writing what was really happening. He looked for pretension in politicians and avoided those personalities. His emphasis was the common man. He cared about North Carolina providing programs that truly met the needs of children. Jay counted among his close friends former Senator Jesse Helms, whom he met when both were students in the late 1930s at what was then Wake Forest College. He also was a close friend to former Governor and Senator Terry Sanford. His reporting also led to several journalism awards, including the National Sidney Hillman Award for investigative articles in the News & Observer exposing activities of the Klu Klux Klan in North Carolina. In 1991, Jay Jenkins was inducted into the North Carolina Journalism Hall of Fame. Jay later joined UNC system President Bill Friday as a senior assistant. During his tenure with the university system, he expanded the concept of public relations to be more than just reporting about the students. Most importantly, he originated and founded the television news show, North Carolina People, hosted by President Friday. This show is still running and remains popular in North Carolina. He was also was highly respected in the legislature, where he represented the university with distinction. ``I remember him as the best of his generation,'' President Friday said of Jay. ``He was a man of real integrity, honesty and plain raw courage. His motivation was always what was best for North Carolina.'' Jay was an accomplished outdoorsman and athlete who played semiprofessional baseball. He was a devoted follower of the Atlanta Braves and his beloved Wake Forest Demon Deacons. A veteran of World War II, Jay served our country with distinction in the Army Air Corps in the Pacific Theater for 30 months. Jay was a true North Carolina treasure. We will miss him dearly.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I spoke yesterday, but I wish to speak once again on this bill. This bill is a perfect example of the kind of legislation that should not go through the Senate. It is a giveaway to HMOs and insurance companies, a giveaway to big drug companies, a continuation of this administration's shifting of the tax burden in America from wealth and the wealthy to work and the middle class. It is not shocking that there is a $12 billion stabilization fund in this bill--$12 billion of taxpayer money that is going to go to HMOs so that they can compete? I thought the whole purpose of this bill was so that HMOs could provide competition. We are going to give $12 billion of taxpayer money--money that, in fact, could go to providing a better prescription drug benefit to seniors who desperately need it, instead of using that money to cover seniors, to give them help in getting the medicine they desperately need when they go to the pharmacy. No, instead we are going to give $12 billion of taxpayer money to HMOs. That is a great idea. That is just a terrific idea. On top of all that, we are not going to do anything meaningful to bring down the cost of prescription drugs. We have been through this fight over and over. We fight to try to allow reimportation of prescription medication from Canada, to bring down costs for people in America. Does it pass? No. Can we get it into this bill? No. Why? Because the drug companies are against it. We try to do something about misleading company advertising on television. Billions and billions of dollars are being spent every year by drug companies on television advertising. Much of the advertising is misleading. We know who is paying for this advertising: consumers, seniors, every time they go to the pharmacy, are paying for those ads. When we try to do something about that advertising, try to put some kind of reasonable controls on it, are we able to do it? Are we successful? No. Why? Because the drug companies are against it. We cannot even allow the Government to use its bargaining power to bring down the cost of prescription drugs for all seniors. This bill is a giveaway--a giveaway to HMOs, a giveaway to drug companies. It is not surprising that as a result of looking as if this bill is about to pass, the drug companies' stock and HMO stock is rising. One thing I can tell you for sure, if this bill passes, it will pass over the dead bodies of a lot of us standing here fighting against it. If this bill passes, the lobbyists will be celebrating all over this town, lobbyists who worked this bill every single day on behalf of the HMOs and the drug companies. I grew up in a small town in North Carolina in a rural area. There are more lobbyists for those industries around Washington, DC, than people who live in my hometown. How about if we in the Senate stand up for the kind of people I grew up with in that small town? How about if we actually stand up to big drug companies and big HMOs? Speaking for this Senator, I intend to stand up to those people. I will vote no and fight with everything I have to stop this legislation.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida very much for yielding time and allowing me to speak tonight. Medicare was created 40 years ago with the idea of giving seniors health care to allow them to live out their lives in dignity and self- respect. It was a promise that they could choose their own doctor and afford their health care. We clearly need a real prescription drug benefit under Medicare, there is no question about that. The problem is that this bill does a great deal more harm than good. It is very good for the drug companies, it is very good for the HMOs, but it is very bad for seniors and very bad for America as a result. Here are some of the reasons: First, it has billions of dollars in giveaways to HMOs and insurance companies, money that could be and should be used to provide a better benefit to seniors who desperately need prescription drugs. Second, it does almost nothing to control the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs which seniors all over America face every single day when they go to the pharmacy. Third, it contains billions of dollars in tax breaks for millionaires, for the wealthy, which is part of a long pattern by this President of trying to shift the tax burden. The President is in the middle, as I speak, of shifting the tax burden in America from wealth to work. He wants to get rid of the dividends tax, capital gains tax, taxation of the largest estates, and shift that tax burden right on the backs of middle-class working Americans who are already struggling, already having a difficult time saving, putting money aside, having any level of financial security. And here we go again, the President of the United States is in the process of putting an additional burden on the very people who are struggling and who are so critical to getting this economy moving again. This is just another in a long series of efforts by this President and this administration to shift the tax burden. There is no question the lobbyists all over Washington are popping the champagne corks as we speak. The drug company stocks are going up. The HMO stocks are going up. Do not the drug companies and HMOs make enough already? For all the seniors who go to the pharmacy to try to buy medicine and cannot afford it, is the really nice thing for us to do right now to help the HMOs and drug companies? Are they not doing all right? The truth is we ought to forget the drug companies, forget about the HMOs. They are doing a terrific job of taking care of themselves. We in the Senate ought to be focused on trying to help seniors who are struggling. Let me say a word about the giveaways to the HMOs. This bill contains something that is called a stabilization fund of $12 billion, which is nothing but a giveaway to HMOs. The idea is we have been hearing all along that it is important to have competition and the HMOs can be more cost-effective than Medicare. I am missing something. If they can be more cost effective than Medicare, why in creation are we giving them $12 billion of taxpayer money? At least where I come from, you do not have to give somebody $12 billion to be more cost effective. That is taxpayer money that could be used to help seniors who desperately need prescription drugs. But, oh, no, we are going to give them $12 billion, money that could go to the seniors, money that could give them a decent benefit. Instead, we are going to give it to HMOs. I guess they are struggling so much, they need our help. Then on top of that, we see that the justification for this is that they need money so they can ``compete''? What in the world is that all about? On top of what is being done for the HMOs, we have the drug companies. This bill does almost nothing to control costs. We have been fighting in the Senate to bring down the cost of prescription drugs for months and years now. The battle is always uphill because the drug companies have more lobbyists in this town than people who live in my hometown where I grew up. They are all over the place. So we are trying to bring down the cost of prescription drugs. The Wall Street Journal itself calls this a big win for the drug companies. Their stock is going up. Why have we not been able to do the things that need to be done to bring the cost of this program under control and, more importantly, to bring the cost of prescription drugs under control? I will tell my colleagues why. Because the drug companies are against it. It is just that simple. It is the answer to everything we try to do on the Senate floor to bring down the cost of prescription drugs. We try to do something about misleading drug company advertising on television. No, no, we cannot do it. The drug companies are against it. We try to allow the reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada to bring down costs for everybody, but we cannot get it passed. Why? The drug companies are against it. We try to do all of this, to allow the market power of the Government to be used to negotiate a better price to bring down the cost of prescription drugs. We cannot get it done. Why? The drug companies are against it. We are never going to get health care costs under control in this country until we stand up to these people, stand up to the drug companies, stand up to the HMOs. I know in Washington, DC, they are powerful, but out across America, the American people have a great deal more power in this democracy than these lobbyists in Washington. We need to stand up to drug companies and HMOs and stand up for the American people. In the middle of not controlling costs, billions of dollars of taxpayer money going to HMOs and drug companies, we have another effort to shift the tax burden in this country. It is not as if working, middle-class families are not struggling enough. It is not as if over the last 20 years we have not gone from them saving money, having financial security, to today not being able to save, having negative savings as a matter of fact, with one medical emergency or one layoff keeping them from going under. Here is a good idea: Why do we not take another step to shift the tax burden away from the wealthy and to the middle class and working people? That is exactly what is happening with these medical savings accounts. The only people who are going to be able to afford to take advantage of it are the wealthy. Regular folks cannot save anyway. They are not going to be able to put money away in one of these accounts. The bottom line is, this is a bad bill. It is not a first step; it is a misstep. It takes this country in exactly the wrong direction. We need to stand up and say so. The American people need to hear our voices loudly and clearly. They also need to know what it is we actually need to do to provide a prescription drug benefit because they deserve one. I will tell my colleagues what we need to do--put controls on the cost of prescription drugs by allowing reimportation from Canada, by doing something about misleading advertising on television, by cracking down on some of the price gouging that is going on. We ought to provide this prescription drug benefit under Medicare. We can give people choices and still stand by the very program that has provided seniors with health care for 40 years now, that so many seniors have depended on for four decades now. At the end of the day, the American people, seniors, want us to do something about prescription drugs. We ought to do it. We ought to give them a real benefit. We ought to bring down the costs. We ought to make it cost efficient in terms of taxpayer dollars. In order to do it, we are going to actually have to have the backbone to stand up to these drug companies and these HMOs and their armies of lobbyists all over Washington. I, for one--and I believe some of my colleagues will join me in this--intend to stand up to these people, and I intend to stand up for the American people and fight with everything I have for a real prescription drug benefit under Medicare that does not give billions of dollars to HMOs and drug companies. I yield the floor.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time the Senator from Florida has remaining?

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, my Republican colleagues are calling this 30-plus-hour marathon ``Justice for Judges.'' Now, I'm all for justice for judges. And that's exactly what every single one of President Bush's judicial nominees has gotten. But I ask my colleagues, where is Justice for the American people? They seem more concerned about Justice for a handful of judges--the 2 percent of those Bush's nominee who haven't been confirmed--than justice, fair play and opportunity for the American people. The Republican majority claims that we're facing a vacancy crisis in our Federal courts. Ninety eight percent of Bush's judges have been confirmed and this is a crisis? Two percent of Bush's judges have not been given lifetime appointments and we're in a crisis? Under George W. Bush, the unemployment has risen to 6 percent the poverty rate has increased to 12.1 percent the percentage of Americans with no health insurance has gone up to 15.2 percent. And, during this time, the vacancy rate on the Federal courts has gone down to 4.5 percent its lowest point in over 13 years. In fact, there are more full-time Federal judges on the bench today than at any other time in U.S. history? The vacancy rate is now below the number that Senator Hatch called ``full-employment'' in the Federal judiciary during the Clinton administration. Where is the concern for the 6 percent of the American people who can't find jobs? The same people who claim that 4.5 percent vacancy is a crisis think that 6 percent unemployment is great news, that a ``jobless recovery'' is a good thing. Why aren't they at least as concerned about Justice for the Jobless, Justice for Working People, Justice for the Poor, Justice for Families? So, what does this marathon debate tell us about the priorities of the Republican majority? What does it tell us when they are more concerned about securing lifetime jobs for three sitting judges and a State attorney general than in securing jobs for the 9 million Americans who are out of work? Why are they more interested in fighting for three judges and an attorney general--all of whom have received full and fair consideration--than fighting to bring hope back to the American people? Why aren't we spending 30 hours debating how to help the 9 million Americans who no longer have the dignity and self-respect that comes from completing a hard day's work? Why doesn't the Republican majority schedule 30 hours of debate to figure out how to provide health care to the American people and prescription drug benefits to the elderly? We should be figuring out how to bring back the 3 million jobs we've lost on George Bush's watch--one job lost for every minute he has been in office. We should be addressing the anxiety of families who fear that by sundown they will be without a safe home. We should be working to find a way to lift the tax burdens on working families and provide real economic opportunities so they can provide food, clothing, and shelter for their families. We should be debating about the best way to close the education gap and support and fund our public schools. We should be working together to lift Americans out of poverty. And we should be coming together, not to fight for justice for judges but to fight to end the injustice that still tugs on the soul of America. In other words, we should be fighting for Justice for the American People. But instead, my Republican colleagues have virtually shut down the Senate to force lifetime appointments for three judges and an attorney general. This political stunt is getting lots of coverage, but it's not doing a thing to improve the life of one single American--except three sitting judges and an attorney general. We have confirmed 168 of President Bush's nominees. I voted for the vast majority of these judges, even though many of these judges have held conservative ideologies with which I strongly differ, because I believed they would ultimately enforce the Constitution and the law. But I cannot and will not vote for these four nominees, for good reason. These nominees not only do not represent the mainstream, but they have demonstrated an unwillingness to set aside their personal views to uphold the law and protect civil rights. We have good reason to oppose these nominees. And we not only have the right, we have a constitutional obligation to stand up to the President when he makes unacceptable nominations to the bench. Our Founding Fathers did not give the President unilateral or unfettered power to select Article III judges. They wanted to ensure that the people--through their elected representatives--have a say in who will be appointed to the Federal bench. So they created a partnership between the President and the Senate by requiring the President to obtain the advice and consent of the Senate in nominating judges. Every President--whether Republican or Democrat--must consult in a meaningful way with the Senate to appoint highly qualified judges to the Federal bench. The give and take that results makes it far more likely that we will have a judiciary that is not skewed too far to the right or too far to the left, a balanced judiciary that reflects the people it serves. Meaningful consultation does not mean that the White House just sends us who they want and we rubberstamp them, without careful examination and consideration. Meaningful consultation often involves compromise and consensus. This approach has worked reasonably well--with some exceptions--over the years. But now we find ourselves dealing with a White House that disdains this longstanding principle of advice and consent. Instead, the President is appointing judges who are far out of the mainstream. Judges who are hostile to civil rights and equal justice. Judges who are not only willing but eager to put their personal views above the law. Judges he certainly knows are unacceptable to us and our constituents. These appointments are being made without our advice and without our consent. We have tried to work with the White House to find common ground, but most of our attempts to reach consensus with the administration have been dismissed. In some instances, our commitment to fairness and diversity has been attacked. This is not the way this process should work. It is wrong. It would be wrong, regardless what party the President belongs to. Any honest observer must acknowledge that previous administrations of both parties attempted in good faith to work with the Senate in its appointments process. President Clinton put up numerous highly qualified mainstream nominees for Federal judgeships, only to have them blocked, denied hearings and denied votes by a Republican Senate. Twenty percent of Bill Clinton's judges were blocked by a Republican Senate. We heard nothing about justice for judges then. This had a particular impact on my home State of North Carolina, which is part of the Fourth Circuit. North Carolina--the largest State in the circuit--until this year had not been represented on the court since 1994. President Clinton tried three times to put a North Carolinian on the court, only to have his nominees blocked for reasons other than their qualifications. In fact, during his last 6 years in office, President Clinton had eight nominees--four of them African American--blocked in the Fourth Circuit alone. These were well- qualified men and women, none of whom could be labeled ideologues, whose views were well within the mainstream of legal thought and practice. Nevertheless, they were blocked. I believe that this was part of a plan, a plan to keep these seats open for a Republican President who would fill them with right-wing judges outside of the mainstream. We've seen what happens when the President meets us halfway. He's done it before--rarely, but he's done it. He reached out to us on Allyson Duncan, an outstanding North Carolinian who just last month was formally installed as a judge on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, breaking a logjam that had held our State back for a decade. In that case, President Bush did more than just pay lipservice to our constitutional obligation to a advise and consent. He reached out to us before he made his decision--he consulted with us--he sought our advice. And in making his decision, the President selected a nominee who represents the mainstream of our State. Throughout Judge Duncan's confirmation process, I commended the President for consulting with us and making an excellent nomination. And I told him that if he takes this approach to future judicial nominations we have a real opportunity to find common ground in the search for excellence on the Federal bench. When we work together, we find outstanding nominees like Allyson Duncan, who represents the best of North Carolina and America. In light of our efforts to cooperate with the President on nominations, I'm puzzled and troubled by the Republican attacks on us, the accusations that we are anti-women, anti-black, anti-Hispanic, anti-Southern, anti-Catholic. They're running attack ads against us that represent the worst forms of religious and racial McCarthyism. They're doing this even though the record shows that Democrats have voted to confirm 13 of President Bush's African-American nominees while Republicans blocked 12 of Clinton's African-American nominees. We have confirmed 33 of Bush's woman nominees. Nearly 40 percent of the Bush judges confirmed have been from southern States. So, not only are these accusations of bias flat-out wrong, they are outrageous and I must speak out against such demagoguery and race baiting. We have gone the extra mile. We have demonstrated that we are willing to work with the White House to move forward on nominees who provide balance to the courts. We have confirmed 168 of President Bush's judicial nominees--98 percent. We have been more than cooperative. It's really a shame that the majority doesn't spend a fraction of the time they've spent on the full employment program for judges on finding ways to improve the lives of the American people. The American people deserve better than this. We owe it to them to call a halt to this marathon madness and get down to work to address the problems they sent us here to solve. It is time to fight for justice, jobs and opportunity for the American people.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. As a partnership of three strong North Carolina universities, the North Carolina Agromedicine Institute is a leader in developing collaborative initiatives with colleagues in agencies and universities throughout the country. The Institute is having a significant impact in my State of North Carolina, across the Southeast region, and across the country, on the health and safety of workers and their families in agriculture, forestry, and commercial fishing--three of the four most dangerous occupations in the Nation. Support from the Congress over the past 3 years has provided essential core funding to the Institute as it has strived to initiate research projects to address some of the important health and safety issues that are found, not just in North Carolina, but also in all the southeastern States and across the Nation. In addition, fiscal year 2003 funding has been used to expand the Institute's focus to address the important areas of food safety, agricultural disasters, and agroterrorism. The Institute is working with the NC State Health Department, Department of Agriculture and other governmental agencies in these efforts. This year, the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Committee appropriated $139,000 while the House Agriculture Appropriations set aside $278,000 for the Institute. It is vital that the Institute receive the House level if it is to maintain its cutting- edge work. When the House and Senate conference committee considers the fiscal year 2004 agriculture appropriations measure, I strongly urge you and your fellow conferees to provide $278,000 for the NC Agromedicine Institute. Senator Kohl, you have been a strong supporter of the Institute and I greatly appreciate your efforts. Mr. Kohl. I appreciate your request and I assure you I and my fellow conferees will give your request full consideration. garden state ethanol

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise to acknowledge October as National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. This gives us an opportunity to remember the millions of victims and their families affected by breast cancer. More than 6,000 individuals in North Carolina are diagnosed each year with breast cancer, and 1,100 of them die as a result. Across the country, one in nine women will be diagnosed with breast cancer during their lifetime. This is a tragedy, and we must do more to treat it and find a cure. As Breast Cancer Awareness Month comes to a close, I want to share the story of an extraordinary family in Goldsboro, who has been impacted by this disease in the most devastating and tragic sense. Willie and Mittie Darden, are the parents of 15 children. When Mr. Darden passed away in 1976, Mrs. Darden, known to her friends and family as Mit, became the head of the Darden family. As you can imagine, family gatherings at her home are always large, loving, and filled with joy. Mit has always been a woman of the deepest faith. Being a life-long member of Darden Chapel Free Will Baptist Church, her faith was the underpinning of the strength she needed to endure the loss of two children to childhood illness. No doubt the pain was tremendous. Years later this pillar of strength for her family and community would endure the harshest of fates as she would lose four daughters to breast cancer. They were Hattie Williams, Louise Darden, Bertha Bennett, and Ann Bryant. Hattie Williams was the mother of one daughter and had four grandchildren. She spent 20 years in the Wayne County School System as a Head Start teacher, later becoming the owner and operator of her own day care center. On her 50th birthday, March 24, 1993, Mrs. Williams invited her family to visit her. Her family recounts that she spent the evening walking the halls with them as she sang and gave thanks to God for her life and her family. Two days later at dawn she passed away. Louise Darden, nicknamed Lou Lou, was the mother of four children and a grandmother of four. She, too, was a Head Start teacher. Ms. Darden was also an avid cook and was responsible for designing the t-shirts for the family reunions. As her illness worsened, it was she who gave strength and comfort to her family. She truly felt we are spiritual beings going through a human experience. She transitioned this life on March 2, 1998. Bertha Bennett is remembered as the life of the party to her family. She spent most of her adult life in Washington, D.C., where she was a mother of three children and a grandmother of nine. Family members say that the teachings of her parents, rooted in the church, are what caused her to overcome alcohol dependency and become a devout Jehovah Witness. Mrs. Bennett, called Bert by her family, served as a source of inspiration to her family and countless friends. Her family was visiting her here in Washington at a hospice when word was sent to them that Ann was being moved to a hospice in Goldsboro as she, too, was fighting breast cancer. By the time the family returned home to North Carolina, they learned Bert had died. It was May 12, 2000. Ann Bryant had taken over the duties as family secretary and organizer after the death of her sister Hattie in 1993. The mother of five children and six grandchildren, Ann spent her adult life caring for others as a home hospice care nurse. When eastern North Carolina was hit by catastrophic floods, Ann spent considerable time making sure her family and friends had adequate housing. Her family says that her concern for others was so great that she was working on that project until the breast cancer had claimed her, 2 days after her sister Bert had passed away. It was May 14, 2000, Mother's Day. On Mother's Day 2000, Mittie Coley Darden was a mother grieving yet again over the loss of not one but two more daughters to breast cancer. All of these women were wives, mothers, grandmothers, and friends. Words could not describe her anguish. Her faith sustained her though. She is the rock upon which others drew strength. It is in her tragedy that others in her church and community have become more aware of the importance of organizations like the Susan G. Komen Foundation, where early detection and awareness programs are stressed. It is the story of her daughters that motivates others to participate in events like the Race for the Cure and to give of their resources to this cause. Many of those who learn of Mit Darden's daughters are touched by the immense loss but are moved to action. I, too, am deeply touched and inspired. Very recently another of Mrs. Darden's daughter's was diagnosed with breast cancer. It was discovered very early through one of her regular screenings. Her doctors say that it was discovered in time and she has already started treatment. Through it all Mit Darden is ever faithful and prays that others will never have to endure what she has. She only wants to share what we all hope and pray for--a cure. I am proud to have led several efforts in Congress with ways to help reach that goal and help women who are diagnosed. The bipartisan Patient Protection Act that passed the Senate last year allows women to choose an OB/GYN as a primary care physician. The bill also requires health insurers to cover hospital stays for breast cancer treatment procedures. In the 106th Congress, I joined many of my colleagues in cosponsoring and passing legislation that gives Federal matching Medicaid dollars to provide breast and cervical cancer-related treatment. This law was an important step in ensuring that individuals suffering from breast cancer have access to modern treatment and technology regardless of their income level. On behalf of Mit Darden and her daughters, and all the women and their friends and families affected by breast cancer, we must continue the fight against this disease with compassion and action. I urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, today we cast our votes with heavy hearts. The memory of what happened almost 48 hours ago, thousands of miles away in Iraq, is still seared on our minds. What happened to our sixteen brave soldiers wears on us all, as do the memories of all of the lives that have been lost in this conflict. Our thoughts and prayers go out to those family members and friends who lost a loved one in Iraq, and we pray for a complete recovery for all who struggle at this hour. Since ``Operation Iraqi Freedom'' began, we have proven yet again that the men and women in our military are the best trained, equipped, and motivated in the world. Their service and accomplishments make every American proud, and we pray for their safety and their safe return home. Today, Members of Congress must uphold one of the highest responsibilities we have: to support our men and women in the military who risk their lives to serve their country. In this case, supporting our military means rejecting a policy that is clearly failing. We must demand that this President change course. That is why today, I vote against the President's request for $87 billion for Iraq. For more than a year I have argued that the United States has a special responsibility to help build a stable and prosperous Iraq that is at peace with itself and its neighbors. Fulfilling this responsibility is not only the right thing to do for the people of Iraq, who suffered under Saddam Hussein and now struggle with the consequences of war; rebuilding Iraq will also make the Middle East more stable and the American people more secure. We must give our troops all the resources and help they need. I believe that we should have given the money designated for our troops right away--not make the support they deserve contingent on a failed reconstruction plan. Given these failures, we cannot allow this President simply to call on Congress to give him funding without demanding fundamental changes. Our troops will not be safe--and their mission will not be successful-- as long as this administration stubbornly clings to a policy based on poor planning, faulty assumptions, botched diplomacy and failed leadership. We need a new policy to win the peace in Iraq--a policy that meets three core goals: to bring other countries and international organizations into the effort; to hand over more authority to the Iraqi people with specific benchmarks; and to end the insider deals for Iraq's reconstruction and the appearance that this war was about oil or paying off the President's friends. We must immediately take three concrete steps: First, we must take the American face off this occupation. The United States should immediately transfer the oversight of Iraq civilian reconstruction to the United Nations. President Bush waited too long to go to the United Nations to ask for help after the war. Even now, he remains unwilling to offer our allies a role in the oversight of Iraq that they are reasonably demanding before putting more of their money and troops in Iraq. We have a UN Security Council resolution that allows others a seat at the table--but this President still refuses to ask. The senior civilian in Iraq should answer to the United States and its allies on the United Nations Security Council--not Secretary Rumsfeld. We must launch a serious diplomatic effort to get more international troops and resources to Iraq--an effort that will not only reduce the burden on our troops and American taxpayers but also transform the reconstruction into a genuine international mission. America's military presence in Iraq cannot be indefinite. As I have long argued, we should begin discussions immediately to get organizations like NATO more involved, as they are today in Afghanistan. We also need to accelerate the creation of Iraq's own security forces. Clearly, this administration failed our troops by impulsively disbanding the Iraqi Army, a move that not only left many Iraqis angry and unemployed, but took away a pool of Iraqis ready to help take control of their own security. Second, with the help of the United Nations, we must outline a clear roadmap for the transfer of authority to the Iraqi people so that they can take control over their own destiny. This includes establishing specific timetables to transfer authority to the Iraqis to give them more control over their economy, civilian authority, and security. To get this process moving, we should ask the United Nations to convene an international conference to work with the Iraqis to set priorities and establish clear benchmarks for when such goals will be achieved. Finally, we must put an end to the special interest feeding frenzy this administration has created over Iraq's reconstruction. The enormous influence of corporate lobbyists in this administration, on everything from energy policy to health care, may dull our capacity to be shocked. But it should not. Halliburton, the Vice President's former company, has already received billions of dollars in non-competitive, no-bid contracts. The President's supporters compare the rebuilding of Iraq to the Marshall Plan. But after World War II, Congress established a special committee to ensure that the allocation of reconstruction grants was free from war profiteering. Before billions more flow into Iraq, we should set up an independent commission for the same purpose. I believe that we were right to act against the threat of Saddam Hussein. But this President's failures in Iraq are undermining many of the goals we meant to accomplish by eliminating his brutal regime. When democracy is threatened by tyranny, America is there to defeat it. It is part of our history. But when the time came for us to rebuild those countries, we did so with integrity, honesty, and patience. The world was by our side. Our soldiers stood with others to build roads, bridges, hospitals, and schools. That is how we helped Japan and Germany recover from World War II. That is how Bosnia and Kosovo recover today. And that is what we must do for Iraq with the world at our side, a new plan in place, so that America is respected and strong.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I was not present for the vote on S. 139, the Climate Stewardship Act of 2003. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr EDWARDS

Mr EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak against the nomination of Charles Pickering to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. I oppose this nomination because Judge Pickering has repeatedly demonstrated a disregard for the principles that protect the rights of so many of our citizens. Judge Pickering's record as a judge is full of instances in which he has elevated his personal views above the law. For example, Judge Pickering has shown a lack of respect for the Supreme Court's landmark legal precedents, especially those that protect rights. He has harshly criticized the Supreme Court's ``one person, one vote'' rulings and has been reversed numerous times by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for his failure to follow ``well-settled principles of law.'' In one case, Judge Pickering took extraordinary steps to reduce the sentence required by law for a man convicted of cross burning. In addition, he exerted extraordinary efforts to reduce the 5-year sentence mandated by Federal sentencing guidelines in the cross-burning case and went so far as to make an ex parte phone call to Justice Department officials in an attempt to assist the defendant. And, since his hearing, Judge Pickering has actively solicited the support of this nomination from attorneys who appear in his courtroom. This behavior not only calls into question Judge Pickering's commitment to protecting the constitutional rights of all Americans, but legal experts agree that his actions violated the canons of judicial ethics. Unfortunately, some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, in their drive to push through every Bush judge at all costs, have turned this process into a personal attack on the integrity and motivations of those of us who oppose this nomination. We have been accused of anti-Southern bias. Of course, anyone listening to me talk would have to figure that I am the last person to hold an anti-Southern bias. We have even been accused of calling Judge Pickering a racist, something we have not done. I do not presume to know what is in Judge Pickering's heart. But I do know what is in his record. That record proves him unfit to serve as a Court of Appeals judge. We have tried our best to facilitate consensus and cooperation in judicial nominations. Unfortunately, most of our efforts are being rejected, which doesn't make a bit of sense, since we accomplish so much when we all work together. We have seen what happens when the President meets us halfway. He has done it before--rarely, but he has done it. He reached out to us on Allyson Duncan, an outstanding North Carolinian who just yesterday was formally installed as a judge on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, breaking a logjam that had held our State back for a decade. In that case, President Bush did more than just pay lip service to our constitutional obligation to advise and consent. He reached out to us before he made his decision. He consulted with us. He sought our advice. And in making his decision, the President selected a nominee who represents the mainstream of our State. Throughout Judge Duncan's confirmation process, I commended the President for consulting with us and making an excellent nomination. And I told him that if he takes this approach to future judicial nominations we have a real opportunity to find common ground in the search for excellence on the federal bench. When we work together, we find outstanding nominees like Allyson Duncan, who represents the best of North Carolina and America. But rather than accept my call for consensus, the President just said no. There is a saying that if you see a dog and a cat eating from the same dish, it might look like a compromise, but you can bet they are eating the cat's food. That is how things seem to be working in Washington these days. My colleagues and I have tried and tried to find common ground. We have said yes to Bush judges, time after time after time. We have said yes to more than 160 Bush judges. But but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have instead dug in their heels and demanded that unless we agree to every judicial nominee the President sends up here, no matter how unacceptable they are, we are being obstructionist. We can do better than this. And we should do better. It is time for this President to stop saying no to judges who respect our civil rights. Let's say yes to judges who will fairly apply the law. Let's say yes to judges who will not allow their extreme personal views to color their decision-making. Let's say yes to judges who will protect our civil rights. I am proud to stand with my colleagues today as we say a resounding yes to fairness, equality and justice.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam President, I rise today to express my opposition to the conference report to accompany S. 3, the late term abortion ban bill. As we know, the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue. The Court said that a ban on later-term abortion procedures must protect a woman's health. In Stenberg V. Carhart, the Court ruled that an abortion ban must include a health exception when ``necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.'' The bill before us today does not include an exception for a woman's health. If this bill becomes law, a woman would be refused this procedure even if other procedures would cause her grave harm. While late-term abortions should occur only in rare circumstances, this bill bans them in all circumstances. That is not constitutional and it is not fair to the women who are in the rare circumstances where this procedure is required. For this reason, I cannot support this bill.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I am very pleased that last night the Senate voted to confirm Brent McKnight, an outstanding North Carolina lawyer and jurist, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Judge McKnight, currently serving as US. Magistrate, has a stellar record of achievement and excellence. A native of Mooresville, North Carolina, he received his BA from the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill and his law degree at the University of North Carolina School of Law. He was a Rhodes Scholar, earning an MA and Diploma in Theology at Oxford University. Judge McKnight served as Assistant District Attorney for the State of North Carolina from 1982 through 1988, when he was elected District Court Judge for the 26th North Carolina Judicial District. During this time, we in North Carolina first saw the superior qualities that Judge McKnight brought to the bench--temperance, fairness, attention to detail and an abiding commitment to and concern for equal justice under the law. In fact, after just four years on the bench, Judge McKnight received a 97% approval rating from attorneys polled by Court Watch of North Carolina. After four years of exemplary service on the North Carolina state court, Judge McKnight was appointed a United States Magistrate in May 1993. Judge McKnight has continued to build his reputation as an outstanding judge, earning the respect of lawyers and litigants throughout the state. I can't tell you how many calls and letters I have received from people from across North Carolina telling me what an exceptional jurist and person Brent McKnight is. These folks attest to Judge McKnight's impeccable legal professionalism, both as a prosecutor and a Judge. I have no doubt that Judge McKnight will continue this record of excellence as a United States District Judge. I was delighted to wholeheartedly support the nomination of Brent McKnight and am pleased that the full Senate has confirmed him to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. I wish him and his family--his wife Beth and their three boys, Brent, Matthew and Steven--well as he embarks on this next phase of his admirable career. I am confident that Judge McKnight, a consensus nominee who represents the mainstream of our state, will continue to serve the people of North Carolina and the United States with distinction.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Sandra Grissom be printed in the Record at the end of my bill, the Steve Grissom Relief Fund Act of 2003.