John Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, few North Carolinians will forget September 16, 1999. Almost 1 year ago tomorrow, Hurricane Floyd dumped 20 inches on the State of North Carolina, eastern North Carolina, devastating and forever changing our State. Fifty-two North Carolinians were killed as a result of Hurricane Floyd; 66 counties, which is more than 70 percent of our State, were declared disaster areas. More than 60,000 homes were destroyed or damaged, and hundreds of businesses were forced to close or relocate. Farmers were faced with sometimes the most difficult circumstances they had ever faced in their lives, losing everything for which they had worked. I have been to the floor many times over the course of the last year in an effort to secure relief for our Hurricane Floyd victims. I have worked closely with my colleagues, Senator Helms from North Carolina and Members of our House delegation, to get help for our folks who are hurting so badly. I have emphasized over and over that what we do or sometimes what we don't do affects real people's lives, the people who often are in very difficult places--for example, the people who were devastated by Hurricane Floyd. Last year, the Senate appropriated more than $2 billion for FEMA's disaster relief account. Of that total, more than $215 million was set aside for FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. To this day, more than 2,000 homes in North Carolina have been purchased and families have moved out of harm's way, out of the flood zone. In fact, just yesterday I spoke with Brenda Johnson to tell her that her buyout had been approved. Brenda had been living in a small apartment for almost a year. Finally, she will now be able to move on. Along with the buyout money we appropriated last year, we also secured individual family grants and other disaster relief programs to help people whose homes had been wiped out, people such as Edna Simmons of Greenville, NC. Greenville was actually one of the hardest hit areas struck by Hurricane Floyd. Unfortunately, Edna's home was one of thousands that were overwhelmed by the flood. For days, Edna's home sat under more than 4\1/2\ feet of flood water. She lost everything, and she and her husband and her 6-year-old daughter had to start over. At first, they were able to move in with her mother. Then, with the help of her fellow church members, volunteers, using her own savings and a grant from FEMA, she was able to rebuild her home. Repairs are now in the final stages of her home. Now, more than a year after the rain drove them away, Edna and her family are finally on the verge of going back home. This storm, however, did not just destroy homes; it also destroyed entire communities. The small town of Princeville is a great example. It was completely wiped out. Princeville residents lost their townhall; they lost their library, their police station, and their school. Of the 2,000 homes in Princeville, more than 1,000 were heavily damaged or destroyed. And Princeville residents are a very proud group. This is the first town in America that was established by freed slaves. Princeville's residents are working very hard to rebuild and preserve their historic town. One year after the Princeville Montessori school was devastated by the floods, volunteers, State employees, students, and parents have rebuilt the school with the help of FEMA grants. For all the successes we have had over the last year, there are still shortcomings in responding to this disaster. We have heard over and over--I and my staff--from worried and confused constituents, folks who had no idea where they were supposed to go. Navigating the myriad programs that exist in the Federal Government to provide relief to hurricane victims is a time-consuming and sometimes very frustrating process. For example, there are Federal disaster programs within the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Education, Small Business Administration, Department of Labor, Department of Energy--just to name a few. So it is very hard for folks whose lives and families have been devastated as a result of a natural disaster to know where it is they need to go to get the relief they need and deserve. Sometimes, the assistance just doesn't come quickly enough. One example is Bobby Carraway, who owned a restaurant in Kinston NC, near the Neuse River. The river flooded, and his restaurant sat under more than 3 feet of water for many days. He lost his entire business. But with the help of his landlord, who let up on the rent, and his food suppliers, who told him he could pay when he could, neighbors who helped him clean up his business, and a large chunk of his own personal savings, he was able to reopen his restaurant. Today, one year after Hurricane Floyd threatened to take his livelihood, Bobby is still waiting for the Small Business Administration to approve his loan. He should not have to wait so long, and residents such as Edna should not have to navigate through these confusing Federal and State programs, especially when they are dealing with devastation to family and emotional trauma caused by natural disasters such as Hurricane Floyd. The biggest lesson we have learned from this storm is that the Federal, State, and local responses to disasters have to be better coordinated and must be more efficient. Senator Stevens from Alaska and I cochair the Natural Hazards Disaster Caucus. Seventeen Senators have joined us. Our goal is to provide concrete steps that Federal, State, and local programs can work together to protect our residents, provide a more efficient response, and mitigate the cost and destruction of future disasters. The Government can't make people whole again after a disaster, but we can, and should, be prepared to do all we can to help people get back on their feet. We have made great strides in our recovery in North Carolina, but we still have a long way to go. Most Federal officials agree it will be another 2 years before eastern North Carolina has completely recovered. Today, hundreds of people will mark the anniversary of Hurricane Floyd in their FEMA trailers, where they live. We are facing a rental housing shortfall of about 4,000 units, and thousands of victims are facing many years of debt as a result of this disaster. I am grateful to the Senate for including $50 million for North Carolina for the USDA's Community Facilities Grant Program in the Agriculture appropriations bill. This money will make a real difference in a town such as Farmville, which needs help rebuilding its fire station. I also want to take this opportunity to thank FEMA Director James Lee Witt and his entire agency for their dedication to helping those who simply could not help themselves. Governor Jim Hunt has worked tirelessly to help the residents of our State. Most importantly, I want to take this opportunity to thank the people of North Carolina--the thousands of volunteers who, over the course of the last year, have responded heroically to the damage done and the devastation done to their neighbors and friends. It has been a long year, and we still have a lot of work left to do. Hurricane Floyd's victims were innocent people, regular working people who have done nothing wrong but had everything taken from them as a result of this natural disaster. They deserve our continued support and dedication as they attempt to rebuild their homes and their lives. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to say how pleased I am that the President recently signed into law H.R. 1749, legislation that designates Wilson Creek in North Carolina as a wild and scenic river. This legislation passed the House of Representatives without opposition, and I was proud to support it here in the Senate and to see it pass just prior to the August recess. The designation of Wilson Creek as a wild and scenic river is critically important to the local community. It will protect Wilson Creek for use by those who seek a relaxing hike in the woods or an exciting rafting experience. The scenic and recreational areas along Wilson Creek are also some of the most beautiful and ecologically valuable countryside in all of North Carolina. In a time when all of us have so much going on in our lives, Wilson Creek will provide us with a place to relax and enjoy a bit of the natural world. Wilson Creek is truly a national treasure. It possesses remarkable scenic and recreational value and is home to a wide variety of plant and animal species. It is designated as an Outstanding Resource Water, indicating its exceptional recreational and ecological significance and high level of water quality. It winds its way through rare geologic rock formations that are also quite beautiful. The pools and rapids along Wilson Creek provide opportunities for canoe and kayak enthusiasts to test their skills or take a relaxing paddle. For years, visitors have camped, hiked, fished and played along Wilson Creek, and this designation will ensure that they will continue to enjoy all that the area has to offer for years to come. I would also like to say a few words about the history of this legislation and the impressive effort that has led us to this important point. It is not enough to say that this measure was a bipartisan effort. This law is the result of a cooperative effort spearheaded by the Caldwell County Commissioners, in which every interested party had a voice. Working with the Forest Service, the Avery County Commissioners, the Caldwell County Chamber of Commerce, the Caldwell County Economic Development Commission, local landowners and the local community, the Commissioners helped develop this important plan to protect permanently Wilson Creek. That this legislation has had such strong local support is a testament to the hard work put forward by all of these groups and individuals. The collaborative effort to craft and pass this legislation will serve as a model for other communities that may have similar projects. They are to be commended for their efforts. I would also like to thank other local officials, citizens, the Forest Service, and everyone else who dedicated so much time, effort, and heart to get us to this point. Many portions along Wilson Creek exist much as they did more than 100 years ago, and I believe we must do all we can to preserve them. We have a rare opportunity to protect a critically important waterway for future generations, and I am so pleased to see it become law.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleagues in mourning the loss of Senator Paul Coverdell of Georgia. He was a man that I respected and admired. All of us here in the Senate feel his absence acutely. Paul Coverdell was a fixture in the Senate. I cannot recall how often I have sat at my desk and, looking up at C-SPAN, saw him there leading his party on one difficult issue after another. He did so honorably, tenaciously, and modestly. And, of course, he did so effectively. I feel a real void in the Senate Chamber without his presence and feel a sense of surprise when I look up and see someone other than Senator Coverdell at the Republican floor manager's desk. Paul Coverdell touched many lives. I am privileged to have known him and count myself lucky to have served in the Senate with him. He was a unique and truly special person, taken from us too young and so suddenly. I send to his family, his friends, and his staff my deepest condolences. He was a good man who will be sorely missed. But he will also be remembered by us all, and his spirit will never leave us.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Disaster Mitigation and Cost Reduction Act, and more importantly-- the Federal Emergency Management Agency. When I was elected to the Senate more than a year ago, I didn't think I would be faced with such an enormous challenge my first year in office--helping my state rebuild from the one of the worst hurricanes in our history. On September 16, Hurricane Floyd pounded eastern North Carolina. Sixty-six counties, more than 70 percent of the state--were declared federal disaster areas. Fifty-seven people were killed, and more than 60,000 homes were affected. I've come to the floor many times and praised the courage and the strength of eastern North Carolinians. Through this disaster, I have met some of the most spirited and strong people. And I have also met some of the most knowledgeable and caring federal workers--the men and women of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Whether it was Director James Lee Witt, who visited my office many times to keep me up-to-date on the federal response, or any of the field representatives who explained the programs available to the victims, FEMA helped North Carolina begin the long recovery process. And today, ten months after the storm hit, FEMA is still helping us coordinate the federal and state recovery efforts. It's been said before--and I now know first- hand--that Director Witt turned FEMA from a disaster of an agency into a disaster response team. The measure we pass today will help make simple changes to ensure this agency continues to offer first-rate response. Most importantly, the bill before us would increase the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program cap from 15 percent to 20 percent. We can't stop a hurricane, tornado or earthquake, but we can take concrete steps to mitigate damage. Increasing the amount States are allowed to spend on mitigation will give those governments the necessary resources to move those people out of harm's way. That means less future damage and less costly disasters. H.R. 707 also authorizes Project Impact. New Hanover County, in my state, was one of the first seven pilot Project Impact communities. Project Impact is FEMA's predisaster mitigation program that works directly with communities across the country to help them become more disaster-resistant. In New Hanover County, residents are determined to build better, stronger and smarter in order to prevent damage from the inevitable late-summer hurricanes. The University of North Carolina at Wilmington is also involved in the effort to mitigate disasters. That's the great thing about the Project Impact communities--they are using all available agencies and organizations to ensure safe and smart development. We should officially recognize these communities efforts and encourage the same work in other disaster prone areas. Finally, in my State we know how the Federal government's disaster response programs work--and sometimes don't work--together. This bill takes steps to streamline the programs and to better coordinate between different agencies. Portions of this bill would make life a bit simpler for our outstanding emergency management agency in North Carolina. Whether it's streamlining management costs or making infrastructure repairs simpler, this bill makes much-needed improvements in the system. Mr. President, there is no area of the country untouched by natural disasters. Whether it's my state battered by hurricanes; California plagued by earthquakes; the Midwest hit by floods; or the states in ``tornado alley;'' we all know the sudden devastation Mother Nature can bring. And we all know we can count on FEMA at a time when the states we represent are most vulnerable, when our people hurt the most. Now its time for Congress to support this bill and to ensure FEMA can continue the first-rate response we so depend on.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. I thank you for including my amendment to provide $1,800,000 in emergency funds for the United States Geological Survey to repair and replace stream monitoring equipment damaged by natural disasters. As you know, your Committee recommended a significant increase in the USGS's Real Time Hazards Initiative, including $3,100,000 for new or upgraded stream gauging stations. 1999 was a devastating year for North Carolina. Hurricanes Floyd, Dennis and Irene did extensive damage across eastern North Carolina. And early indications are that this hurricane season will be just as active for North Carolina as last year. North Carolina's stream gauges and monitoring equipment are in desperate need of upgrade and enhancement. I respectfully request that the Committee recommend that the United States Geological Survey give special consideration to North Carolina's needs and address the need for upgrades and enhancements through this appropriation.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I will respond to the Senator from New Hampshire. He argues there is a new provision in the Republican plan that provides for liability. That provision is a sham. There are three points I want to make in response. First is the argument that we are creating an open season on employers. It is simply false. Not true. A letter from the American Medical Association of June 23 states clearly: The insurance industry-- And the Republican plan in this case-- is flat wrong, and to imply otherwise is frankly deceptive. The fact is, the bipartisan House-passed bill would actually protect employers. Under our bill, an employer cannot be held responsible under specific language unless they actively intervene in the decision of the insurance carrier, which never occurs. There is to reason for it to occur. It in fact never occurs. It is a false argument that employers can be held liable under our proposal. They cannot. Second, the argument that they are providing for liability is simply not true. Under their plan, an insurance company can never be held responsible for their initial decision to deny coverage. So if somebody goes to their doctor with an emergency situation--they need care--and the insurance company says no, and, as a result, they suffer a lifelong injury, a debilitating injury, or death, the insurance company cannot be held accountable. They can only be held accountable, can only be held responsible, if they have exhausted the internal review process and the insurance company acted in bad faith or if they failed to follow the decision from the external review board. The bottom line is, it creates an incentive for the insurance company to deny coverage in the first instance because under no circumstances can they be held responsible, and under no circumstances can they be held accountable. For those reasons, this provision for HMO insurance carrier liability is not real; it is a sham. Our proposal provides real and meaningful accountability.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking Senators Stevens, Lott, McConnell, Leahy, and Byrd for accepting this amendment, No. 3582. Throughout the process of dealing with Hurricane Floyd and its impact on my State they have been unstinting in their help and deserve the thanks and deep appreciation of the people of North Carolina. I've also had the honor of working with Senators Torricelli and Robb on this amendment. They have fought hard for their States. This amendment would provide $125 million in funding to the Economic Development Administration this year. It would also provide $125 million in funding this year for USDA's Community Facilities program. Mr. President, this money is desperately needed. Although 9 months have passed since Hurricane Floyd struck North Carolina, the people of eastern Carolina are still struggling to rebuild. Thousands still live in FEMA trailers. Hundreds of businesses still haven't reopened. Several cities are still operating under sewage and water moratoria. This amendment will mean the difference between businesses reopening and businesses closing, people working and people not working, cities thriving and cities withering. I believe this amendment will make a real difference, and will put us on the road to recovery. Let me submit a list of possible $100 million in EDA projects that has been prepared by the State. This list is by no means exhaustive, but it illustrates the extent of the need and how much good this money can be used for. I am enormously pleased that this amendment has been accepted. We have a lot more work to do in order to enact it into law. I hope this provision will be incorporated into the final supplemental appropriations package that is being negotiated as part of the Military Construction appropriations conference. The innocent victims of Hurricane Floyd deserve no less. Indeed, the Federal Government has consistently provided this type of aid to disaster victims. I ask unanimous consent that a list of previous assistance packages be printed in the Record. It is only fair to treat this disaster in the same manner. I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be printed in the Record following the amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I thank all of my colleagues who are involved in this conference and thank them for their hard work and certainly defer to all of them about the specifics of what has occurred in the conference and the work they have done there. There are some specific issues about which I am concerned. First, it is important for the American people to understand that the Patients' Bill of Rights means nothing unless those rights are enforceable. Under any of these bills that are being considered, there are only two enforcement mechanisms. Without those mechanisms working, without them being effective, the rights don't exist because the insurance companies can do anything they want and can never be held responsible for what they do. There are two enforcement mechanisms. First, if we have a real and meaningful independent appeals process, that is an enforcement mechanism. Second, we do for health insurance companies the same thing we do for every single American listening to this debate--when they hurt somebody, we hold them responsible. There has been a lot of argument about lawyers, lawsuits, and HMOs. Why in the world are HMOs and health insurance companies entitled to be treated any differently than the rest of us? When we walk out the door and with our automobile or some other way cause injury or death to somebody, we are responsible for that. Everybody listening to this debate can be held responsible. Why is the health insurance company entitled to be treated differently? Are they a special cut above the rest of us? We need real and meaningful enforcement mechanisms. The appeals provision that came out of the Senate was not truly independent because the insurance company had control over the people who made the appeals decision. Something has to be done about that; Otherwise, there is no independent appeal. That issue, as I understand it, has not been resolved. If it is not resolved, the appeals process means nothing. It is not independent. The other issue I want to talk about is holding HMOs accountable for what they do or do not do, treating them as every other American citizen, every other American business. It is important to not pay too much attention to the rhetoric. There is lots of rhetoric in this debate. We are creating a cause of action, a right to sue, and we just want to exempt employers from that. Unfortunately, the use of language makes a huge difference in whether the patient really has a right or not. Let me give an example. This is language that was proposed recently in the conference from the Republicans about creating a cause of action: A new Federal statutory cause of action would be created in ERISA to allow for lawsuits for failure to comply with the decision of the independent medical reviewer. In other words, no matter what the insurance company does, as long as they do what the independent reviewer says they have to do, they can never be held responsible. Here is the problem with that: A patient goes to the hospital. They need emergency medical care. They call the HMO. The HMO says we will not cover it; we will not pay for it. The patient dies as a result or is seriously injured for the rest of their life. Three days later, after an appeal is filed, some independent reviewer says, of course this was covered by the policy. So the insurer says: Now I will comply; I will do what the independent reviewer says. As long as they do that, under this provision, they cannot be held responsible. The problem is they did the damage when they made the initial decision. If they make an absolutely egregious decision, for whatever reason, no matter how bad their conduct, we are not going to cover this care. Then, if 4 or 5 days later they are reversed by an independent review, they cannot be held responsible for that original decision no matter what the damage is, no matter how irreversible it is. It also creates a natural incentive to deny coverage, because, No. 1, if they deny coverage, the chances are the patient won't appeal; No. 2, if they deny coverage and they are reversed 4 days later, there are no consequences. There is absolutely no reason, no financial reason whatsoever, for the insurance company to do anything other than, when in doubt, deny coverage because we can never be held responsible for that decision. Let me give a couple of very specific examples. A patient with adult onset diabetes has been on insulin, injectable insulin, his entire life. The insurance company--this is a real example, real-life example----

Mr. EDWARDS. The insurance company says: You can take oral medication; you don't need insulin. He appeals. During the time the appeal is being considered, 3, 5, 7 days, he has a stroke and goes blind. Then the independent review says: Of course, he was entitled to keep his insulin. So the insurance company says: All right, we will provide insulin now. Now we have a 55-year-old man who has had a stroke; he is blind; he cannot work anymore; he cannot care for his family. Where does he go? Who is going to help his family? The insurance company cannot be held responsible for what they did, not under this proposal. This language matters. It is critically important, what the language says. A young boy, Ethan Bedrick, with cerebral palsy, 5 years old, all his doctors say he needs to have physical therapy, every one of them. The insurance company says he doesn't need it. They appeal. The independent reviewer happens to be somebody who has absolutely no experience with children with cerebral palsy. This is a real-life example. So he says: The insurance company is right; we are not going to give this 5-year old child with cerebral palsy physical therapy. Where does he go? The independent reviewer, who knows nothing about children with cerebral palsy, has denied coverage. The insurance company has denied coverage, coverage for which his parents have been paying for 20 years. So where does he go? For the rest of his life he has cerebral palsy. He is contracted, bound up, can't get the daily physical therapy he needs, and he has nowhere to go. There is absolutely no remedy for Ethan Bedrick. I say to my colleagues in the Senate, what happens to this little 5- year-old boy when this happens? He cannot go to court, not under this proposal. He cannot go anywhere. The insurance company has cut him off, and he has been cut off from the care he needs.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I say to my colleague who just argued about employers, that is another example it is so critical we look specifically to the language and not the rhetoric. Our bill at page 245 specifically exempts employers from any liability unless they intervene in the process of making decisions about claims. Period. If all they do is buy health insurance, which is what 99 percent of certainly small employers do, they cannot be held responsible. On the other hand, if they decide they are going to engage in the business of deciding what claims are going to be denied, like General Motors or a big company that runs its own plan, then they ought to be held responsible. The majority of employers cannot be held responsible at all unless they intervene. Second, Ethan Bedrick, a 5-year-old boy, is a real-life example. His claim was denied by the independent reviewer. If the language we have been talking about becomes law, we will not have a real Patients' Bill of Rights, and Ethan has nowhere to go. He cannot go to court. He does not have any other appeal. The reality is people make mistakes. A 5- year-old boy who has a lifetime of needed care needs a place to go.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, Big Browser is watching you. Almost every time, you or I or an American consumer surfs the Internet, someone is tracking our movements. And someone is compiling a databank of information about our preferences and could even be profiling us. Maybe they're doing it to make our experience better. Most of the time, they probably are. But too often we are being profiled for profit, and at the expense of privacy. I am proud to co-sponsor Senator Hollings' legislation, the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, that would help consumers gain control of their most personal information. I believe that the measure we introduce today is a step in the right direction. It strikes the right balance. Privacy is protected, while critical elements of the information revolution are preserved. Consumer confidence in the Internet is bolstered, while businesses will not be overburdened by the requirements. We can enjoy the convenience of online shopping and allow e-commerce to thrive without putting profits over privacy. Consumers, not dot.com companies, should control the use of confidential information about buying habits, credit card records and other personal information. Mr. President, the time to act is now. If not, we may wake up one day to find our privacy so thoroughly eroded that recovering it will be almost impossible. No one denies that the rapid development of modern technology has been beneficial. New and improved technologies have enabled us to obtain information more quickly and easily than ever before. Students can participate in classes that are being taught in other states, or even in other countries. Almost no product or piece of information is beyond the reach of Americans anymore. A farmer in Sampson County, North Carolina can go on the Internet and compare prices for anything he needs to run his business. Or he can look up critical weather information on the Internet. Or he can just order a hard-to-get book. Meanwhile, companies have streamlined their processes for providing goods and services. But these remarkable developments can have a startling downside. They have made it easier to track personal information such as medical and financial records and buying habits. They have made it profitable to do so. And in turn, our ability to keep our personal information private is being eaten away. The impact of this erosion ranges from the merely annoying--having your mailbox flooded with junkmail--to the actually frightening--having your identity stolen or being turned down for a loan because your bank got copies of your medical records. There are thousands of ways that the loss of our privacy can impact us. Many of them are intangible-- just the discomfort of knowing that complete strangers can find out everything about you: where you shop, what books you buy, whether you have allergies, and what your credit rating is. These strangers may not do anything bad with the information, but they know all about you. I think privacy is a value per se. Our founding fathers recognized it, and so too do most Americans. ``Liberty in the constitutional sense,'' wrote Justice William O. Douglas, ``must mean more than freedom from unlawful governmental restraint; it must include privacy as well, if it is to be a repository of freedom. The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom.'' Recent surveys indicate that the American public is increasingly uneasy about the degradation of their privacy. In a recent Business Week poll, 92 percent of Internet users expressed discomfort about Web sites sharing personal information with other sites. Meanwhile, an FTC report issued yesterday indicated that only 42 percent of the most popular Internet sites comply with the four key fair information practices--notice about what data is collected, consumer choice about whether the data will be shared with third-parties, consumer access to the data, and security regarding the transmission of data. We must be vigilant that our privacy does not become a commodity to be bought and sold. I would also like to point out one area of privacy protection that I have been deeply interested in. Last November, I introduced the Telephone Call Privacy Act. My bill would prevent telecommunications companies from using an individual's personal phone call records without their consent. Most Americans would be stunned to learn that the law does not protect them from having their phone records sold to third parties. Imagine getting a call one night--during dinner--and having a telemarketer try to sell you membership in a travel club because your phone calling patterns show frequent calls overseas. My legislation would prevent this from occurring without the individuals's permission. This measure we introduce today also contains a provision relating to telephone privacy. It differs in at least one key respect from the legislation I previously introduced, but my hope is that as we discuss this issue over time, the differences will be resolved. Mr. President, let me conclude by thanking Senators Hollings and Leahy for their leadership on this vital issue. Senator Hollings has crafted the comprehensive and thoughtful proposal that we introduce today. Senator Leahy has led a coalition of Senators interested in this issue. I look forward to working with them and my other colleagues in passing this measure.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, Big Browser is watching you. Almost every time, you or I or an American consumer surfs the Internet, someone is tracking our movements. And someone is compiling a databank of information about our preferences and could even be profiling us. Maybe they're doing it to make our experience better. Most of the time, they probably are. But too often we are being profiled for profit, and at the expense of privacy. I am proud to co-sponsor Senator Hollings' legislation, the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, that would help consumers gain control of their most personal information. I believe that the measure we introduce today is a step in the right direction. It strikes the right balance. Privacy is protected, while critical elements of the information revolution are preserved. Consumer confidence in the Internet is bolstered, while businesses will not be overburdened by the requirements. We can enjoy the convenience of online shopping and allow e-commerce to thrive without putting profits over privacy. Consumers, not dot.com companies, should control the use of confidential information about buying habits, credit card records and other personal information. Mr. President, the time to act is now. If not, we may wake up one day to find our privacy so thoroughly eroded that recovering it will be almost impossible. No one denies that the rapid development of modern technology has been beneficial. New and improved technologies have enabled us to obtain information more quickly and easily than ever before. Students can participate in classes that are being taught in other states, or even in other countries. Almost no product or piece of information is beyond the reach of Americans anymore. A farmer in Sampson County, North Carolina can go on the Internet and compare prices for anything he needs to run his business. Or he can look up critical weather information on the Internet. Or he can just order a hard-to-get book. Meanwhile, companies have streamlined their processes for providing goods and services. But these remarkable developments can have a startling downside. They have made it easier to track personal information such as medical and financial records and buying habits. They have made it profitable to do so. And in turn, our ability to keep our personal information private is being eaten away. The impact of this erosion ranges from the merely annoying--having your mailbox flooded with junkmail--to the actually frightening--having your identity stolen or being turned down for a loan because your bank got copies of your medical records. There are thousands of ways that the loss of our privacy can impact us. Many of them are intangible-- just the discomfort of knowing that complete strangers can find out everything about you: where you shop, what books you buy, whether you have allergies, and what your credit rating is. These strangers may not do anything bad with the information, but they know all about you. I think privacy is a value per se. Our founding fathers recognized it, and so too do most Americans. ``Liberty in the constitutional sense,'' wrote Justice William O. Douglas, ``must mean more than freedom from unlawful governmental restraint; it must include privacy as well, if it is to be a repository of freedom. The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom.'' Recent surveys indicate that the American public is increasingly uneasy about the degradation of their privacy. In a recent Business Week poll, 92 percent of Internet users expressed discomfort about Web sites sharing personal information with other sites. Meanwhile, an FTC report issued yesterday indicated that only 42 percent of the most popular Internet sites comply with the four key fair information practices--notice about what data is collected, consumer choice about whether the data will be shared with third-parties, consumer access to the data, and security regarding the transmission of data. We must be vigilant that our privacy does not become a commodity to be bought and sold. I would also like to point out one area of privacy protection that I have been deeply interested in. Last November, I introduced the Telephone Call Privacy Act. My bill would prevent telecommunications companies from using an individual's personal phone call records without their consent. Most Americans would be stunned to learn that the law does not protect them from having their phone records sold to third parties. Imagine getting a call one night--during dinner--and having a telemarketer try to sell you membership in a travel club because your phone calling patterns show frequent calls overseas. My legislation would prevent this from occurring without the individuals's permission. This measure we introduce today also contains a provision relating to telephone privacy. It differs in at least one key respect from the legislation I previously introduced, but my hope is that as we discuss this issue over time, the differences will be resolved. Mr. President, let me conclude by thanking Senators Hollings and Leahy for their leadership on this vital issue. Senator Hollings has crafted the comprehensive and thoughtful proposal that we introduce today. Senator Leahy has led a coalition of Senators interested in this issue. I look forward to working with them and my other colleagues in passing this measure.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, we are about to pass the $8.6 billion military construction appropriations bill. While I am pleased that this bill contains a significant amount of funding for projects in North Carolina, I continue to be concerned that despite repeated assurances, emergency relief for victims of Hurricane Floyd is still in a holding pattern. Before we began the appropriations process, we were assured that much-needed emergency money for Hurricane Floyd victims would be attached to the first--and fastest--moving appropriation bill. Obviously, Hurricane Floyd relief is not in this bill, and now, thousands of hurricane victims are still waiting on the Federal Government to do what's right. These people are hurting like they have never hurt before. And I guarantee you that the Hurricane Floyd victims spread across the 13 affected states don't care about the politics that go along with the appropriations process. The victims of Hurricane Floyd did nothing wrong. They paid their taxes for years, voted in the elections and believed us when we told them that this is a government for the people. The victims aren't looking for a handout. Most of these people have never asked for the government's help, and now that they need it desperately, they are caught in a frustrating waiting game. I sincerely hope that we can work through the Agriculture appropriations request as quickly and fairly as we did with the military construction appropriations bill.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the conference report on the Trade and Development Act of 2000, the so-called African- Caribbean trade bill. When we debated this bill last October, I expressed my concerns about it, and what has happened is the fruition of what I was concerned about at that time. A bill that was bad when it left the Senate last October has become worse. This bill creates enormous risks for American textile businesses and American textile workers, with very little in the way of offsetting benefits. Let me speak for a couple of minutes about what I think is wrong with this bill and what kind of risk I think it creates for American workers. When we negotiate trade agreements, in my judgment, there are certain fundamental principles that should always be adhered to: First, they must be negotiated and multilateral; that is, both sides give up something; second, that they create a fair and enforceable system so the trade agreements don't become an empty shell but in fact there is a real and meaningful mechanism for enforcing the trade agreements; third, they must have adequate labor and environmental protections; and, fourth, they must have real, tangible, and provable benefits for U.S. businesses and U.S. workers. These bills do not meet those basic principles that ought to be complied with on every single trade agreement. Senator Feingold spoke very eloquently about the lack of adequate labor and environmental protections in these bills. There are two other principles that have been violated in these bills. First is the requirement that they be multilateral and negotiated, the simple proposition being that if the American people and we as a country are going to lower our barriers, we ought to get something in return. That ``something'' is that the other countries that are subject to these trade agreements lower their barriers. That simply has not happened here. What is happening is we are lowering our trade barriers while these other Caribbean and African nations are keeping their trade barriers completely in place. Their tariffs remain just as they were. There is no set of circumstances under which that kind of arrangement is equitable for American business or equitable for American workers. Second, there has to be a real and meaningful mechanism for enforcing these provisions. One of the things that happened to this bill when it left the Senate is there was a complex set of enforcement mechanisms and provisions put in place. When the bill left the Senate, we had what was called yarn and fabric forward provisions, which basically said, as a matter of equity, we would allow the trade barriers to be lowered for those African and Caribbean nations that used yarn and fabric from the United States so that our workers and our businesses benefited. Well, when the bill got to conference with the House bill, those provisions were changed. Now there are many African nations that are not required to use American yarn or American fabric. Secondly, they are allowed to use regional yarn and fabric; that is, yarn and fabric from that area. So those are two significant changes in the bill since it left the floor of the Senate which have real and meaningful impact on American business and American workers. Probably the more dangerous situation, though, is that created by the potential for transshipment. We talked about this on the floor of the Senate when this bill was debated the first time, and my colleagues are aware of this problem. Transshipment, basically, is a situation where a country, such as China, which I think has the greatest potential for taking advantage of transshipment, ships their fabric and their goods through Africa only for the purpose of having a button sewn on or some other minor change in the product, and then the product is shipped to the United States. The antitransshipment provisions of this bill are simply not adequate for a variety of reasons. One of the two most important is that the enforcement mechanism relies upon African countries for enforcement. The reality is--and all of us know it--that these African nations are not going to be able to enforce the provisions about transshipment. And we are going to have--at least there is real potential for--a massive transshipment by China and Chinese textile businesses through Africa to the United States. Transshipment has a real and devastating effect on American workers and American businesses, and we have seen some of those effects over the last 8 to 10 years. I have some specific examples of this. In North Carolina, my home State, during 1999, these were the jobs that were lost as a result of cheap textile goods coming into the United States: At Pluma, Inc., a plant located in Eden, NC, a small community, 500 jobs were lost when the plant was closed. Jasper closed a plant in Whiteville, NC, in September and 191 jobs were lost. Whiteville Apparel in Whiteville, NC, closed a plant in August and 396 jobs were lost. Stonecutter Mills in Rutherford and Polk in western North Carolina closed a plant in June--800 jobs lost. Dyersburg in Hamilton, NC, closed a plant in May--422 jobs lost. Levi Straus closed a plant in Murphy--382 jobs lost. Remember that we are only talking about 1999 at this point. Burlington Industries, in January, closed plants in Cramerton, Forest City, Mooresville, Raeford, Oxford, and Statesville--2,600 jobs lost as a result; all of those occurring in 1999. In 1999 alone, the South lost 55,000 textile and apparel jobs. This is not an abstract position for the families and employees whose lives are devastated as a result of these cheap goods coming into the United States. A perfect example is Margie Brown. You heard me talk about Whiteville, NC, which was one of the areas in eastern North Carolina hardest hit by this flow of cheap goods into the United States. Margie Brown is 47 years old. She had a good job working at Jasper Textiles in Whiteville, NC. She made just under $200 a week. She depended on it. Her family depended on the income from that job. It is what she was trained to do; It is what she knew how to do; and she felt good about what she did. As a result of that plant being closed down, the reality exists all over North Carolina. In many cases there is no work for these folks; they have no comparable employment. There is nothing they can do with the education and the job training they have. So she had nowhere to go. Today, instead of having a job she is proud of, being able to support her family, feeling good about going to work every day and doing the things that made her productive as an American citizen, she is on unemployment and she gets $51 a week. My point is that these are real people. These are real families, and the impact on them is devastating. We can't turn our heads on this. This is not hypothetical. This is not some theoretical thing we are talking about. It is all well and good for us to talk abstractly on the floor of the Senate about trade being good, about, in this case, this having some diffuse benefit to our country as a whole, but there are real people whose lives are being devastated by these trade agreements, real people who have nowhere to go to work tomorrow, who have no way of taking care of their families and who have lost all semblance of self- esteem. These people, who oftentimes worked in textile mills for 20, 30, or 40 years--I do have to say at this point my dad worked in a cotton mill basically his whole life. During the summers, in high school and college, and then in law school, I saw firsthand the people who spent their whole lives in these textile mills and these cotton mills. They do not know anything else. We can talk about the technological world we now live in and how these people have to make a transition because the world is changing. The reality is, many of them are 50 or 60 years old and have spent their whole life working in the mill. They have nowhere to go. They have no idea what to do about their families. They are put on the street after working every day for the last 30 or 40 years. What do they say to their kids? What do they say to their spouses about what they are going to do? My point is that these trade agreements have a real impact on real people's lives, and we all have to recognize it. In fact, this particular agreement is going to do nothing but accelerate the problem. The Margie Browns I just described will be all over North Carolina and the southern United States. The reason is very simple: The average apparel wage in the United States is $8 an hour. Of some of the countries that are covered by this agreement: In Mexico the average wage is 85 cents an hour; the Dominican Republic, 69 cents an hour; El Salvador, 59 cents an hour; Guatemala, 65 cents an hour; and, Honduras, 43 cents an hour. You don't have to be a mathematical wizard to figure out that there is no way for American workers under these circumstances to compete, and there is no way they are going to keep their jobs. What will happen is China is going to ship goods through Africa. In all likelihood, there will be massive transshipping with no way to stop it, no way to detect it, and no way to enforce the antitransshipment provisions of this bill. As a result, people all over North Carolina and the United States are going to lose their jobs. We are playing with fire. I said this when we debated the bill last fall. I say it again. The only thing that has changed is the fire has gotten hotter. It has gotten more dangerous. There are more American workers whose jobs are going to be lost, and this conference report it does not meet the fundamental principles of equity, the principles that ought to apply to every trade agreement, the principles that are needed to protect our businesses and our textile workers in the United States. They are perfectly willing to compete. They just want the chance to compete on a level playing field. The other countries aren't lowering their barriers. We are. We know there are going to be goods transshipped through Africa from China and other places. And there is no way to prepare for that. The net result is this is not an abstract thing. Real people, real families, lives and jobs are about to be changed.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I want to speak to three subjects today: first, to the subject of education in general; second, to some of the things we have done in North Carolina in the area of education of which we are very proud, particularly in our public schools; and, third, to talk specifically about the Lieberman-Bayh amendment. First, the single test we should apply in determining what to do with our public school system is what is in the best interest of the kids-- not what is in the best interest of either political party, not what is in the best interest for either candidate for the President of the United States, but what is in the best interest in improving the lives and education of our young people. Anywhere one goes in North Carolina, if one were to ask folks what is the most important thing we do as a Government, they would tell you over and over: Educate our young people. If one were then to tell them the reality, which is that we spend less than 1 percent of the Federal budget on over 50 million school children in the United States, they would be absolutely flabbergasted. The single issue that the American people believe is the most important thing their Government does takes less than 1 percent of the Federal budget. They believe more needs to be done. I believe strongly that our school systems should be run at the local level, that people at the State and local level know much better than people in Washington how our school systems should be run. That does not mean, however, there are not things we can do as the Federal Government to partner with State and local government officials in educating young people. That is what we need to be doing. There is nothing in our Constitution that says we cannot devote more than 1 percent of the Federal budget to public education. We have to be willing to devote the resources to make education the priority it is for the American people, to put the resources into it, to put the effort into it, and to help State and local officials do the job they so desperately want to do. I will say a word about some of the things we have done in North Carolina. We believe North Carolina is, in fact, the education State. For example, we started a program in early childhood development called Smart Start. The basic idea of Smart Start, which now exists in every county in North Carolina, was to get all kids into an early childhood development program and to get them on the right track so they later could be kept on the right track. Smart Start got them at a time when it had the most influence over them, which is before they reach the age of 6 or 7 and begin elementary school. Smart Start has worked. It has had a dramatic effect in our State of North Carolina. Smart Start, most importantly, is an example of what happens when we are willing to think outside the box. We have to be willing to constantly examine whether what we are doing is working, whether there are new, innovative, more creative ways to educate our young people. Again, the test ought to always be the same: What is in the best interest of the kids? What is going to be most effective in giving our kids the best education we can possibly give them? Smart Start is a perfect example of that. It is new. It was innovative when it came into play. It has worked. We have to be willing to continue to think about programs such as Smart Start. The way we dealt with failing schools in North Carolina is another example. We went across the State and identified those schools that were failing; that is, they were not doing the job that needed to be done. Talk about accountability, this is accountability in its purest form. If a school was failing, we essentially replaced the administration of that school. In other words, we put people in charge of running the school for the purpose of turning it around. The results have been absolutely phenomenal. Almost without exception, those schools have been turned around, the kids' grades have improved, and their performance has improved. Again, this is another example of being willing to think outside the box, to think creatively and innovatively. Recently, I was in North Carolina meeting with some folks who were working on the cutting edge of public education. They showed an example of a computer program that can be used by kids in the early grades of elementary school. They can take kids, particularly disadvantaged kids, and put them in front of a computer in an environment where they feel safe, where they do not have to perform in front of the other children so they do not feel as if they are a failure from the very beginning. It gets them engaged. The single most important thing with young kids is to get them engaged, to make them believe they have some control over their own destiny; that they can, in fact, compete; that they can effectively compete against all the kids; and, more important, it gives them self- esteem. It makes them feel as if they can actually do something about their lives. This computer program had a phenomenal effect on the performance of disadvantaged kids. Once again, the test remains the same: What is in the best interest of the children? Are we willing to constantly challenge our approaches, how they can be better molded to fit the needs of the children? The computer program I just described does that; Smart Start does that; that is what our mechanism for dealing with disadvantaged and failing schools did in North Carolina. That brings me to the Lieberman amendment, which is just another example on the national level of being willing to address issues creatively, innovatively, and to think outside the box, to think about what is in the best interest of the kids and what is the most effective way of addressing the needs of kids. I will freely admit there are some provisions in the Lieberman amendment which caused me some concern when I first saw them, but it does many positive, creative things. First and foremost for me is the willingness to invest in title I, to provide more resources and more funding and to target those funds to the kids who most need the help. If my colleagues do what I have done over the course of the last 2\1/ 2\, 3 years and go to schools across my State of North Carolina, the one thing that becomes immediately apparent is our kids do not compete on a level playing field. That was the original idea behind title I: trying to create a level playing field so no matter where a kid went to school, no matter where they were enrolled in school, whether it was in the country in rural North Carolina or Charlotte, Raleigh, or Greensboro, they had an equal opportunity to achieve and equal opportunity to learn. I have to give tremendous credit to Senator Lieberman, Senator Bayh, and all the moderate Democrats who worked so hard on this amendment. What they have done is identified the kids who most need the help--the place where the achievement gap exists--and gone about thinking creatively how we can make these kids achieve, how we can give them the best possible chance to be able to perform because we have to be willing to do something. We have consistently underfunded title I in the past. There has been a lot of rhetoric about our willingness and interest in helping disadvantaged kids. Now we get a chance to step up to the plate. That is exactly what Senator Lieberman and Senator Bayh have done. They have said: We are willing to put our money where our mouth is. We are willing to put the resources in place that need to be there to help these kids, these disadvantaged kids, to give them a chance to compete. That is all they ask for. That is what the computer program is about. That is what reducing class size is about. We have to give these children, who have not been achieving, who have not been responding to the traditional ways of educating young people, a chance to compete. We have to be willing to think outside the box. We have to be willing to say to ourselves that maybe we have been wrong in the past, maybe there are new and better ways to do this. That is exactly what the Lieberman amendment is aimed at doing. That is the reason the Lieberman amendment is supported by the moderate Democrats. The Lieberman amendment is just another in a long line of examples--except in this case it is at the national level--of new and creative ways of addressing the needs of our young people. As we go forward with this debate, and as we go forward with addressing the needs in educating our young people, we have to be willing to do what has been done in my home State of North Carolina, what has worked so well--programs such as Smart Start, programs dealing with failing schools, these computer programs that have been so effective, and now, in this case, on a national level, the Lieberman amendment. We have to be willing to question ourselves. We have to be willing to put the money in place that is needed to educate our young people, which is more than 1 percent of the national budget, and that, ultimately, we are committed to making the first decade of this century the education decade, and that we are committed to making our schools the envy of the world. We have the best economy, the best roads, the best technology in the world; it is high time we be able to say to the world, our schools are the envy of the world. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. I yield 30 minutes of my time to the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3001.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment by striking page 1 through page 2, line 14, and lines 7 through 10 on page 4, which I understand has been agreed to.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, 7 months after Hurricane Floyd hit North Carolina and other States along the east coast, we still have thousands of people who are living in trailers and thousands more who have no place to live. We have towns such as Princeville and Tarboro that have literally been wiped out. Innocent, law-abiding, tax-paying people desperately need our help. This amendment provides $250 million in relief for the people of North Carolina and all of the victims of Hurricane Floyd. This photograph, taken the day before yesterday, shows that we are still suffering and are still struggling. I thank my colleagues very much for their support of this amendment, and I yield to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. I yield the floor.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, first I would like to speak on the Graham amendment. The single most important thing we do as a country is educate our children. What we should be doing in this debate is talking about making this decade the education decade. We have great roads, great technology, great airports, a great economy in this country. We should be working toward making our schools the envy of the world. Instead, we have children who go to the local mall and go to beautiful, shiny buildings and stores and then the next morning go to schools that are falling down, with roofs leaking, with floors that are covered over with patchwork carpet. We have to do better. We need to send a clear and unmistakable signal to the American people that we are committed and dedicated to doing what is necessary to improve our public schools. I have filed a sense-of-the-Senate amendment that provides for two things: First, that the level of education spending will be maintained at the current level, taking inflation into account over the next 10 years. Second, that we commit a minimum of 10 percent of the non-Social Security surplus to spending on education. It is a very simple resolution. It is intended to signal our commitment to do what is necessary to support our public schools. I also, though, want to speak about the Graham amendment which does some very important things that need to be done in our public schools. There are basically five components to the Graham amendment. No. 1, it invests the resources that are so desperately needed in our education system; resources that can be used to rebuild crumbling schools; resources that can be used to modernize schools where the roof is leaking, where kids have to go outside to get to the restroom, where kids are going to school in mobile classrooms. Those resources are desperately needed. We need to show our commitment, and the Graham amendment does that. No. 2, it provides for local control. Those of us supporting this amendment believe very strongly that the school system should not be run from Washington, DC; that, instead, our schools should be run at the local level. It is local folks who know what is needed in the local schools. That is where the control should be. That is what the Graham amendment provides. That is what the American people believe in and support. No. 3, accountability. Senator Graham talked about accountability. We cannot simply continue throwing money at our education system. We need to provide those systems with the resources they need for all the things we have talked about: crumbling schools, technology, afterschool programs, hiring more teachers, and reducing class size so the teachers can do their jobs. But we need to hold these schools accountable. We need to make sure they are performing; that schools that are not doing well are improving; that kids who are going to schools that are not performing well will be getting the kind of education they need and deserve. Accountability is absolutely crucial to making our public education system work. The Graham amendment provides for accountability. It is a critical component of what needs to be done in our education system in this country. No. 4, this amendment targets those kids who are most in need, the kids in this country who are having the most problems in the poorest areas, in the rural areas, particularly in places such as rural North Carolina, rural eastern and western North Carolina--chronically economically disadvantaged areas where the kids are not on a level playing field. They do not have a chance. They do not have self-esteem. They don't feel as if they can compete with kids who go to school in richer, urban areas. We need to give these children a chance. We need to put them on the launching pad with all other children so they can compete. That is what this amendment does. It targets the money to those kids who most need the help. Finally, it takes the resources that we are providing them and focuses those resources in the places where they will do the most good. So these five components are things that all will go toward improving our public school system: more resources; local control where we want the control to be; accountability, holding school systems responsible for performing; making sure the resources are focused; and making sure they are targeted at those kids who are most in need. We need to show, in this body, that we are committed to the single most important thing we do in this country, which is educating our kids.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I would like to discuss very briefly the Torricelli-Edwards amendment on hurricane relief. First of all, let me say what is happening in North Carolina, 7 months after the hurricane hit. We still have more than 8,000 people who live in trailers that have been provided by FEMA. We have many other people who are living with families and friends. We have roads and bridges that were washed out by the flood that are still not repaired. We have, literally, towns that have been wiped out, places such as Princeville, Tarboro, all smaller towns in eastern North Carolina, that were devastated. The people whose lives have been destroyed in North Carolina as a result of Hurricane Floyd are completely innocent. They are people who for generations have been law-abiding, taxpaying citizens, and for the first time in their lives, instead of writing tax checks to go to Washington, they are asking for something in return. If our Government cannot respond to a crisis such as Hurricane Floyd, we serve absolutely no purpose. Our people in North Carolina are hurting and they need help. This amendment provides for $250 million for those programs that would best address the needs of the people in 13 States, not only North Carolina, that were devastated by Hurricane Floyd. These are the components. First, $50 million for economic development. These communities that have been destroyed need long-term relief plans, and they need the resources to develop and implement those plans. Places such as Princeville and Tarboro that were literally completely wiped out by the hurricane have lost wastewater treatment plants, plants that have to be replaced. We have to provide the resources for that. There is $150 million in community block grants. North Carolina has imminent emergency housing needs. Our State has responded by providing millions and millions and millions of dollars in State money to help with these needs. These are people who were in rental housing who have no place to live now. That rental housing will never be replaced if we do not provide the resources to do it. It is going to leave literally thousands of North Carolinians with no place to live, without a home-- families totally wiped out. Finally, there is $50 million for community facilities in a grant program which is specifically designed to address the needs of individual communities. For example, Princeville lost its fire station; the town of Windsor lost its library. These are things that need to be replaced, and these folks need help. My people in North Carolina do not ask this Senate for a handout. They are doing everything they know how to do. The people of North Carolina have responded heroically to this tragedy. The State of North Carolina has responded by providing hundreds of millions of dollars-- unprecedented in the history of this country. All they are saying now is that it is time for the Federal Government in Washington to respond in a responsible way, and to provide these folks whose lives have been devastated, whose communities have been completely wiped out, with the help they so desperately need. They are not asking for a handout. They are asking us to do what any responsible Federal Government would do under these circumstances, which is to provide them with the resources to put themselves back on their feet.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bingaman amendment. The single most important thing we do as a government is educate our young people. What we should be doing and talking about today in this debate is making this decade ``the education decade.'' We have in the United States the best roads, the best technology, and the best economy. But we don't have the best schools. We should be working toward making our schools the envy of the world. I intend to submit a sense-of-the-Senate amendment later during the course of this debate which provides that 10 percent of the non-Social Security surplus will be devoted to education. I think it is the kind of statement that we as a body need to make to show the American people we are committed to providing the resources that are necessary to educate our young people. If I can make just one comment in response to the Senator's remarks, what we are talking about in this debate is simply providing the resources for the programs that are so desperately needed, which I will talk about in just a minute. We are not talking about placing bureaucratic restrictions on State and local school districts. I believe very strongly that we don't want our school systems run out of Washington. In fact, we need our school systems to be run at the State and local level. We need to be sure they have the flexibility to make the decisions about what is best for their schools. I support that. We support that. The issue we are debating today is whether we are going to provide in this budget process the resources that are so desperately needed in our public schools today. If we don't provide these resources, it is going to be impossible for our children to compete in the world. There is no doubt that they will be required to compete in a global economy. Our responsibility is to give them the tools to compete. They will not have the tools to compete unless we provide the resources that are so desperately needed by our public schools. I would like to talk briefly about four areas. First, afterschool programs: We have thousands and thousands of children all over this country who are on the waiting list to get into afterschool programs. I actually have some firsthand experience with afterschool programs because my wife and I helped start an afterschool program in Raleigh, NC. We have computers, we have technology, and volunteer tutors help children to learn technology, help them with their homework, help them prepare for tests. I have been able to see firsthand what happens when kids are put on a level playing field and they are all given a chance. We know the time kids are most likely to get in trouble is between the time they get out of school and the time their parents get home from work. It is nobody's fault their parents have to work. We ought to give the kids a safe place to go, a safe environment where they can continue to learn and continue to be productive; equally important, give them a sense of self-esteem and make them believe they have an equal opportunity to compete against all the students around them. I have seen firsthand what happens. Their self-esteem grows, their self- image grows; as a result, their engagement grows and their grades improve. It happens over and over and over. That is why afterschool programs are so important. This is not about a line item on a budget, this is about the lives of our children. Class size: Every teacher I encounter tells me they feel as if they are babysitting. It is impossible for them to teach when they have 30, 32, 33 children in a classroom. We have to do something about that. We have trouble attracting good teachers. We have trouble retaining good teachers. Our responsibility is to give teachers the tools they need to do the job they want to do. They are professionals. They are professionals who are in this business because they want to educate kids. We have to give them an environment that allows them to be effective. That is what reducing class size is about. Making our kids effective, allowing kids to have access to the teachers they say they so desperately want to have access to so they can learn--that is what this debate is about. School construction and modernization: Just a few weeks ago, I was at Wayside Elementary School in Statesville, NC, a small, overcrowded, school built more than 50 years ago. They have literally put pieces of carpet all over the floor to cover asbestos tiles. The roof is leaking. The children have to go outside in order to go to the bathrooms. There are trailers, mobile homes, everywhere. The teachers who teach in that school a couple years ago got an incentive bonus. These are already underpaid teachers, but instead of keeping the bonus money for themselves and their families, they turned their bonuses back in to be used at the school. It is obvious these teachers are committed to the young people whom they are trying to educate. These kids cannot learn in a school that is falling apart. They cannot learn when they are sitting on top of each other in classrooms. What kind of message does it send to the American people when these kids go to the local mall, all the stores are beautiful and shiny and new and well built, and then they go to Wayside Elementary School, the building is falling apart, patches of carpet are everywhere, the roof is leaking, and in order to go to the bathroom they have to go outside? We need to do something about this. We need to put our kids in good quality buildings. We need to modernize the schools. We need to do it in a fiscally responsible and sound way. It is critically important we put our kids and our teachers in an environment where they can learn-- the teachers can teach and the kids can learn. Finally, Title I: Visit the schools in North Carolina, and the one thing you learn immediately is, we don't have a level playing field. There are some schools in Wake County and Mecklenburg County, Raleigh, and Charlotte that are beautiful and new with lots of technology. Go out into the rural areas of North Carolina, and we find schools that are falling apart, where they can't keep teachers. These are the schools at which Title I is aimed. Title I has not been as successful as we would like in some areas. Although it has done very good things, there is more that needs to be done. We need to make sure a child living in the country in North Carolina has just as good an opportunity to learn as a child who lives in Raleigh or Charlotte. There is absolutely no reason that a child who is born in Raleigh, NC, should have an opportunity for a better education than a child who is born in rural North Carolina. That is what Title I is about. It is about leveling the playing field. There is nothing more important we can do in the Senate this year than focus on education. We must send a clear and unmistakable message to the American people that we are willing to do whatever is necessary, financially and otherwise, to support our public school system, to educate our children, to give our children a chance to compete against every other child in this global economy. That is what we should be talking about today. That is what we should be debating. More importantly, that is what we should be committing to do in this budget process. I yield the floor.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to express how pleased I am that we will be passing S. 835, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1999. This legislation, introduced by our former colleague Sen. John Chafee, will reauthorize the National Estuary Program at $25 million annually and will allow these funds to be used to help implement and develop estuary management plans. It will also set a goal of restoring 1 million acres of estuary habitat over the next decade. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation because it will help us restore and protect our nation's estuaries. Too many of our estuaries are endangered by various forms of pollution or from overuse and development. In North Carolina, we are still dealing with the effects of last year's devastating hurricane season; the full effect on places like the Albemarle and Pamlico Sounds are still being evaluated. This legislation will enable estuaries like the Albemarle and Pamlico Sounds to implement the restoration and management plans that were developed several years ago. This legislation will help make them healthier, more ecologically productive estuarine habitats. Estuaries are home to a remarkably diverse wildlife population, and they provide a ``safe haven'' for plant and animal species, many of which are endangered. They are essential habitats for many young fish species who need clean and healthy estuaries to spawn. They are also an important resting spot for many migratory bird species. Estuaries are critical not only to environmental health, but to economic health as well. They support commercial activities, such as shipping and fishing. They are a source of drinking water for coastal areas. They also provide recreation opportunities for residents and visitors who want to boat, fish, or birdwatch. In my state of North Carolina, our estuaries are of vital importance. North Carolina's estuarine system is the second largest in the continental United States, encompassing more than 2.2 million acres. Our coastal waters produce more than half the fish caught on the East Coast. North Carolina is also home to one of the last bay scallop fisheries in the United States. This industry depends upon submerged aquatic seagrasses that are extremely sensitive to pollution and they must be protected. Our estuary system is also home to large number of pelicans, who years ago were nearly extinct but have now rebounded dramatically in their restored habitat. Nearly ten percent of North Carolina's coastal estuaries have been designated as ``Outstanding Resource Waters'' by the state Environmental Management Commission. These waters are some of the most valuable in the state, indeed in the nation. I believe we must fight hard to protect them for the future. This legislation will help us do that. The National Estuary Program has enabled nearly thirty estuaries to develop restoration and management plans--including the Albemarle and Pamlico Sounds in North Carolina. This legislation is an important component to insuring the continued good health of these estuaries, and I am extremely pleased to see it pass the Senate. Finally, Mr. President, I'd like to say a few words about the man who introduced this legislation, our friend and colleague, Senator John Chafee. Senator Chafee was able to be a nonpartisan voice of reason on a great many issues. I miss him dearly. This legislation is a tribute to his perseverance and ability to develop legislation that we all recognize as a benefit to our nation as a whole. I thank him for his dedication, and I am pleased that Senator Lincoln Chafee is on hand for the passage of this important measure. I ask unanimous consent that my statement be placed in the Record following the remarks of Senator Chafee on this legislation.